cc  >> It's my pleasure today to  introduce our Global Hot Spot  speaker from the Department of  History Professor Thongchai  Winichakul who is a native of  Bangkok, Thailand, and studies  in the areas of southeast Asian  culture and intellectual  history, particularly how  southeast Asia has interacted  with the west.  He is director of graduate  studies for the department of  history and also works with the  southeast Asian program here on  campus.  At this point, please join me in  welcoming Professor Thongchai  Winichakul.  (applause)  >> First of all, I apologize if  in modern day nowadays people  present anything with  PowerPoint, with pictures.  I'm a very super low-tech  person.  (laughter)  When the organizer  asked me do you have power  point, I actually don't know how  to do power point.  So I hope you bear with me with  a very traditional lecture and  board.  But we don't have blackboard and  chalk.  That's my favorite in the  classroom we use chalk and  blackboard all the time.  So at least you hear, I hope you  can see some of the words I  write down on the white board  here. 

 The hot spot in case of Thailand  if in the news late last year is  mostly about Bangkok and the  seizure of the international  airport.  That is one of the two hot  spots.  For years you might think of  Thailand is a lovely country,  good place to visit.  It still is if you know where to  go and where not to.  But in the past four years,  roughly speaking 2004 to the  present, Thailand erupt to  international headlines for two  major crises together.  Both are not quite linked but  both take place around the same  time the past four years.  Both reflect the deep  fundamental problems in the  country that have been brewing  for a long, long time.  And both are combination of the  historical legacies that have  not been addressed properly but  that have been swept under the  rug for so long.  So both crises outcome of the  country and also both crises are  the outcome of the country's  inability to deal with changes,  domestically and globally.  So I'm going to talk about both  of them. 

 Each of them I'm going to talk  about what happened, briefly,  and then the historical  background for each and that's  it because I have no solution.  (laughter)  The first one is the  ethnic or religious conflict in  the deep south.  Deep south here means the  southern most provinces of  Thailand, opposite of side of  border with Malaysia.  And the second one is the crisis  of democratization.  The clashes of confrontation  took place mostly in Bangkok but  it's also a national crisis.  So the first one is a regional  crisis but has impact throughout  the country.  The second one is a real  national crisis but the arena of  confrontation is mostly in the  capitol.  Let me deal with the first one,  what I call the deep south.  Here is the area we talk about.  Thailand here, Malaysia here,  the border is here. 

 This part, exactly this part and  the name of this area one  province nowadays called  Pattani.  But soon I'm going to introduce  this word Pattani to mean the  whole region because the whole  region before 19th century, the  whole region mean the whole  here.  Border area here plus some of  the northern Malaysian state  here.  The whole area used to be the  old -- or kingdom of Pattani  until 19th century.  And only in 19th century the  ties that broke them up divided  and rule into different  provinces.  So now Pattani, if you look on  the map, is the name of only one  province.  Not even border Malaysia.  The modern Pattani is just one  province here not even border  Malaysia, but I'm going to talk  about Pattani as a historical  region, a historical kingdom,  which cover the whole area  including part of northern  Malaysia.  So the first one is the crisis  in the deep south or the crisis  in Pattani.  Sometimes I call it just simply  Pattani crisis. 

 What happen is in January 2004  there was an attack of a  military base.  Attack on Thai soldiers.  And then stole many M-16s and  war weapons on that military  base.  Stole it.  In the sense that there was a  small skirmish and kind of a  clash but didn't last very long.  The result is just those guns,  those M-16s and other weapons,  gone.  That's the beginning of the  current crisis in Pattani.  After that time government and  military and police hunted down,  tried to find those weapons.  Up until today they have not  been able to recover all the  weapons that have been stolen  yet.  But it's not the work of robbers  or thieves it's insurgent  attacks. 

 They have weapons to some kind  of small rifles, military and  other things.  And caught the military off  guard and then took the weapons.  There were a few injuries but  not a big fight.  But then after the hunting down,  the conflicts, it's like the tip  of the iceberg, that attack in  January 2004.  After the hunting down and  widespread arrests, the real  crisis emerge.  In April 2004, the same year,  there was a coordinated attack,  20-something spot, very well  coordinated exactly the same  time on military and police post  throughout the region.  Again three or four provinces of  modern day provinces but all  together in the area of old  Pattani.  Actually the concentration is in  another province today.  It's called --.  No need to worry about the name  but it's part of the, in modern  day people would call, no it's  not Pattani, we take Pattani as  a modern province, but it's part  of the old Pattani. 

 20-something attacks at the same  time.  Some big, some small of police  and military posts.  There were real fights, many  people died.  At one point one of the attacks  carried out by a local boys'  soccer team, mostly militant.  The whole insurgent groups from  one boys' soccer team and most  of them, I think, except a few,  were all killed by the military.  But some other attacks at the  same time which were more  successful in the insurgents or  the militants fled into a  mosque.  You know mosque, very, very  religious Muslim shrine.  But this is not just any mosque,  it's one of the oldest.  I think it's one of the oldest  mosque in the whole region.  It's the oldest mosque in that  area since at least 17th  century. 

 It is regarded, highly regarded  in the Muslim world especially  in the region as one of the most  sacred mosques in the whole  region.  Not just Malay peninsula but  throughout Indonesia as well.  The militants escape into that  mosque.  Right or wrong is up to your  judgment.  The reaction of the Thai  government and military is after  a few hours they storm in.  They send soldiers in, kill  everybody in that mosque.  Kill everybody who reside in  that mosque, the sacred space of  the Muslim people in the whole  region.  Then in 2004, there are so many  incidents, arrests of the people  allegedly militant, informant to  militant, any kind of  resistance.  Many of them were put in jailed,  tortured.  Many disappearances. 

