Investigating Thailand’s Traditional Sakdina System, The back story of the “Prai” and

[Thaihome]

This is from Indo-Siam on another forum and used with his permission.

TH

I am extremely opposed to the orchestrated campaign of intimidation being waged by the leaders of the UDD. I understand that one cornerstone of their overall program has been a year-long political indoctrination campaign, designed to politically “awaken” rural and lower-class Thai cadres, and enlist their enthusiastic support for a populist political movement. By the words of the UDD leaders, they are specifically interested in promoting CLASS WARFARE - and I understand that their choice of words was very specific - using the wording for class WAR, not the wording for class STRUGGLE. To me, this constitutes prima facie evidence of sedition – which should clearly be illegal, and should be subject to unapologetic suppression, including by very harsh means.

Having waked down to Rajaprasong several times, and having watched many hours of Red Shirt TV and UDD TV, I have been bombarded by exposures to the UDD theme saga of the oppressed “prai” rising up against the oppressive “ammat”. The existence of this dichotomy has been relentlessly drummed into the heads of the masses of UDD supporters, as an unjust reality – a reality that they must overcome via political action – or (presumably) by violent class warfare, if that is what it takes.

So – it seemed like a good idea to go back and take a look at the historical context of the “prai” vs “ammat” characterizations.

It turns out that these terms arise from a very formal societal system that was codified in extreme detail back in what is called the Ayutthaya Period of Thai history, which lasted from 1351-1767 AD. The system persisted into the 1800’s, through the reign of King Rama II. If you spend some time Googling about the Sakdina system, what is interesting is that the term “prai” (or “phrai”) turns up everywhere, but there is almost no occurrence of the term “ammat.” Instead, what appears everywhere is the term “nai” or “mun nai” (or “munnai”). As best as I could determine from fairly shallow research, the total Thai population cir ca 1600 AD was about 2,000,000 persons, of which perhaps 2,000 were ammat (many members of Royal household?) , perhaps 200,000 were munnai, 800,000 were phrai (further subdivided into three classes), and the rest were below the phrai – as slaves. All free men between the ages of 18 and 60 were phrai. Another term for “phrai” was “lek".

Basically, the phrai were the lowest strata of free men, but each phrai had to align himself with a munnai, or “lord.” The phrai would actually be tattooed to show that they were subjects of a specific munnai – or – if they failed to do this, they would be considered renegades – who, if captured - would be sent to Ayutthaya to become direct servants of the King, and used for hard labor – such as to cut grass to feed Royal elephants..

This is all nice to know – but, so what? Well, the thing about being a phrai was that there were two big obligations that you accepted as a phrai. You either had to perform corvee labor (unpaid labor) for your munnai for six months or more per year, or you could buy your way out of such labor obligations by paying a tax in money or trade goods.

I’m not writing a sociology thesis, so I will just cut to the chase: The Sakdina system lives on today. It is the tradition that underpins all sorts of modern Thai practices - including the payment of “key money,” the concept of “bar fines” as a way of escaping labor, and the entire system of corruption that is pervasive throughout Thai government – from Police generals having to “purchase” their positions, to nightclub owners having to pay off the police, to raising political campaign contributions. These practices are all rooted in the “feudal” back-story of the sakdina system.

Which brings us back to the UDD – the former “Red Shirts” – who have been indoctrinated to think that they are the inheritors of the “phrai’ role, being oppressed by the “ammat” in Bangkok. They have been sold an illegitimate story. There are no longer forces in Bangkok that require free men to contribute their unpaid labor for six months per year, or who force them to pay tribute in cash or goods. Yes, there is income tax and VAT tax, and there is also military conscription (for two years service) – but these are common practices throughout the world, and are not specifically designed to selectively oppress the lower classes throughout their lifetimes. In the big scheme of things, the “ammat” have long ago stopped oppressing the “phrai.” But – what has persisted have been the “munnai” – the local lords, who still demand that the “phrai” show fealty, and who exploit the phrai.

