Time to recognise ethnic groups in Thai national planning

Moreover, while the National Statistics Office attempted to obtain data on household languages in the 2010 census, it still cannot provide reliable data broken down by the country’s major ethnolinguistic groups.

This is not to say minorities are not alluded to in the Eleventh Plan. There are multiple references to Thailand’s North and Northeast, together home to approximately 30 minorities, including Thailand’s largest, the Khon Meuang of the North and the Thai Lao of the Northeast. The plan acknowledges the fact that the Northeast is the poorest region and that “academic achievement scores and school evaluations” reflect inequality of educational opportunity among regions.

In addition, in the plan’s chapter on promoting a just society, there are multiple references to “disadvantaged groups” or simply “groups”, which seem in places to include ethnic minorities. For example, “inequality of opportunity among groups… has been significant”. Moreover, “There is a huge income gap between groups, reflecting a disparity in economic and social opportunity, access to resources, fundamental rights and bargaining power.” Specifying these groups would aid in the planning processes of the ministries, which rely on the NESDB plan for guidance.

The official lack of recognition of Thailand’s minorities could also jeopardise its bid to meet the requirements for inclusivity and reduction in inequality in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Notably, Goal Four calls for “inclusive and equitable quality education and… lifelong learning opportunities for all”, Goal Eight calls for “sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth”, Goal Ten calls for a reduction in inequality within countries, and Goal Sixteen calls for “peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development”.

The present situation means the targeting of ethnic minority children by Thai ministries and their international partners working in this area, such as Unicef and Unesco, is complicated. When studies of children’s health are conducted in the deep South, the North and the West, interpreters are employed and languages like Thai Malay and Thai Karen are used in interviews. However, while nearly every other Asean country has a national language policy and is moving towards collecting data by ethnicity, Thailand is lagging in both respects.

The result is that Thai ethnic minorities led by the Network of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand and the Indigenous Education Network, and involving NGOs like the Inter-Mountain Peoples’ Education and Cultures in Thailand Association, have begun to claim rights by themselves. They are actively lobbying, both in Thailand and internationally, for partial self-determination and human rights. One way they do this is by submitting their own reports to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but the fact they need to do this is awkward for a civilised country.

Moreover, the rights these ethnic minorities claimed in their 2015 “Alternative Report”  are not particularly contentious and would go some way to meeting the SDGs in an inclusive and targeted way. The report calls for a rights-based intercultural education that involves both the mother tongue and Thai, a decentralised administrative system for education open to ethnic minority teachers, and a culturally specific curriculum.

In line with UN guidelines, the aim of such a system of intercultural education is to “to promote peaceful coexistence, as well as an intergenerational cultural transmission of knowledge of all existing indigenous/ethnic groups in Thailand” and to provide a tailored life skills-based education together with an education for “sustainable and ethical development, with genuine participation in the decision making processes by all stakeholders”. The main administrative issue would be creating a functional department within the Education Ministry responsible for ethnic minority education and allocating a sufficient budget to make the process work in practice, such as by initiating dedicated teacher training courses and high-quality materials.

The standard response of centralised officialdom to moves for recognition of ethnic minorities should not just be a discourse whereby all Thais must embrace “Thainess”. It is necessary to carefully consider how “Thainess” has evolved. Field Marshall Plaek Phibunsongkhram’s first period of rule from 1938 to 1944 saw the issuing of 12 Cultural Mandates that embraced totalitarian tendencies and which are best known for renaming Siam “Thailand”; they still form the bedrock of “Thainess”.

However, the actions of the Field Marshall belong to a particularly militarised period in human history – the second of the planet’s “total wars”. At the time, Thailand was facing threats from the West in the form of French colonialism, from the East due to Chinese republicanism and communism, and from within, especially the integration of the Thai Malay and the Thai Lao. Hyper-nationalism was the kind of “ultra-Thainess” deemed appropriate for the times.

Yet, from a more peaceful period, in the Fifth Reign, when Siam’s first banknotes were printed, the denomination was printed in 12 languages, including Lao, Malay and Khmer, in a celebration of the plurality of the polity that was ruled over by Thai monarchs. Thus, recognising the country’s ethnic minorities in the NESDB’s upcoming Twelfth Plan would revive an equally legitimate “Thainess”, help meet the UN SDGs, and cannily defuse some of the political claims of the North and Northeast, thus bringing more meaningful reconciliation and socio-political stability.