Advertisement

Violence on the Periphery of the Thai State and Nationhood

  • Karin Zackari
Chapter
Part of the Staat – Souveränität – Nation book series (SSN)

Abstract

State violence in Thailand is one of the main targets of human rights advocacy. Activists, lawyers and scholars address both the violence as events and the deficiency in institutional processes for holding authorities accountable. Violations of rights are generally understood as belonging within the juridical realm, taking as point of reference a citizen or group of citizens in relation to a state or union of states. From that perspective the most violent space of the state is where non-citizens and marginalized groups are identified. These are people whose claims matter little to the state. Human rights organizations and reports are on agreement that Thailand repeatedly breach the rights of refugees and fail to protect them from abuse. Among the non-nationals on the margins of the Thai state there are more than half a million stateless persons residing within the Thai borders. The state-violence Thailand performs towards these groups of people construes a clear cut between nationals and non-nationals. The Thai state is however also notorious for committing state violence against those regarded as nationals.

Keywords

Political Conflict State Violence Benevolent Leadership Thai People Islamic Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Akin, R. (1975). Clientship and Class Structure in the Early Bangkok Period. In G. W. Skinner & A. T. Kirsch (Eds.), Change and persistence in Thai society: Essays in honor of Lauriston Sharp (pp. 93–123). Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anchalee, S. (1981). Khwaambpliianbplaaeng khaawng rabohp phrai lae phohngrathohp dtaaw sangkhohm tha nai ratchasamai phrabaatsohmdet phrajoolajaawmglaojaoyuuhuaa [Changes of the phrai system and their effects on Thai society in the reign of King Chulalongkorn]. (Doctoral). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, C., & Pasuk, P. (2000). Thailand: Economy and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bowie, K. A. (1992). Unraveling the myth of the subsistence economy: Textile production in nineteenth-century Northern Thailand. The Journal of Asian Studies, 51(4), 797–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chai-anan, S. (1997). Old soldiers never die, they are just bypassed: The military, bureaucracy and globalisation. In K. Hewison (Ed.), Political change in Thailand democracy and participation. Politics in Asia Series (pp. 42–57). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Chai-anan, S. (2002). State-identity creation, state‐building and civil society, 1939e–1989. In C. J. Reynolds (Ed.), National identity and its defenders: Thailand Today (Rev. ed., pp. 49–70). Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
  7. Chaiyan, R. (1994). The rise and fall of the Thai absolute monarchy: Foundations of the modern Thai state from feudalism to peripheral capitalism. Bangkok: White Lotus.Google Scholar
  8. Charnvit, K. (1979). Thai historiography from ancient times to the modern period. In A. Reid & D. G. Marr (Eds.), Perceptions of the past in Southeast Asia (pp. 156–170). Singapore: Asian Studies Association of Australia, Heinemann Educational Books (Asia).Google Scholar
  9. Connors, M. K. (2007). Democracy and national identity in Thailand. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar
  10. Copeland, M. P. (1993). Contested Nationalism and the 1932 Overthrow of the Absolute Monarchy in Siam. Ph.D. thesis. Australian National University.Google Scholar
  11. Diller, A. (2002). What makes Central Thai a national language? In C. J. Reynolds (Ed.), National identity and its defenders: Thailand Today (Rev. ed., pp. 71–107). Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
  12. Galtung, J. (2013). Cultural violence. In D. Fischer (Ed.), Johan Galtung: Pioneer of peace research. New York: Springer. (In H. G. Brauch (Series Ed.) Springer Briefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice (Vol. 5, pp. 41–58)).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haberkorn, T. (2009). An unfinished past. Critical Asian Studies, 41(1), 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haberkorn, T. (2011). Revolution interrupted: Farmers, students, law, and violence in Northern Thailand. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  15. Haberkorn, T. (2013a). Getting away with murder in Thailand: State violence and impunity in Phatthalung. In N. Ganesan & S. C. Kim (Eds.), State violence in East Asia. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  16. Haberkorn, T. (2013b). Tracing an uneven History: Notes on sources and trajectories of Thai state violence. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 1(1), 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haberkorn, T. (2014a). Martial Law and the criminalization of thought in Thailand. The Asia-Pacific Journal, 12, 40.Google Scholar
  18. Haberkorn, T. (2014b). When torture is a duty: The murder of Imam Yapa Kaseng and the challenge of accountability in Thailand. Asian Studies Review, 39, 1–16.Google Scholar
  19. Haberkorn, T. (2015). The hidden transcript of amnesty: The 6 October 1976 Massacre and Coup in Thailand. Critical Asian Studies, 47, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hewison, K., & Kengkij, K. (2010). ‘Thai-Style Democracy’: The royalist struggle for Thailand’s politics. In L. Isager & S. Ivarsson (Eds.), Saying the unsayable: Monarchy and democracy in Thailand (pp. 179–202). Copenhagen: NIAS.Google Scholar
  21. Hirsch, P. (2002). What is the Thai Village? In C. J. Reynolds (Ed.), National identity and its defenders: Thailand Today (Rev. ed., pp. 262–276). Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
  22. Isager, L., & Ivarsson, S. (Eds.). (2010a). Saying the unsayable: Monarchy and democracy in Thailand. Copenhagen: NIAS.Google Scholar
  23. Isager, L., & Ivarsson, S. (2010b). Strengthening the moral fibre of the nation: The King’s sufficiency economy as etho-politics. In L. Isager & S. Ivarsson (Eds.), Saying the unsayable: Monarchy and democracy in Thailand (pp. 223–239). Copenhagen: NIAS.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, P. A. (2010). Virtual divinity: A 21st-century discourse of Thai royal influence. In S. Ivarsson & L. Isager (Eds.), Saying the Unsayable: Monarchy and Democracy in Thailand (pp. 29–60). Copenhagen: NIAS.Google Scholar
