Fight for human rights focuses on Thai university tradition

Fight for human rights focuses on Thai university tradition

Titipol Phakdeewanich May 29, 2013 1:00 am

As new students head in to their first term at university, the spotlight is once again on

As a new academic year begins for university students across Thailand, the ongoing problem of human rights violations on campus is once more being raised. For first-year students, this rite-of-passage should of course be their opportunity to feel welcomed and fully respected as adults within an institution of learning.

But it is a sad fact today that thousands of students are at this moment only too well aware of the very real possibility of being caught up in this year's euphemistically entitled university tradition of rub-nong ("welcoming the newcomer"). Those who continue to defend its practices - which borrow from the historical 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 as an opportunity for peer bonding. 

However, with the passing of every academic year, the evidence for more extreme abuse mounts - and not only through photos and video but also through the claims of those who are increasingly inclined to speak out. It follows that what we are witnessing on Thai university 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 victims in this scenario. Allegations of abuse tend to indicate that it is psychological manifestations of abuse that are the most endemic. These typically involve menacing threats, intimidation and a lot of shouting.

Although many have accordingly argued that these practices should have been stamped out years ago, it is essentially the case that little has fundamentally changed, despite some recent attempts to tinker around the edges of this entrenched problem. Today, its advocates typically attempt justifications by arguing that rub-nong, through incorporating the so-called SOTUS (Seniority, Order, Tradition, Unity, Spirit) system, promotes a respect for seniority, discipline and unity.

So what then, do recent graduates of the Thai university educational system make of all this? 

Krisanapong Jobsanjohn, an alumni of Ubon Ratchathani University, argues: "In Thailand, we are taught to believe in seniority, and so the SOTUS system fits with the Thai culture." 

More critical is Kobchat Vichieansri, a graduate of Chulalongkorn University: "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."

Just recently, as reported across a number of media outlets (and especially through online social media that students typically follow), a serious complaint was 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 necessary. 

Should this development mark the beginning of a trend whereby individual students take on the responsibility of asserting both their basic human rights and constitutional rights, then this may be a form of progress. Nevertheless, the culture of hazing raises further questions as to whether institutions and the state truly recognise their responsibilities to act against this serious abuse. 

There is now the very real potential for a spike in the number of incidents, as those students who increasingly resent the SOTUS system attempt to exercise their freedoms in the face of those who are determined to exert their status and role as rub-nong ringleaders and retain their stranglehold on campus.

For its part, the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRC) has begun making tentative steps towards a fuller recognition that a problem exists. It has published on its website a news report about allegations of abuse taking place within the higher educational system, and has begun working with four universities in the north of Thailand on the broader question of human rights. Thus we now have an important opportunity to observe whether the NHRC is prepared to take serious action on this matter. In previous years, it has typically remained rather quiet. 

When attempting to demonstrate they recognise the problem, the Ministry of Education and university executives have tended towards standardised, token statements over the past few years. These announcements have informed existing students that they have no 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, this approach will increasingly appear to be serving the purpose of providing legal cover for those in positions of power, rather than being a genuine attempt to resolve this issue. 

In order to air their concerns, a group of university students in 2012 formed the Anti-SOTUS Group, which now has 10,000 Facebook members. But this is probably just the tip of the iceberg - there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that students are reluctant to speak out about institutionalised bullying.

The quality of higher education within Thailand can only suffer when an issue such as this remains as an unnecessary distraction and preoccupation for thousands of its students. Considering the relative status of Thailand's higher education system on the world stage, the quality of its university education cannot at all be taken for granted.

The Times Higher Education Asia University Rankings 2013, released in April, saw Thailand claim only three places within the top 100. The latest equivalent figure for the world rankings was published for the year 2012-2013, and no Thai university was placed within the top 350 (King Mongkut's University of Technology, Thonburi was ranked within 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 contributes towards undermining both educational attainment and human rights within the country. But the question remains as to whether Thailand's politicians and policymakers have either the will or motive to enact effective reforms for the sake of this latest generation.

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.

Thatcher's legacy continues to teach us when we go wrong

Titipol Phakdeewanich
Special to The Nation April 17, 2013 1:00 am

Over the past few days, we have read and listened to many perspectives relating to the life and legacy of Margaret Thatcher, who was in every sense a politically dominant figure of the 1980s. We have heard about her pioneering role as Britain's first female prime minister, and also about her unique character and style.