 And there were also attacks,  continually attacks, mostly  minor, attacks on the police and  military posts.  Then in October same year, 2004,  one of the arrests led to a  massacre.  In October 2004 the police  arrested, I think, five or six  alleged militants.  The local people in the  province, here again not Pattani  today but part of older Pattani,  local people argue that no, they  were not militants.  They just normal ordinary  people.  So it was a wrong arrest.  So people gathered at the police  station where those five or six  people were held in local police  station.  About more than 1,000 people  demonstrated outside the police.  The police and military for a  reason which is not even clear  today, paranoid, they start  shooting.  Seven people die on the spot. 

 Many hundreds people were  arrested.  Since that so many hundreds  people arrested that local  police station cannot detain all  of them.  What the military did is to  transport those several hundred  people to another province about  a couple of hours away.  What they did is they put those  people on trucks.  But since the whole thing  happened with the poor  preparation with all kinds of  coincidence of intentional and  unintentional factors which are  not even clear today, they don't  have that many trucks.  And by the way, it's in Ramadan  period, I think so.  The way to put people in is they  asked people to lie down.  Okay?  Then pile up.  By the time they get to the  destination 76 or 75 more people  die because of suffocation.  Not bullets, not anything,  suffocation. 

 It's not even clear that is  intentional brutal killing or  just careless or not care.  I mean, the lack of care on the  military part.  But in any case, the whole  incident reflect much, much  bigger issue such as why you  pile up people like that, a  simple question.  Do you think they're human like  you?  Is that the way you treat people  like that?  That's a simple question that  everybody ask without having any  kind of political or  ideological.  It's a simple question.  It reflects a much larger issue,  how Thai authority look at,  perceive or treat those Muslim  people.  Now step back a bit.  Thailand is a Buddhist country.  More than 90% are -- Buddhist.  One branch of Buddhism. 

 The country is not exactly  homogeneous but let's say the  culture and other things are not  much different.  They speak the same Thai  language.  90% of them.  Different dialect but same Thai  language.  The practices of Buddhism can be  varied a bit, but let's say  overall the big picture is not  that much different.  So we might say that Thailand is  relatively somewhat a more  homogeneous country.  I would dispute the word  homogeneous if it means the  same.  No, there are a lot of  varieties.  But let's say the differences in  the country compared in our  cases are not that much except  the deep south.  This is the region where the  majority, far majority were  Muslims. 

 The Buddhists is minorities in  this region.  And minorities by far.  Something like 70%/30%.  These people are Malay people,  not Thai.  In the same set their native,  their local language are Malay.  It's a dialect of Malay language  spoken throughout the Malay  peninsula and Indonesia.  Although the dialect here is  like Chinese, it's like English,  Spanish, other things.  The dialect is quite different  but still a Malay language.  And people grew up in that kind  of environment mostly Malay.  Even though they became Thai  citizens but that's a modern  concept, that's a modern  institution, right?  Only in the 20th century. 

 And to be very specific those  people become with the  government.  I mean, you agree or disagree or  not, the government tried to  Thai-ize them only in the 1940s.  Which means they become  increasingly Thai.  Which means the current  generation speak Thai in local  schools.  It happened only in the past  maybe a few generations.  For hundreds of years this is  Malay.  Mostly Malay.  They are not, simplistically  speaking, I'll make it very  simple, they are not Thai.  But they're part of Thailand  nation state.  After October 2004 small scale  attacks continue. 

 Some bombs.  Mostly at the government, I mean  militarian police posts.  By authority there were also  arrests, suppression,  disappearance, so many unfair  trials, so many wrong arrests.  All together since 2004 there  were about 3,000 people die.  Not quite big compared to other  really, really super big spot.  But not a small scale.  The number of disappearance is  unknown.  We can't count how many  disappear.  200-something schools were burnt  down because the militant  consider schools as a symbol of  the Thai state.  During the high time of the  Iraqi conflicts where a lot of  Americans die which means about  the past, I mean not so long  ago, right?  Since news becomes all over the  world, the local militants also  watch the same news so sometimes  they adopt the same kind of  killing such as beheading. 

 So many times the Thai authority  round up the whole village to  find the militant.  A couple times they found that  the whole village were barrier,  I mean the local people set up a  barrier by putting women and  children.  Which means local people  somewhat coordinated or somehow  unified against military.  Not all incidents but so many  times it becomes military type  government versus local people.  Not just against a few bandits  or against a few militants.  There's no record of rapes,  disappearances, as I said by the  state authorities because when I  mentioned that the militant  beheading, the police and  military formed that authority  reported unconfirmed because the  Thai government denied this,  formed the authority due to  local people and especially in  the Muslim community they think  they regarded this is the most  atrocious crime that the Thai  authority did to them is raping.  There's no record how many of  them.  It's just too many and we don't  know.  This crisis in the deep south  rooted in history.  It is ethnic religious conflict  for sure. 

 Although I don't want to say  it's religious.  I don't want to say it's ethnic.  I don't want to say it's just  ethnic/religions because there  are so many other factors as  well.  Such as, it is the area where  resources are not so rich but  not bad.  Not currently but just for  decades.  It is one of the poorest areas  in the region despite the fact  that they can be more  prosperous.  But years and decades of  neglect.  Years and decades of  discrimination by the central  Thai state.  Years and decades of nationalism  which discriminate these people.  A moment ago before I come to  here I attend a talk on this  crisis at the --. 