  25. Kasian, T. (2001). Commodifying Marxism: The formation of modern Thai radical culture, 1927–1958. Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University: Kyoto University Press, Trans Pacific Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kasian, T. (2009). Thammarat/good governance in glocalizing Thailand. In C. Gluck & A. L. Tsing (Eds.), Words in motion (pp. 306–326). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lysa, H. (2004). Stranger within the gates: Knowing semi-colonial Siam as extraterritorials. Modern Asian Studies, 38(2), 327–354. doi:10.1017/s0026749 × 0400109x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marks, T. A. (1980a). The Communist Party and the strategy of the United Front in Thailand since October 1976. Asia Quarterly, 1, 3–18.Google Scholar
  29. Marks, T. A. (1980b). October 1976 and the role of the military in Thai politics. Modern Asian Studies, 14(4), 603–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazower, M. (2006). An international civilization? Empire, internationalism and the crisis of the mid-twentieth century. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), 82(3), 553–566.Google Scholar
  31. McCargo, D. (2008). Tearing apart the land: Islam and Legitimacy in Southern Thailand. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. McCargo, D. (2012). Mapping national anxieties: Thailand’s southern conflict. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar
  33. Morell, D., & Chai-Anan, S. (1981). Political conflict in Thailand: Reform, reaction, revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager Gunn & Hain.Google Scholar
  34. Murashima, E. (1988). The Origin of Modern Official State Ideology in Thailand. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 19(1), 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poowin, B. (2011). Thailand four years after the Coup: The struggle against the dissenters. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 10(2), 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prizzia, R. (1985). Thailand in transition: The role of oppositional force. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  37. Puangthong, P. (2010). Kabuankaan muanchon liew khwa, mongdoo Nazi laew yon doo tua, Khwamdee ammahit. Fa Diawkan, 8, 264–265.Google Scholar
  38. Puangthong, P. (2015). Will Thailand’s new constitution be a return to authoritarianism? ISEAS perspective, 3, 3–8 .Google Scholar
  39. Puey, U. (2000). A Siamese for all seasons: Collected articles by and about Puey Ungphakorn (5 ed.). Bangkok: Komol Keemthong Foundation.Google Scholar
  40. Renard, R. D. (2000). The differential integration of hill people into the Thai state. In A. Turton (Ed.), Civility and savagery: Social identity in Tai States. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
  41. Reynolds, C. J. (1987). Thai radical discourse: The real face of Thai feudalism today. Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  42. Reynolds, C. J. (2005). Nation and state in histories of nation-building, with special referece to Thailand. In W. Gungwu (Ed.), Nation-building: Five Southeast Asian histories (pp. 21–38). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  43. Reynolds, C. J. et al. (2012a). Time’s arrow and the burden of the past: A primer on the Thai un-state. sensate, A Journal for Experiments in Critical Media Practice. http://sensatejournal.com/2012/05/craig-reynolds-et-al-times-arrow/
  44. Reynolds, C. J. (2012b). The social bases of autocratic rule in Thailand. In M. J. Montesano, P. Chachavalpongpun, & A. Chongvilaivan (Eds.), Bangkok, May 2010: Perspectives on a divided Thailand. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  45. Slater, D. (2010). Ordering power: Contentious politics and authoritarian leviathans in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Streckfuss, D. (1993). The colonial legacy in Siam: Origins of Thai racialist thought, 1890–1910. In L. J. Sears (Ed.), Autonomous histories, particular truths: Essays in honor of John R.W. Smail (pp. 123–153). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  47. Thak, C. (2007). Thailand: The politics of despotic paternalism. Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program.Google Scholar
  48. Thanet, A. (2007a). Rebellion in Southern Thailand: Contending histories. Policy studies (p. 89). Washington: East-West Center Washington.Google Scholar
  49. Thanet, A. (2007b). The search for order: Constitutions and human rights in Thai political history. Article 2, 6(3), 32–41.Google Scholar
  50. Thongchai, W. (1994). Siam mapped: A history of the geo-body of a nation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  51. Thongchai, W. (2000a). The others within: Travel & ethno-spatial differentiation of siamese subjects 1885–1910. In A. Turton (Ed.), Civility and savagery: Social identity in Thai states (pp. 38–62). Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
  52. Thongchai, W. (2000b). The quest for Siwilai: A geographical discourse of civilizational thinking in the late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Siam. Journal of Asian Studies, 59(3), 528–549.Google Scholar
  53. Thongchai, W. (2010). The “germs”: the reds’ infection of the Thai political body. http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/03/thongchai-winichakul-on-the-red-germs/. Accessed 9 Feb 2015.
  54. Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, T. (2012). Final Report of Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) July 2010–July 2012. Bangkok.Google Scholar
  55. Turton, A., & Akin, R. (1987). Production, power and participation in rural Thailand: Experiences of poor farmers’ groups. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.Google Scholar
  56. UNHCR. (2015). 2015 UNHCR country operations profile—Thailand. http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e489646&submit=GO. Accessed 1 Nov 2015.
  57. Viernes, N. (2015). The aesthetics of protest: Street politics and urban physiology in Bangkok. New Political Science, 37, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walker, A. (2010). Royal sufficiency and elite misrepresentation of rural Livelihoods. In L. Isager & S. Ivarsson (Eds.), Saying the unsayable: Monarchy and democracy in Thailand. Copenhagen: NIAS.Google Scholar
  59. Walker, A. (2012). Thailand’s political peasants: Power in the modern rural economy [Electronic resource].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Historiska institutionenLUX, Lunds UniversitetLundSweden

Personalised recommendations