The evidence is down at Rajaprasong. Depending on who you believe, the rural Red Shirts are not a paid “rent a mob”. What they are then is unpaid corvee labor, transported to Bangkok to work – unpaid – for weeks/months at a time – all to support the political aspirations of their munnai – those being the low-level village/tambon organizers who are definitely getting paid – and who serve as the poo yai bahn and similar, back in the provinces. And – ultimately – all the phrai are working for a few ammat – those being named Thaksin, Jutaporn, Nuttwat, Weng, Kittiya, Chavalit, etc.

The monied elite of Bangkok do not heavily depend upon sweat extracted from poor farmers - any more than do the elite of Singapore, or Kuala Lumpur, or Hong Kong. Money makes money for these people. But the strata that does ABSOLUTELY depend upon exploiting the rural poor are the local rural munnai – the community operatives of the UDD/PTP/TRT. These munnai are absolutely dependent upon ensuring that the fortunes of the phrai beneath them never elevate the phrai to the point where they no longer need to patronize the local munnai.

It is the UDD/Red Shirt leaders who are the cruel exploiters – who depend upon keeping the poor in a poor state. That is their only source of power.

On this discussion board, there are many “lurkers”, disinterested in the political squabbling. Then there are the Red Shirt supporters. And, finally, there are those who the Red Shirt supporters view as being anti-Red Shirt. I think I know what the Red Shirt supporters are thinking, and it goes along these lines:

1. It is obvious that there is an unfair social system in Thailand, with rampant double-standards, and extreme inequality of both income and opportunity. This is bad, and because I am a good person, I want to see this unfair system improved.
2. The current conflict is very clear – the oppressed Red Shirt people have rightfully and courageously come to Bangkok to stand up for their rights, throw off the yoke of oppression , and begin the process of correcting the system of inequality. Because I sympathize with their goals, I have thrown my support behind this noble effort, and its courageous leaders.
3. I think that all the board members who oppose this valiant Red Shirt struggle are cold, heartless people, who approve of the exploitation of the poor rural peasants, and are only interested in perpetuating the current unjust system.

I think that I speak for many of those who oppose the Red Shirts in saying: you are wrong. I oppose the Red Shirt leaders and their tactics. But – at the bottom rung of the ladder, I see the same oppressed people that you see – and I sympathize with those downtrodden people, and I would very much like to see their lot improved. The difference between you and me is that you somehow see the Red Shirt leaders as having it as their goal to reshape the social, educational, and economic system in Thailand so as to benefit the rural underclass. I see nothing of the sort. The UDD leaders have no sincere concern for the poor, or downtrodden – for the phrai. The only concern of the UDD is to seize power – for their own greedy purposes. The phrai are simply a means to an end. They are unsophisticated – so they are easy to manipulate – to indoctrinate.

A few questions for supporters of the UDD:

Question: The Red Shirt leaders are all middle-aged or above –correct? How many times have you ever seen or heard of their spouses or children appearing at the Red Shirt rally sites? The answer is: never. There is danger in being part of an insurrectionist mob. That mob is really there for only two reasons – 1) to serve as human shields, to protect the core group of Red Shirt leaders from arrest or assassination, and 2) as “muscle” to carry out disruptive actions against symbols of authority. The Red Shirt leaders think nothing of risking rural “phrai” to carry out these tasks. But – they would NEVER risk having their own family members participate.

Question: Can you identify any specific UDD proposal for changes in laws, programs, or procedures – even one single SPECIFIC proposal for a new rule or regulation – that would do ANYTHING to improve the lot of the rural poor? We all know the lofty official social/political GOALS espoused by the UDD leaders- entailing democracy, economic equal opportunity, uniform and equal application of law to all persons in Thailand, irrespective of class, etc. Each and every one of the six stated objectives in the UDD program are noble – and each and every one of them is fully supported by the current sitting government. What is missing – TOTALLY - is any UDD action plan for specific processes, procedures, programs, and practices that they would propose as a means to bring about improvements in any of the six areas. The UDD has no plan – and also no intention – of putting in place any systemic changes, to improve opportunities for the lower economic classes in Thailand. Here is the very simple plan of the UDD:

1. Get the Democratic Party out of power, and get the PTP into power.
2. Give direct cash out through the spoils system to directly purchase the loyalty of grass roots voters.
3. Absolutely refrain from doing anything to systematically improve the ability of the lowest classes to take care of themselves. Do everything possible to keep them destitute and exploited and totally dependent upon the UDD party to keep the cash flowing to them. In this way, we create a permanent population of voters who are dependent upon keeping our party in power.
4. With our voter base assured, plunder the treasury, to the utmost of our ability