 The speaker show a document by  the militant.  When the militant saying that  okay, Thai people be aware, when  they say Thai it means the  Buddhist Thai.  They don't even have to say the  Buddhist.  In a certain modern nation state  they can be citizen with  different religion, right?  But because of the deep legacies  of that discrimination and  tension, the militant would call  Thai meaning non-Muslim Malay.  Even though many of the  militants are Thai citizens.  In response, many Thai military  when they talk about this Muslim  they talk about we have to  protect the religion which means  Buddhism.  They didn't take into account  that Islam and Muslim people in  this region are also Thai  citizens.  So those are just reflection of  the deep, very deep tension and  conflict between majority Thai  Buddhist and the Malay Muslim in  this region.  Which happened in the region  itself the majority are Malay  Muslim, the minority are  Buddhist Thai.  The conflict has been going on  for a long, long time because  Pattani or this area if you look  at this picture. 

 Okay, look at this picture and  this map.  For throughout history it was a  kind of medium sized port in the  maritime network throughout  southeast Asia.  This is one of maritime network  since all time.  Pattani is around here.  It's one of the network.  The not the major port because  the port always bypass, goes  down to Java, to Sumatra and  other region.  But let's say it's one of the  important local network.  Here is Pattani.  I take out the border, then you  can see the area with maybe  different perspective.  I would say in terms of  civilization it was the northern  most edge of the Malay  civilization. 

 Which means it's an area which  has been the middle of the  tension between Buddhist and  Muslim Thai and Malay speaking  people throughout history.  But the fact is that it is one  of the oldest civilization in  the region.  It was older than Siam or  Thailand.  It started around 6th or 7th  century as the Hindu Buddhist  kingdom, turned to Islam in the  13th century.  Thailand or Siam emerge as a  kingdom only in the 13th  century.  So in a way Pattani, when  Pattani militants say that we  live here long before you, it's  correct.  They were there long before Thai  kingdoms, whatever names emerged  in the region.  And in fact, more than that.  The early phase of Islam to  southeast Asia in the 13th and  14th century came to this region  first.  Pattani was proud as the oldest  beachhead state of the area  where Islam cut southeast Asia  and spread. 

 Pattani and here, Aceh, the name  you might have heard during the  tsunami, Pattani and Aceh, and  this is the local trade route, I  mean people don't travel by land  as much as by sea.  So Pattani and Aceh are the same  kind of similar civilizations up  to the modern time.  It's just the modern time  separate them into different  countries, but historically they  are the same built.  Those areas are the first area  where Islam cut southeast Asia  and spread.  So Islam in Pattani, even today  they're proud of being among the  most Orthodox.  Keep in mind I'm not using the  word fundamentalist because that  carries a lot of meanings.  I don't want to deal with that.  It's one of the most Orthodox.  It's one of the areas where  they're proud of, talking about  Orthodox Islam.  Pattani is an area where they  use the Malay dialect but the  script is in all Arabic. 

 That's how old it is.  Okay, I say it again, local  language of Pattani is a Malay  dialect but the written script  is in all Arabic not Malay  script.  Not Indonesian, it's all Arabic  script.  I have a student studying it and  we found that not many  historians around the world can  read that.  That more people can read that,  not that many, but among them  very few are historians.  That's what my student just  found last year about a thousand  Islamic texts in Pattani  language.  Because nobody read it before.  And luckily UW is one of the  places that you can, now if you  want to study history of Pattani  you have to know then Malay,  right?  You have to know Arabic.  And able to know some old  script, which is connected to  Persian by the way, and in order  to access a lot of documents by  17th, 18th century, you have to  know Dutch because that  differentiate that area.  And not just Dutch, old Dutch. 

 (laughter)  Old Dutch writing.  And to carry out the full  research if we want to, if my  student wants to, he better know  Thai too.  Because that's a way he can go  around the market in Pattani  today.   So UW is only one of the rare  places in the world that you can  have all.  You can have all.  And also this is a kind of  advertisement for UW.  There is even one professor  whose specialties are both  Arabic and Malay.  How many places will you find a  person who has that.  So luckily that we have that.  So just back to the issue. 

 Pattani language is a Malay  dialect with Arabic script and  it has been the place where  Islam spread in the 13th, 14th  century.  By the way, Islam as we know  today, like everything else in  the world, change a lot.  Has many transformation.  The kind Islamic beliefs and  practices, many of them as we  know today, is the result of the  huge Islamic wave in the 19th  century.  Islam, the practice and spread  throughout the region have deep  roots in 13th, 14th century,  yes.  But the form and kind of Islam  that become more prevalent in  southeast Asia today was also  partly the result of the 19th  century change.  The 19th century change of Islam  in southeast Asia, Pattani also  play an important role.  So that's a background how  significant Pattani is.  It's proud of itself not Islam.  It's proud of itself as an old  kingdom. 

 But what happened in history, in  fact.  It has always been a medium  sized --.  Not so powerful kingdom.  Because it was caught between  the more powerful neighbors.  It has always been a Thai  controlled suppressed by Siam.  It has always been attacked and  somehow subdued by stronger,  powerful Malay, other Malay --.  Throughout history.  So anyway we think about, let's  say some kind of feudal kingdoms  and societies.  We're not talking about  colonialization in modern term.  We're not talking about nation  state in modern term. 

