Cultural exchange is a two-way street
The Prayut government should review efforts of the Surayud regime, which were welcomed in the far South
A few days ago a group of retired and active Army generals got together to preside over the opening of the 22nd batch of students taking part in a cultural exchange project that allows them to stay with families in the Central region for up to two months.
At the launch were Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda, the de facto head of the “San Jai Thai Su Jai Tai Project”, General Surayud Chulanont, a Privy Council member who was the PM of a military-appointed government following the 2006 coup, and the recently appointed Army chief General Udomdej Sitabutr. The project was launched at the Army Club.
General Pradit Boonkerd, a member of the project committee, said the project has been organised in the hope of enhancing mutual understanding between Thai Muslims in the Central region and the 240 visiting students from the deep South.
During their stay, the students can learn ways of life that are different from their own. Moreover, they will be given knowledge on how to avoid drug dependence, live with others with different cultural backgrounds and solve problems in a non-violent way, he said.
On the surface it sounds good – getting young people from a conflict affected area to see the world outside. After all, who doesn’t like a free vacation?
Along the way, the host will give them a pep talk about how they have a shared destiny with the rest of the population.
At the end of the day, the hosts feel good about themselves. After all, they have good intentions, right?
Sadly, after a decade of conflict and 6,000 deaths – most of them Malay Muslims – Thai leaders still can’t distinguish between good policy and good intention.
First of all, cultural exchange is a two-way street. Has there been any effort to try to understand the Malay people of the South, their cultural and historical narrative, how it is different from ours and how to bridge this historical trust gap?
The 60,000-plus security officials manning checkpoints and chasing after separatist militants are not exactly ideal representatives, although our officials often referred to the trigger happy rangers as “ambassadors”.
In our heads we seem to have this rigid dichotomy between good khaeks and bad khaeks, a Thai word meaning “guest”, which is used when referring to Muslims regardless of where they come from.
We might not mean anything by it. But for the Malays of Patani, to suggest that they are outsiders in their own home is nothing less than an insult.
In our mind, a good khaeks are Muslims who don’t question their Thai identity and the state-constructed identity that comes with a set of heroes and heroines that the Malays of Patani can’t relate to.
We never stop and ask ourselves why young Malay Muslims in the five southernmost provinces decided to take up arms to call for a separate homeland and why the locals support them and why they continue to resist the state’s attempt to assimilate them.
During the Surayud government, serious efforts were made to address the Malays’ historical grievances. He laid the groundwork for a secret talk with the separatists but deep down inside he knew a comprehensive non-military effort was needed to bring about peace. In other words, he had to negotiate with the people of Patani.
Surayud apologised for the Tak Bai killings and other atrocities committed against the Malays and asked them to move forward together as a nation. But Thai bureaucrats and society were indifferent to the Malays’ plight and Surayud’s plea. Sadly, it was an opportunity missed.
Today, a reset button has been pushed in the form of a coup. The military did not use the handling of the deep South as an excuse this time around. But there is no reason why the junta can’t look back and study the efforts made by the previous military-appointed government. They might just learn something.