That’s pretty simple – it is the EXACT game plan that was executed by Mr. Thaksin and the TRT party. Thaksin’s “micro-loan” program was never a loan program. The cash was not dispensed at village-level with guidance to invest it capital improvements that could generate long-term return on investment – while also repaying the loan, so that the loan fund could become self-regenerating. Not a chance. The funds were dispensed at village level as pure political payola – here is money as a gift from TRT/Thasksin – have fun with it, and make sure you keep voting for TRT, so that we can keep getting more of such windfall cash. That is the way it happened – I saw it with my own eyes, at village level, up in Mukdahan province. True to form, TRT/Thaksin later forgave ALL the village micro-loans (what a surprise), as well as a second round of loans. Payola, pure and simple.

Question: What would it take, in terms of actions by the UDD protesters, to make you change your position, and say “Well, they have gone too far, and it is now time for them to cease and desist”? Shut down the airport? Invade and trash/firebomb Paragon and Central World? Disable the BTS and MRT systems? Shut down the electrical supply to Bangkok? Lynch Abhisit by hanging him from a lamppost, pouring gasoline on him, and setting him on fire? Just what the hel_l would it take for you to change you position?

What the Government needs to do is to design a program whereby they periodically insert into UDD/Red Shirt TV their own 10-minute educational broadcasts, to project to the rural audience some well-conceived rebuttals to the grossly one-sided vitrol being fed to them by the UDD leadership.

General overview of the Ayutthaya period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayutthaya_Kingdom

Short overview: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Thai_Civiliza...he_Thai_Society

More detailed historical summation: http://books.google.com/books?id=qcwZ0IDhb...tem&f=false

Modern bribery in context of sakdina system: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/option/pri...hp?newsid=84464

[Butterfly]

by dealing in absolutes, you create "momentum" and force people to make a choice

what they are doing is really criminal, forcing cattle to make a choice they can't make freely

force feeding propaganda just to achieve the political ambitions of a few men,

[DrB0b]

There is no occurence of the term ammat because it is not relevant to the Sakdina system. Ammartyatippatai is a political-science term, invented in the 1950s or 1960s, to describe the governmental system of Thailand at the time, and also serves to describe much of modern Thailand's governmental system. It means "system of rule by bureaucrats" and is normally translated in Western political-science texts as "bureaucratic polity".

[Thaihome]

There is no occurence of the term ammat because it is not relevant to the Sakdina system. Ammartyatippatai is a political-science term, invented in the 1950s or 1960s, to describe the governmental system of Thailand at the time, and also serves to describe much of modern Thailand's governmental system. It means "system of rule by bureaucrats" and is normally translated in Western political-science texts as "bureaucratic polity".

Ok, now that you have had your attempt at sidetracking the discussion, any comment on the what the article says about the current demonstrations and the real motivations behind it and who really controls the rural poor?
Some links on the "invention" of the term Ammartyatippatai might be useful. You may have done so in the past, but they may have been before my time.
TH

[DrB0b]

There is no occurence of the term ammat because it is not relevant to the Sakdina system. Ammartyatippatai is a political-science term, invented in the 1950s or 1960s, to describe the governmental system of Thailand at the time, and also serves to describe much of modern Thailand's governmental system. It means "system of rule by bureaucrats" and is normally translated in Western political-science texts as "bureaucratic polity".

Ok, now that you have had your attempt at sidetracking the discussion, any comment on the what the article says about the current demonstrations and the real motivations behind it and who really controls the rural poor?
Some links on the "invention" of the term Ammartyatippatai might be useful. You may have done so in the past, but they may have been before my time.
TH

It's not a sidetrack, (please don't take our conflicts from one thread into another) it's a direct reference to this, from the OP

but there is almost no occurrence of the term “ammat.” Instead, what appears everywhere is the term “nai” or “mun nai” (or “munnai”). As best as I could determine from fairly shallow research, the total Thai population cir ca 1600 AD was about 2,000,000 persons, of which perhaps 2,000 were ammat (many members of Royal household?) , perhaps 200,000 were munnai, 800,000 were phrai (further subdivided into three classes), and the rest were below the phrai – as slaves. All free men between the ages of 18 and 60 were phrai. Another term for “phrai” was “lek".