 Pattani was a sultan, it was a  kingdom in itself.  Somewhat autonomous but has  always been a vessel of  somebody.  Most of the time it was a vessel  of two, if not three, more  powerful neighbors.  In itself is always so proud of  it's culture and civilization  but in real political economic  power it has always been caught  up in between some others.  And in this case, not just in  between some others but between  Buddhist and Islamic world.  In 19th century, sorry, in late  18th century, 1785 to be  precise, a big change took place  in Pattani.  It was conquered and this time  brutally, heavily, seriously  damage, ruin, literally burnt  down by Siamese forces.  Arrests, killing, get rid of the  old elite in Pattani.  About 20 years later Siam  divided Pattani into seven  parts.  Appointed a sultan to rule each  part. 

 Of course they appoint a sultan  who don't like each other to  rule each part.  Pattani was broken up since  then.  Since the 19th century.  With the political elite which  didn't like the Siamese, either  killed, arrested or deported  somewhere else.  For example, one of the most  powerful sultans of Pattani, he  was sent up to live in, as north  as here.  Here's Pattani, right?  One of the most powerful Pattani  sultans was deported to live up  here.  Which means out of place.  Cut out a connection in his  route when he tried to return to  his home, arrested.  And that has been another thing  that Thai state did to Pattani  rulers over the 19th and 20th  century, you go to live  somewhere without your mass base  of people who like you.  Whenever you try to come back,  arrest, deported. 

 In terms of culture, you can  imagine with the nationalism in  the 1920s to the 1940s all over  the world.  With nationalism, that kind of  nationalism, and among the  extreme of them we all realized  the influence of fascism.  That kind of nationalism.  Thai state in Bangkok tried to  introduce policy measures that  Thai-ized these people.  I use the word Thai-ized, turn  them into Thai.  Forbidding them to speak or  teach Malay language in school.  Forbidding them to teach younger  generations of the scripts.  Forbidding them to continue  practicing or learning about  Islam.  They have to do it underground  and many other things.  At the same time pour in --  Buddhist temples. 

 And as the most neglected  region, Pattani, meaning the  whole three or four provinces in  Thailand today, was the area  where even local authorities, I  mean bureaucrats, police,  military or other branches, if  they did something wrong, make  mistake, one disciplinary  punishment is to send them to  Pattani.  Think about what kind of  administration instead of the  most able hand to take care of  this they send people who they  don't care down to Pattani.  And that has been going on, I  would say, up to the present  time.  Pattani is a trash bin of the  Thai state.  That kind of discrimination,  that kind of neglect caused  conflicts, many rounds of  conflict.  2004 to the present is just the  latest one.    There were revolts in 1902 and  1907.  I mean, the big ones.  Small ones minimal.  Big ones in 1907. 

 Another one during the  nationalist policy trying to  turn them into Thai in the  mid-1940s.  They revolt, massacre and again  in mid-1970s.  Each time about two, three, four  years and then subsided.  What made it distinctive this  time is that in earlier time,  let's say early 20th century,  resistance or revolt mostly  carried out by descendants or  relatives of the old sultans, of  the old rulers.  In 1940s it's also carried out  by maybe the last generation of  the old rulers who want to fight  peacefully by running in  election.  He won election, make a proposal  to the Thai state these are the  seven points we should change in  order to make Pattani peaceful.  He didn't try to separate  Pattani anymore.  The result, he disappeared.  1960 to '70s, resistance or  revolts are carried out mostly  by you might call terrorists or  you might call militant  organization.  It's a far more systematic  organization. 

 Advocating separatism.  Advocating separating Pattani to  become an independent nation.  By the early '80s, that kind of  revolt by those organizations  failed.  Done.  Many of them give up, turned  them self in and the peaceful  period around '80s and early  '90s.  What is distinctive this time is  that there was no organization  claim responsibility for those  attacks.  And it's not just, as it turned  out after years, all kind  analysts, military, security  people, intelligence, at first  they thought that 2004 this must  be globe Islam.  This must be 2001.  This must be al Qaeda.  This must be JI --, Islam,  whatever. 

 It turns out by last year or so  up to now it looks like every  agency agree that no, this is  local.  It doesn't mean no connection  whatsoever.  No way.  With the globalization there's  some kind of influence, some  kind of connection.  But primarily it's a local  revolt.  Without any single or  centralized organization.  It looks like local people just,  you can call by now, maybe  extreme, I'm not even the word,  which word is proper.  It's an uprising.  It's an uprising.  You know what Thai people call  them?  Bandits. 

 And they treat them as bandits  for a while.  I think by know they realize  this is not just bandit.  This is a real ideological  movement.  But not organized, not  centralized.  It's more like a revolt by local  people.  So a huge network, yes they have  network, but no central  authority.  The whole issue is the revolt  against, in their view, the  local people, the illegitimacy  of the Thai Buddhist state.  Because they don't accept the  kind of discrimination, the kind  of oppression they have faced  for so long.  So that's the first crisis.  It takes me too long, not  getting to the airport yet. 

 But now second crisis.  Oh, by the way, with the first  crisis I don't have time but you  can imagine and then maybe we  can talk later, what kind of  Thai nationalism is.  I'm not going to go into that  too much but that's a big issue  in Thailand today too.  What kind of nationalism in  Thailand.  Now the second crisis, I call,  is a crisis of democracy.  In this case I don't need a map.  It's just Bangkok and  nationally.  Since 2005 there was an  increasing movement against the  Thai government in Bangkok, in  this case nothing to do with the  first crisis by the way.  Nothing.  Well, slightly connection but  not much. 

