University challenge: the fight to protect rights on campus

But it is a sad fact today that thousands of students and their parents are only too well aware of the very real possibility of being caught up in this year’s rather euphemistically entitled university tradition of rub nong (“welcoming the newcomer”). Those who continue to defend its practices – which borrow from the British public school system, the more contemporary US university fraternity system, and Thailand’s military service – may see it as little more than high jinks, or an opportunity for peer bonding. 

However, as another academic year passes into the next, the evidence mounts, not only through photos and film recordings of the more extreme abuses taking place, but also through the claims of those who are increasingly inclined to speak out. It follows that what we are now witnessing on Thai campuses today could often be more accurately described as ritualised abuse and violations of human rights.  

These concerns are evidently well founded, as every year we observe serious physical injuries as a consequence of these university rituals. Regardless of the facade behind which they operate, or the pretext under which they are tacitly permitted, the suffering remains very real for the individuals as victims in this scenario. Allegations tend to indicate that it is the psychological abuse taking place that is the most endemic. This typically involves threats and intimidation.

Although many have argued that these practices should have been eradicated years ago, it is the case that little has fundamentally changed, despite some recent attempts to tinker around the edges at this entrenched problem. Today, its advocates typically attempt to make justifications by arguing that rub nong, through incorporating the “SOTUS system” (seniority, order, tradition, unity, spirit), promotes respect for seniority, discipline and unity.

So what then, do recent graduates of the Thai university system make of all this? Krisanapong Jobsanjohn, an alumni of Ubon Ratchathani University, says, “In Thailand, we are taught to believe in seniority, and so the SOTUS system fits with the Thai culture.”

Kobchat Vichieansri, an alumni of Chulalongkorn University insists, “The SOTUS system is not at all relevant to university education. Also, it supports the existing patronage system within Thai society. This is why I think it should stop.”

Only recently – as has already been reported across a number of media outlets, and especially via online social media - have serious complaints been submitted to the Office of the Higher Education Commission. Furthermore, the complainants are seemingly prepared to take their case to the United Nations’ representatives in Thailand, if it proves necessary. 

So if a trend is to finally emerge whereby students are increasingly taking on the responsibility of asserting both their basic rights and constitutional rights, then yes, this may be a form of progress. Nevertheless, this overall scenario raises further questions as to whether institutions and the state are truly acting to recognise their responsibilities in relation to this serious matter. 

What may become one of the greatest concerns is the real potential for a spike in the number of incidents involving students who find themselves being brought into direct conflict. This might play out with those who increasingly resent the SOTUS system attempting to exercise their freedoms, and those who are determined to exert their status and role as ringleaders in this system finding other ways to maintain their stranglehold on campus.

For its part, the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRC) has taken tentative steps towards fuller recognition that a problem exists. It has published on its website a report about allegations of abuses taking place in the higher educational system, and has begun working with four universities in northern Thailand on the broader question of human rights. It is in this context that we may now have an important opportunity to observe whether the NHRC is prepared to act substantively to effect change on matters such as these. In previous years, it has typically remained quiet. 

When attempting to demonstrate recognition of the problem, somewhat standardised, token statements have been released by the Ministry of Education and by university executives over the years. These announcements have informed existing students that they do not have the right to force new students into the SOTUS system, and that within the SOTUS system, violence is not acceptable. Nevertheless, this limited approach to the problem has now proven ineffectual. Without further steps being taken, this approach will increasingly appear to be serving the purpose of providing legal cover for those in positions of power, rather than a genuine attempt to credibly resolve this issue. 

To better publicise their very real concerns, in 2012 a group of university students formed the Anti-SOTUS Group, and their Facebook group now has over 10,000 members. But we still have to recognise that, in the broad context, the Anti-SOTUS Group is not a large number of students. Indeed, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that students remain somewhat inhibited when it comes to publicly speaking out.

It is to the detriment of the quality of higher education in Thailand when an issue such as this remains an unnecessary distraction and preoccupation for thousands of students. When we consider the relative status of Thailand’s higher education system on the world stage, it is evident that the quality of its university education cannot be taken for granted.

In the Times Higher Education Asia University Rankings 2013, released this April – arguably the most internationally respected university ranking index for Asia – Thailand claimed only three places in the top 100. The latest world rankings have been published for 2012-2013, and no Thai university features in the top 350 (King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thonburi was ranked in the top 400).

It follows therefore that it would be a dereliction of duty on the part of any Thai government to remain in denial when it comes to recognising how the SOTUS system significantly contributes towards undermining both educational attainment and human rights in the country today. But the question remains as to whether Thailand’s politicians and policymakers have either the political will or motive to enact effective reforms for the sake of future generations.

 

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a visiting fellow at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom. He is based at Ubon Ratchathani University.