For reference you can check this, it's old but still in print,

Riggs, Fred, Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii, Eastwest Center Press, 1966.

And this, for Sakdina

Neil Englehart. Culture and power in traditional Siamese government. Cornell University, 2001.

I've written some essays on this subject myself (historical, not political) and thought it might be useful for some if I filled a gap mentioned by the person who wrote the article you posted. Nai and Amaat are not strictly related concepts. Sakdina is a complicated social system and while it may be a useful social metaphor for modern times it's still just a metaphor. The modern system and the sakdina system are not really comparable. Current Thai references to sakdina are something along the lines of a western protester calling a capitalist a "feudalist", picturesque, meaningful, but not really true.

Although, now that I think about it, as the article in the OP is a propaganda piece it's probably a good thing to point out to people that the authors understanding of Sakdina, on which he bases his argument, is highly inaccurate.

[PaddyGreen]

Good analysis without predictions and a good antidote for many misinformed rants from ignorami like me.

Branding of course is self inflicted these days see the Trustafarians with anime to be mock Yakuza.Or art deco bar codes so they know which college to return them

[BKKBoet]

Great article TH, thanks for posting it. Very insightful.

[ENT]

Thanks for the explanations,

Thaihome and DrBob.

[Mr Lick]

Thank you for the post, TH, sorry i can't green you.


Can i add that if the poor people of northern Thailand have grievances then should they not be directing them at Thaksin and his proxy policitical party members who have been in charge of the country for 7 1/2 out of the previous 10 years.

[the dogcatcher]

Can boil it down.
Without the poor oppressed peasants the UDD are nothing.
Hence the UDD have to keep the peasants poor and oppressed.
It is the first duty of the rich to keep the poor, poor otherwise they cannot be rich.

[Boon Mee]

Can boil it down.
Without the poor oppressed peasants the UDD are nothing.
Hence the UDD have to keep the peasants poor and oppressed.
It is the first duty of the rich to keep the poor, poor otherwise they cannot be rich.

Sums it up quite succintly IMO...

[Butterfly]

now that you have had your attempt at sidetracking the discussion,

yes, DrB is quite good at that game, don't get caught like I have been many times, tangents to create distraction and avoid the real issue is his specialty

any comment on the what the article says about the current demonstrations and the real motivations behind it and who really controls the rural poor?

don't expect any answer from him, he will just recite the UDD "manifest" like a good school student to mask any "conflicts" he might have on the issue

[DrAndy]

Can i add that if the poor people of northern Thailand have grievances then should they not be directing them at Thaksin and his proxy policitical party members who have been in charge of the country for 7 1/2 out of the previous 10 years.

no, quite the opposite; Thaksins policies actually helped many of the poorest

[Mr Lick]

Can i add that if the poor people of northern Thailand have grievances then should they not be directing them at Thaksin and his proxy policitical party members who have been in charge of the country for 7 1/2 out of the previous 10 years.

no, quite the opposite; Thaksins policies actually helped many of the poorest

What you state is true DA, a few policies but very important to those amongst the poorest. I believe that those policies have not been rescinded by the current government.

It would improve matters if they were to look toward their own MP's, who they voted for, pressurising them to improve life in northern Thailand, after all they are the peoples voices in Parliament and receivers/distributers of funds.
Unfortunately that probably wont occur in my lifetime as the peasants don't ask questions they merely follow.

[Butterfly]

no, quite the opposite; Thaksins policies actually helped many of the poorest

actually he was appeasing them, by giving them crumble while he was robbing the country with his friends

without the "village bribes", economic pressure would have force certain social changes that would have benefited the poor among others

[misskit]

That's a good article you found, Thaihome. Thanks for the post. Heaps of people here don't get this at all. Hope it helps.

[madjbs]

Some of Thaksin's development policies had long term benefits while others were thinly disguised corruption and bribery, such as the million Baht per village fund for example. It's amazing how much a 500m stretch of very poor quality concrete road can cost up country don't you know....