 Connection in the sense that the  way the Thai government handled  the southern crisis, we talked a  moment ago, is one of the issues  people resented against the  government.  Put it that way.  That's the only connection.  But otherwise the issue is that  people are so strongly against  government, when I say people  here I don't mean the majority,  but let's say there was a  movement.  A Thai government movement.  The point is that the concrete  point of protest is that the  government corrupt so much.  The government corrupt so much,  unbearable corruption.  So people stood up, have a  demonstration in the street many  times.  And in the end it led to a coup,  a military coup in 2006,  September 2006.  What happened that people are  against a corrupt government. 

 But not just that.  They're against corrupt  government because in their  belief in this case most people  who are against government, the  majority of that movement is the  urban educated middle-class.  Not the poor anywhere.  Very educated.  Good news and bad news including  the majority of academics in  education, in high education.  They hate the government so much  because of corruption.  But more than that, and far  beyond that, they believe that  electoral democracy is not good.  Electoral democracy doesn't fit  Thailand.  Thailand has its own way of  doing democracy.  More and more increasingly  during 2005 to the coup the  argument went on and on until it  become a kind of prevalent  ideological among this movement  and of course very powerful in  Thailand doesn't mean everybody  agree. 

 Lots of people disagree and have  to declare right away I could be  biased because I disagree.  I am biased, you might say.  Electoral politics because they  believe that elected politicians  led to corruptions, led to the  abuse of power such as in the  case of Pattani we talk about a  moment ago.  Which is I would say in that  case I agree abuse of power,  mishandling of the crisis,  strong nationalism, very ugly  nationalism.  But yet as the argument become  public issue the whole fault is  not just government policy but  electoral democracy.  What it called for.  So they become anti-politician,  become anti-election, and of  course in their village it's not  anti-democracy, in my view it is  anti-democracy.  But for them Thailand is a  different democracy such as the  call for the monarchy to step  in.  A point, get rid of elected  prime minister who was the first  time in Thai history get the  majority in the parliament, it's  a British system, Westminster  system.  Call for the monarch to get rid  of prime minister. 

 Call for the monarch to appoint  prime minister.  Call for a system that appoint  half or more than half of the  upper house.  Some even called for the  majority of appointed, not  elected, people in both houses.  Because they don't believe the  election would do any good.  And in the end they get what  they want with a coup.  They get the military.  They get the new constitution  and the new rule that half of  the Senate is appointed, half is  appointed although the rest of  them are elected but much more  limited power to the elected  people.  Let's say you only have half of  the Senate.  You can block a lot of bills,  you can pass a lot of bills and  that has been going on since  then.  And another branch you wouldn't  believe this is a system where  judiciary, all the judges are  appointed by the monarch. 

 Wisconsin may be bad about  election of judges but that one  is all appointed.  The increasing power of the  judiciary since 2006, since the  coup was enormous.  Either way, Thailand was under,  this may be saturated but  Thailand has been since 2006,  under the judicial rule.  The judges are the one who  decide so many things including  dissolve three parties in the  past few months, political  parties, dissolve them.  Disqualify politician for some  stupid minor infractions such as  showing up on, I mean taking  money from showing up for a  cooking program on TV.  So disqualify.  Disqualify, invalidate the whole  election.  Done by all judiciary.  In the name of the judicial  system.  The history of this. 

 Thailand was a kingdom, absolute  monarchy until 1932.  1932.  That's an absolute monarchy.  The force of the movement that  ousted or ended the absolute  monarchy, called the people's  party, a huge composition of the  so-called people's party was the  military.  So in a way I always talk, I  mean when my class touch on this  issue I told them 1932 is the  revolution.  Which in Thai view is the start  of democracy.  Meaning ending the absolute  monarchy.  But is also the start of  military rule.  So you have both.  This is history, you can't have  one. 

 You always have both that you  don't like.  It's a beginning of democracy  meaning ending of the monarchy,  absolute monarchy.  And the beginning of military in  the sense that the ruling party  now in the hand of the army  because they're the ones that  ended the absolute monarchy.  But they didn't end the monarchy  as an institution.  In fact for 15 years they were  fighting among the royalists and  revolutionaries after 1932,  ending with a very much  decreasing power of the monarch.  I would say almost no power of  the monarch and the royalist.  Put it, just one example they  were banned from political  participation.  Maybe too hard.  But all royals with blue blood.  Anybody with connection with  royal blood. 

 They are not allowed to be  involved in politics maybe 10 or  15 years after revolution.  That's just an extreme.  Many of them are confiscated and  so on and so forth.  So since then Thailand has been  under democracy, meaning slash  military.  (laughter)  So the two big  legacies of Thai democracy is so  strong, oh, by the way, the  military represented what?  On one hand you might say it  represented themselves, their  own benefit.  On the other hand, we can say  that Thailand has been a kind of  state that won by the  bureaucrats and technocrats.  They are under the military  rule.  The country run mostly of  military hold power most.  But then who runs the country.  Mostly bureaucrats, technocrats,  no politician. 