So then, what does all this mean in the context of Thailand today? The death of a political leader of such rare force and influence does perhaps give us, regardless of our particular perception of her, a rare opportunity to reflect on the direction Thailand has been taking. Perhaps out of this, we can more properly question some of our long-held assumptions about the policies we have embraced as a nation, and therefore, make some much-needed changes. 

One of the principal policy approaches for which Thatcher is most famed, or notorious, is the way in which she forcefully decoupled the British economy from a damaging over-reliance on the post-Second World War consensus relating to state intervention and a nation's economy. 

During the 1980s, her approach was considered divisive, acting as it did to further polarise a nation. Even today, senior members of her own political party continue to be at odds over her ultimate methodology and approach. Nevertheless, it is now more than two decades later, and Britain has corrected its image as "the sick man of Europe", despite the significant impact to its economy in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2007-2008. 

The enduring questions relating to the balance between the free market and the state, so often cause us to reconsider this aspect of Thatcher's formidable legacy. This is precisely because so many of the major, and still controversial, aspects of Thatcherite economics have since been emulated and implemented throughout the world. 

Indeed, alongside a programme of privatisation, over the past 10 years or more, successive Thai governments have implemented a number of somewhat populist, but much-needed policies through the state mechanism. This has certainly contributed toward raising the level of public spending overall, and although this has so far been accomplished without raising Thailand's public debt to unsustainable levels, the trend over the past few years has been on the rise. 

According to The Economist, Thailand's public debt as a percentage of its GDP was 45.8 per cent in 2012, and is projected to rise to 51.7 per cent by 2014. This is a significant increase over a two-year period, especially when we consider that further policies are being considered, including the contentious Bt2-trillion infrastructure development project, which is currently being scrutinised in Parliament. Accordingly, it seems rather likely that public debt is only set to further increase over the short and medium terms, and this is also at a time when Thailand must still consider the uncertainty that surrounds the outlook for the world economy.

For several decades, Thailand's primary national developmental framework has been the National Economic and Social Development Plan, and since 1997 there has been a move away from a growth-oriented approach toward what is now described as a "people-centred development" approach. This has been sold to the Thai public as something that will promote a fairer distribution of income across the demographics, and in addition will act to enhance political participation and dialogue between citizens and the state.

But as this has evidently not delivered on its promise, many now argue that its primary effect has been to contribute toward a significant increase in the sense of dependency many Thais now exhibit with regard to the state. This trend is particularly apparent when we observe the increasing demands being made for public goods and services such as healthcare and education, and also in terms of how individuals now so often aspire to gain long-term employment with the state. 

But for Thatcher, such a trend toward the Keynesian model had proven problematic. As she recalled later, after her term in office: "There was no point in setting targets for 'full' employment. Instead, government should create the right framework of sound money, low taxes, light regulation and flexible markets (including labour markets) to allow prosperity and employment to grow."

From the perspective of policy-makers, understanding how to maintain a proper balance between the roles of the free market and the state is already a significant challenge. This issue involves much more than the question of government policies and frameworks, the role of institutions, or the move toward privatisation and deregulation. It is also about the fundamental relationship between citizens and the state, and this relates to the fluctuating perceptions of people within a society. 

The mentality of simply wanting to work within the public sector, without particular regard for the eventual repercussions of such a widespread attitude, remains relatively pervasive in Thailand today. Also, as a consequence, this sector of the employment market continues to become increasingly competitive. Those who have newly graduated typically carry the perception that a public-sector job is secure, and therefore their focus is primarily on securing such a position, with relatively little regard for their role thereafter.

Moreover, they are frequently encouraged in this outlook by elders within the family, because not only their children, but also their parents will gain state benefits as a result. Indeed, we cannot avoid the implication in all of this that many Thais are now sceptical that the market mechanism can truly work for them. 

Although most of us now recognise that there is a role for the state in regulating market failure, attempts to flee from the private sector en masse may only further undermine a desire for balance within the system overall, and this is a challenge that the current government now faces. 

As we now stop to reflect on Thatcher's legacy, perhaps we can recognise this one key aspect: that despite her apparent divisiveness, and the heated disagreements over her more notorious policies during and since her time in office, many British people have finally been persuaded that there is one thing she certainly did achieve. This was to transform the dynamics in the relationship between the individual, the free-market and the state. Such a correction, in and of itself, may have been enough to assure her legacy, despite the fact that many of her individual policies were considered by many to be lacking in compassion when it came to their effects on ordinary lives. 

For Thailand, this is a time to reopen the debate and re-examine the state's major policy instruments, in order to encourage people to enquire into these questions more fully, with the hope that we too may act more effectively to make such a transformation.