[jandajoy]

I'm reading Handley's book at the moment. A must read if there ever was one.

[Mid]

It would improve matters if they were to look toward their own MP's, who they voted for, pressurising them to improve life in northern Thailand, after all they are the peoples voices in Parliament and receivers/distributers of funds.

where to start ?

take a look at how Abhisit got the job and then maybe you'll see that your suggestion above ain't going to work .

[JoeMoer]

Got through about 80% of the spin. It's as biased as I have ever seen an article. It does not present the case for both sides of the argument, and basically seeks to undermine the UDD.

To my, perhaps jaundiced eye, I would estimate that this piece has been written by someone well-trained in the art of spin-writing.

[phomsanuk]

l have been frustrated by not finding any information about what the leaders plan to do if they win and background information about thier past except rumors of communist party affiliation. They're young to be the village elders, some look like Thai gangsters I've met.
The income discrepancy ptoblem is fertile ground to grow demonstrations.
This post clarified my feelings, well done.

[Thaihome]

l have been frustrated by not finding any information about what the leaders plan to do if they win and background information about thier past except rumors of communist party affiliation. They're young to be the village elders, some look like Thai gangsters I've met.
The income discrepancy ptoblem is fertile ground to grow demonstrations.
This post clarified my feelings, well done.

Here is an analysis and opinion from the Thai Politics blog written before the demos started of where the reds would go with this.

You can also follow the link to the full Jakrapob article on New Mandala back last Sept.
TH

War on ammart – what’s it all about?

Posted on March 8, 2010 by Stan G
Ammart, the “bureacratic polity”, has been red movement primary target for a while now, possibly eclipsed only by war on “double standards”, so let’s see what it means as reds are approaching their do or die weekend of shutting down Bangkok.

Despite educating their followers on ammart evils for over a year now it’s still difficult to find any authentic red rationale behind the whole idea, at least in English. What we know about this war mostly comes from secondary sources.
What is ammart? Why it needs to be fought and defeated? What would be the means in this war? What would constitute a victory?

Let’s start with what ammart is. There’s no one accepted definition and even within the red camp there are probably differences of opinions on this. Everybody in Thailand kind of understands the concept but it’s when reds decided to fight it the vision becomes very blurry. Anyway, Jakrapob Penkair’s “state within the state” is probably as good starting point as any, also he was privy to intimate works of the government and the power distribution so his knowledge must not be purely theoretic. Here it goes, according to first New Mandala translation from his article in a red magazine:

1. Senior government civil and military officers nurtured under the patronage system of the previous authority. These officers take turns to be in power, sharing wealth and privilege. They sometimes compete and even fight among themselves.

2.Mechanism of absolute control by the state as among certain bodies and authorities such as Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), Special Branch of Royal Thai Police, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Royal Thai Army, Thai Airways, PTT, etc.

3. Income and revenue responsible groups including both the new rich and the old establishment rich as well as development of centrifugal networks to draw either old or new capital into the center.

4. Elements of academia, in particular those who know how to control the nation-state through the process of law – as among those academics with knowledge and skill to draft a constitution and other minor laws that have a hidden agenda or clauses that allow the status quo ante powers and elite privilege to continue.

5. Agreement with the superpower nations, in particular the USA in regards to protecting mutual benefits and to make sure areas of authority/interest doesn’t overlap.

That’s quite an impressive membership – senior government officials, the military, businessmen, academics, all backed up by the US. Usually the reds confine ammart to senior bureaucrats aligned with Privy Council, plus senior judges (omitted by Jakrapob). That kind of ammart consists of senior bureaucrats who use royal recognition as both means and instruments of power, reds accuse them of usurping the monarchy and using it to advance their own, undemocratic agendas.

What is interesting to note is that Jakrapob describes this network as centrifugal, ie without clear power center, and even though he used the term only in relation to drawing new businesses I think it’s safe to say that there’s no singular dominant node on this power grid, just the usual Thai senior-junior relationships when it comes to interactions. He also mentions that members often fight and compete with each other.

It’s clear that ammart doesn’t have any institutionalized structure and it appears that ammart is united only by ideology – deference to the King and, in red opinion, Prem, too.