 As much as you don't like, we  don't like, I don't like  politician, imagine a situation  by the country runs by the head  of this and that office, no  elected officers.  They know it best, that's what  they believe.  They know it best.  What's good for people.  They have the know-how, they  have the knowledge.  Imagine the whole state run by  professor who believed that we  are the best, we know best.  We can't even run a university.  (laughter)  So that's a kind of,  some people call it a  bureaucratic state in that  sense.  Is the military on top have the  own benefit, at the same time,  the mechanism of the rule of the  state is bureaucrat, technocrat.  Because, again, they know what  is good for people. 

 Which is, of course, as  democracy we all familiar that's  not true.  As much as we don't like  politician, that's a system that  we can't change.  Because everybody else in the  end have their own narrow  interest.  Everybody represents something.  And there are always conflict of  interests, I mean, different  interests among the population.  That's not the way Thai state  has been doing.  From 1940s to 1970s under  military rule.  At the same time, the issue of  the monarchy, how much power the  monarch should have, is not  entirely solved.  It was subdued, it was  suppressed but not entirely  solved.  The institution is still there. 

 Then in the 1960s the royalists  and the monarchies staged a  comeback.  Not in the sense of having more  power but become an alliance,  work nicely with the military.  So the role of the monarchy  increased since the 1960s.  But not the rule of power.  That's why the current king, you  might have heard, oh, he's so  famous, he's so popular because  he's done that kind of good job  for a long time.  Good job.  I'm not sarcastic, good job in  the sense all kinds of good  words among the people.  At the same time, for what  purpose?  In the mid-1970s, 1973 to be  precise, there was a popular  uprising.  People revolt against military.  The monarchy also align with  people. 

 Meaning when the political  system started to change,  electoral politics started to  come in.  The monarchy also on the right  side.  Having the power, not power, no  official power, having a role  like a very popular to the point  of becoming like a god, a god  king on earth.  Which means he holds very  super-influential moral  authority.  Officially he doesn't have a  single ounce of power, he  doesn't have.  But he's the most influential  victor.  And unofficially.  This is the thing that people  don't talk in Thailand.  The monarchy, I shouldn't say  monarchy, I change the word, the  monarchists.  Because the monarchy as an  institution doesn't mean the  king himself alone, right?  It means many people who have  vested interest having a strong  and more powerful monarchical  institution. 

 Which means including some  generals.  Including some people like you,  like me, who are not blue blood  at all, but believe and have  vested interests.  Okay, ideologically a mature  interest to have a strong  monarchical role in politics.  So I'm not talking about king  alone.  But of course, the monarch, the  king himself is also a  monarchist.  So I'm talking about more  royalists and monarchists in  that broad sense, not just in  terms of one person.  They stage a comeback since the  '70s.  At the same time where popular  democracy started to grow.  So that's another paradox.  Popular democracy and royalist  democracy went hand in hand in  Thai history. 

 Throughout the '80s and early  '90s, throughout the '80s and  90s, sorry, the militarily still  have a relatively high military  role and dominance but  declining.  By the '90s nobody cares anymore  when there was a -- for military  post.  Not many people care who are the  army chief because they don't  play much role in politics.  At the same time, throughout the  '80s and '90s until early 2000,  the role of the monarch, the  monarchy and the monarchists  started from not very high but  rising.  By 2004 to 2005 the prime  minister who had just mentioned  got elected landslide in two  elections or three elections if  we count the one that was  invalidated by the court.  He won three times, landslide.  The royalists started to get  paranoid.  The bureaucrat, meaning  including military, and the  royalists have always never have  trust in politician.  I don't mean individually but I  think, just think in terms of  ideological, in terms ideology,  in terms of the, I would say,  political and social interests.  They believe that electoral  politicians corrupt, which is  correct, but they believe that  that's the cause of the whole  ruins. 

 That's the cause of the  country's political system going  nowhere.  They believe that the  bureaucrats or the royalists no  better.  They believe that the other one  that are not selfish.  Politicians are selfish.  That has always been the  ideology of this, I would call,  political blocks.  All the time.  So by the time when Thailand  has, I would say, mostly popular  and most powerful elected prime  minister is also the combination  of that distrust.  And paranoia.  The royalist, this is not my --  this is obvious, many people  know.  It becomes just a normal talk in  Thailand. 

 Even becomes public knowledge.  The royalists, the palace, they  are afraid that -- the most  power prime minister was  competing with the monarch.  And I say this, don't take me as  a supporter, no.  Look at how he handled the  south.  We talk a moment ago.  No way we can.  No.  That's an abuse of power.  Lots of bad policy and mistakes.  But anyway back to this issue,  the royalists paranoid that  elected politician happened to  be the most powerful one in  2001, 2005 would compete with  the monarch. 

 Compete in what sense?  Because the role of the monarch  and the prime minister seems to  be different.  Compete in terms of popularity.  Which I think in my personal  opinion is nonsense.  Because both can be popular.  I mean, popularity is not like a  -- game.  Right, it can be popular.  So then I would enter the last  point.  What the royalist paranoia is  also about succession.  Repressing king, sorry I say  this but I hope this is --,  repressing king is not going to  last long.  He is 82. 

 Bad health.  Three bypass surgeries already.  And at one point there was one  newspaper headline that I think  is ridiculous saying that the  king could live until 120.  I thought that ridiculous.  I found out later that there are  people who really believe that  is possible.  No.  With a very, very, very  unpopular crown prince.  If you think Charles is a kind  of a joke, this one is worse by  far.  (laughter)  This one is really  worse by far.  Even among Thai people who love  the monarch, 99% of Thai will be  nationally royalists, they have  reservation about the prince who  are in line to be the next king. 

 With that succession the  royalist is really paranoid.  They don't want elected,  powerful elected prime minister.  You can imagine, right?  The prime minister has no formal  authority to choose the next  one, no.  But everything which is not  formal still like to talk about  the power of the royal monarch.  None of them is official.  None of them formal.  So the paranoia is toxin.  Might be in too good precision  for the transition that is  coming.  The royalists are afraid of  that.  They prefer a system which  assure or guarantee that there  would not be any kind of people  who would compete with the next  king, assured that the  monarchists would be in a good  position politically, assured  that electoral politics is under  control. 

 That's the second crisis.  The seizure of the airport was a  combination of the  anti-government/pro-royalist.  One last point, sorry, I was  suppose to talk 45 to 50  minutes.  Part of the reason I'm under  prepared for this talk is that  in the past few weeks on TV,  okay it's going to be public  knowledge soon, I was busy  campaigning or doing something  about Thailand because just in  the past, I mean during the past  three or four years royalism was  on the rise.  So strongly and so scary.  In the past few months, let's  say in Thailand you can't say  anything bad about the monarch.  It's 15 years in jail.  Les-majeste law.  And even if you're not arrested,  let's say I talk to somebody,  there was a student who was so  fed up with this, you have to  stand up to pay respect to the  monarch before the movie begins.  That student sit down in  protest. 

 Nobody charged him at first.  People just --.  Throw things at him.  So you don't even need law.  That kind of royalism.  He was arrested, he was charged  anyway.  So with that environment it's  hard to talk about not just  about the monarchy or the king,  about the whole crisis, the  whole crisis is, the integral  part is what you think, what we  think, what Thai people think  about the role of monarchy.  We can't say.  We can't be critical.  There is a book by Yale  University Press, The King Never  Smiles, strongly criticize the  monarch for interference in Thai  politics for the past 30 years. 

 The book was banned in Thailand  even before it was published.  Thai government sent high  profile people to talk to  lobbyist from Yale University to  stop publishing it.  Of course, this is impossible in  America.  Yale University Press wouldn't  back out.  Yale University wouldn't do  anything.  No need to talk here but let's  say those lobbyists are really  high profile in American  society.  Real powerful, big names.  The Thai palace and government  tried to ask those people to  step in.  So that kind of environment in  Thailand with les-majeste.  What I say I'm only here about  past two or three weeks that in  the past two or three weeks  there were about 20 people, not  two or three weeks, sorry two or  three months, and especially two  or three weeks, there were 20  people who were arrested for  les-majeste. 

 It's never been that many in  years.  Among people who were arrested  including an Australian writer  who just produce his own book.  He sell only seven copies.  But he has a few sentences  criticizing the crown prince.  He was in jail.  Six years.  With confession down to three  years.  BBC correspondent in Bangkok was  charged twice.  One of Thai -- professor was  charged I think a few weeks ago  and just the past Monday, a few  days ago, he fled to UK.  Because he got the news, and I  can't confirm that, next time he  would have to report to the  police he wouldn't get bail. 

 He would go to prison.  So he just fled to England this  past Monday.  And that becomes a kind of scary  news.  And just yesterday, I didn't  print it out, there was a blog,  Thailand: Climate of Fear.  The whole movement that seized  the airport started again just  the past week calling for a  movement to get rid of the bad  elements in Thai society.  That's a crisis I believe not  the first one.  This one that you will hear in  the headline in the newspaper in  the coming weeks or months.  Thank you.  (applause)  >> Thank you so much  Professor Winichakul.  What an insightful and  provocative talk you've  provided. 

 And I think even though we have  run just a little late we have  time for just a couple  questions, but please if you  need to leave, feel okay doing  that.  Yes?  >> You just mentioned the  tension of climate of fear in  Thailand and maybe this is from  your public relations department  or the tourism bureau, but there  is a perception in the world  that you go to Thailand and the  people are really happy.  Is that from the Buddhism  religion?  Is that the common person on the  street that's happy or is that a  misperception?  >> I would say is an  exaggeration of the fact.  Put it that way.  I think like every country,  let's say when a war is in  Thailand years ago I came to  this country only the first time  in 1990 for -- I never touched  the --.  I study somewhere else.  My perception of the US is  always a big city.  Where do you get it?  TV, right?  I would say the same thing.  Maybe part of the propaganda,  part of it tourist organization,  but I would say it's a fact that  the majority of the US is still  in the small towns.  A lot of them in big cities,  too. 

 But the way we perceive is just  one side through certain kind of  connection.  Distant or not strong  understanding of this country.  I would say the same thing.  Does it mean that you walk  around Thailand you will find  people who are so upset, who are  so politicized and you like  monarchy or not?    No.  No.  They will smile.  I would say the hospitality, I'm  not from tourist organization,  you can see, I'm very critical  and have problems a lot.  But let's say, and I don't want  to say they are less welcome or  more welcome, they are as  welcome as so many other people  in the world as long as you  don't go to the wrong place.  So that's a demonstration.  If you are interested, you want  to see, go ahead but better go  other places. 

 Even go to the deep south that  we talk about.  It's still possible but I think  it's understandable you avoid  that.  But there are so many other  places that you see smiling  faces.  People with great hospitality  because, after all, people there  are like us, I hope.  We are not 100% political  animal, right?  We are human.  We are human.  I'm myself have been political  animal for many years.  And getting old I have to admit  one of most serious mistake I  did as a teenager is to  encourage people to become too  political animal.  Now I realize that there are so  many things which, maybe I'm  tired, exhausted with politics.  (laughter)  There are so many  other nice things without  politics. 