Was Samak Sundaravej part of ammart? Surely, as one of the power nodes. People were speculating he was selected to lead PPP precisely because his loyalties were unquestioned. Maybe the rest of the ammart viewed his last years as “gone rogue” but it’s more likely that reds define ammart as being pro or anti Thaksin rather than anything else.

So, what are they going to fight? People’s feeling of hatred for Thaksin? People’s loyalty to the King? People’s respect for Prem?

Do they think they can legislate people’s ideology once they gain control of the parliament?

That leads us to how this war is going to be fought. Forcing Abhisit to dissolve the parliament is obviously only the first step. Then they will need to form a new government. What next is fuzzy, however. They will probably need to amend the constitution as executive power is seriously restricted when it comes to confronting the bureaucracy, and amendments proved to be an elusive goal even when PPP was firmly in power.

After that they will most likely start serious purges within every public institution, getting rid of suspected “ammart” and replacing them with their own loyal elements. Majority of the reds will have absolutely no control of the process, it will all be in the hands of yet another Thaksin nominee.

Now, what will the victory look like, assuming it all goes without glitch and major human rights violations? Well, we’ll have all decision making power centered on the government without any power structure to counterbalance it at all. How does that compare to ammart system with no dominant power center? Favorably?

Will it be more democratic? Perhaps only in the sense that the government will derive its legitimacy from the elections, however flawed they might be. At best it will be a dictatorship of the majority, at worst we’ll have one single dictator acting in the name of the people.

Basically, Thaksin redux.

Realistically, though, fighting against royalist ideology in Thailand is impossible, support for ammart as reds see it goes deep, far and wide across the country, they can’t purge Thailand of its dominant ideology and replace it with cult worship of someone like Thaksin, for without alternative cult figure the society will quickly return to its present state with its present heroes.

Right now we are treated to rumors of a possible collusion between PTP, BJT, and Chat Thai Pattana to nominate Sanan Kachornprasart as an alternative PM during the censure debate. Sanan is an old Democrat sec-general now under Banharn’s wing.

That just underlines red crisis of leadership – without Thaksin they have no one to offer, and even if they get Sanan it will hardly advance their case at all. He is not going to fight ammart for them, at best he could dissolve the House.
Perhaps reds should concentrate on power balance between traditional bureaucratic polity, the bureaucrats themselves, and the elected government. They could argue that 2007 constitution was a swing too far to one side and elected government must be given more powers in getting the bureaucracy to comply with electorate supported policies. That would give them a lot more traction and clearer objectives than fighting an amorphous and humongous “ammart”, and that might actually do something good for the country, too.
Traditionally defined bureaucratic polity came to exist precisely because states (not only Thailand) didn’t have well developed democratic institutions to compete for decision making power. Perhaps reds should prove they are capable to replace the bureaucrats first. So far elected officials and ministers have been mostly a source of embarrassment rather then pride and hope. So far the cabinet is the weakest link, professionally speaking, in country’s management. Suppose reds can force bureaucrats to follow orders of a nurse working as an energy minister, but what good would it do to the country?

Perhaps reds should focus on the quality of their proposed alternatives before they decide to take down country’s governing structure once and for all.

Or, perhaps, it has nothing to do with governing at all, and the war on ammart is just a bone thrown to reds by Thaksin when he himself felt excluded. That is the simplest explanation for red fuzzy logic and elusive goals, and you know what they say about simple explanations.

[madjbs]

Got through about 80% of the spin. It's as biased as I have ever seen an article.

Give it a break for once. The only thing biased here is you.

[JoeMoer]

An odd thing happened when I read that article. It began to create an inner sensation of revulsion and of wanting to puke. I rarely have that sort of reaction to written pieces, but when I do, it usually has something to do with the underlying intent of the article - being based on a pack of lies.

This has occurred a few times in my life - this happened to be one of them.

A personal thing, perhaps.

[BKKBoet]

An odd thing happened when I read that article. It began to create an inner sensation of revulsion and of wanting to puke. I rarely have that sort of reaction to written pieces, but when I do, it usually has something to do with the underlying intent of the article - being based on a pack of lies.

This has occurred a few times in my life - this happened to be one of them.

A personal thing, perhaps.

Maybe it didn't agree with you?