 And I think that would be  normal, typical majority of  people.  >> Regarding, hello?  Regarding the Pattani crisis,  what has been the reaction to  that crisis from Malaysia, from  the broader Islamic world, from  the US?  And does Thailand have any  issues on the Burma or Laos  border?  >> Starting from last one.  Yes, they do have issues on  Burma and Laos borders too.  Not enough time, compared to  this too.  I think those are not as hot.  So it's a warm spot.  So I skipped that.  But the latest issue that you  might see in the news that the  Thai government military pushed  out the refugees from Burma out  to the sea and many die.  It's just hot right now, the  past two weeks.  It's horrible, yes. 

 And if I can say anything, I  don't have much time.  Imagine why what kind of  thinking that people can do  that.  I would say some sort of us and  them nationalism.  They are less than human.  They are going to cause trouble  to our people.  Push them out to the sea.  Burmese refugee, most of them  Burma took to the sea and once  you get close to -- push out in  the high sea meaning how many  people would survive for so  long?  That's the issue.  Back to the Pattani issue.  At first the US, as you can  imagine, the US is a strong  force behind the interpretation  or perception that a Pattani  crisis is part of the global  network of terrorists.  Which is wrong. 

 So many security analysts, okay  this is another bias.  I don't like those security  analysts that much because they  try to turn everything into the  kind of global security issues.  Of course, they have to.  Their budget, their money and  other things.  From the start, I don't think  this is connection with the  global network.  But let's say primarily it is  not.  So the US starts from there.  But I think by now everybody  agrees, including the US, this  is regional or local issues.  Local meaning the Thailand  issues, not that much connection  worldwide.  To Malaysia, Malaysia is very  sensitive about this issue for a  number of reasons. 

 They don't want to have bad  relations to Thailand, okay?  One thing.  Secondly, this is another  unfortunate situation of Pattani  people.  They were seen by Thailand as  Muslim Malay.  Lower in hierarchy.  Not as equal.  Guess?  They were seen by Malaysia  majority as too much Thai.  Not as real Malay.  Look at that, they use Arabic  script.  So they were treated as a kind  of minority within Malaysia, as  well.  So either way they go it is  trouble. 

 I give you one story.  It's a lovely but tragic story.  Remember I told you the Muslim  organization that caused revolts  in the '60s, '70s and finally  they fell?  The leaders of those groups,  many of them can't live in  Thailand.  Malaysia welcomed them.  Malaysia welcomed them.  They now reside in Malaysia.  You know what, the main job they  do?  They are Muslim organization  that advocate separatism,  independent state from Thailand.  They fell, now they reside, they  live in Malaysia.  In the end, the job that they  found prosperous and is the  start of critical business in  Malaysia now?  Selling Thai food.  (laughter)  So you see it is  lovely but tragic story. 

 They sell Thai food.  They're famous for chain  restaurant for Thai food.  >> Just to follow up on you're  not to travel to the deep south.  As a future traveler, what other  parts should you avoid or should  you specifically go to?  >> Avoid the borders.  (laughter)  No, not all borders.  I would say, in general, most  other places are okay.  And people would advise you, I'm  not a expert, people advise you  even the deep south can we  travel?  Yeah, we can.  Scholars, many researchers go  there.  But hopefully, unfortunately,  things don't happen.  It doesn't mean like war zone,  no, no, no. 

 It's not like that at all.  Not like a war zone.  But, again, you can imagine  where you're the wrong place  wrong time.  That kind of wrong place wrong  time more often than other spot.  Otherwise the border between  Thailand and Burma you have to  really go further into the  forest to get to that trouble  spot.  Major towns, cities are not in  trouble.  Relationship with Cambodia,  Laos, the tension is pretty low.  Pretty low, not even violent.  Maybe one or two spots violent  but in general, no.  So you can go across the border  or get to the borderline, you  can do that in most places. 

 >> We'll take one last question  but the professor will stay  around just a couple minutes if  you had things that you needed  to ask.  >> Well, I just wanted to say  that I have a grandson and his  girlfriend who are in Korea,  South Korea, teaching ESL  English and they just came back  from Thailand on a vacation, had  a ball.  Now they're very apolitical.  Mostly your whole talk is on  that.  They thought it was gorgeous,  glorious.  They had a wonderful time.  Beautiful.  And went on and on.  I get these emails.  So I just wanted to say because  some people maybe are thinking  of not going to Thailand because  it's a climate of fear. 

 And I did not get that from  them.  I just wanted to add that.  >> They're fortunate.  (laughter)  And I would say the  majority of people are that  fortunate.  We just talked about hot spot,  right?  We are not talking about whether  or not to go to Thailand.  So I introduce a hot spot.  Even myself, can I go back?  Yeah, I can.  Do I travel safely to my home?  Yes, definitely.  And the police, it's not a war  zone.  The police are not as civilized. 

 But they're not brutal.  In those kinds of thing that I  talk about we have to imagine  the particular situation.  Anger, paranoia, conflict,  clash, but otherwise normally  people are good human.  So I think in most places you  don't have to worry.  Including the seizure of the  airport.  I would say it's, how to say,  it's a political seizure.  Even you are there they wouldn't  be interest.  No.  It's politics.  What exactly people who are  target of that conflict. 

 Most of the time you are not.  Hundreds of times you are not.  >> Thank you.  [APPLAUSE]