Some Notes on Modern Thai Culture

BEFORE YOU READ THIS - THESE ARE ONLY NOTES, THOUGHTS DRAWN UP FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND BY GENERAL KNOWLEDGE THIS IS ONLY THE WAY THINGS LIE IN MY MIND AND ROUGHLY AT THAT. THIS IS BY NO MEANS A FINISHED PIECE, ONLY THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS.

I don’t know very much, if anything at all, about Thai culture, but I expect it is much more rooted in its religious philosophy than our own. Elements of this are still strongly apparent, but as in the UK, America and Western Europe, the youth seem to be steadily rejecting their heritage in the doctrines and moral rooting of Buddhism which seems to be steadily losing its stronghold in the mainstream, which is giving in to the relentless unforgiving grasp of capitalism.

We all know of course that money cannot buy happiness, only opportunities and varying ‘improved’ quality of life. However, that facade of wealth and materialism in Thailand seems to take a precedence which is a shame. I am fully aware that this system is not exclusive to Thailand at all in any way, but I think that it is a unique position for a second world country. It’s affiliation with Western influence has lasted 50 years, and with that has come a loss of balance, identity, and, most importantly of self worth. The term ‘sell out’ comes to mind, but who is selling whom out? Is it a case of living in the shadow of a Western hypocrisy? Marx said that “all that is solid melts into the air,” if the effect of modernity and post-modernity has liquidised the underlying identity, Thailand, and when I refer the country I mean its ruling elite, has become as much perpetrator as it has been victim. Thailand has by no means been a Communist country – in fact, the persistent interest of the USA in this country which stems from the Vietnam war is precisely that this country acts as a useful pawn in it’s wedging between both Vietnam, Burma and Malaysia - but the ruling elite especially the resulting situation from the rule of Thaksin, can perhaps be seen as being a half way point between this totalitarian ideology, and free market capitalism. Sound familiar?

The Divide of Wealth: There is a great gulf between the rich in Bangkok, and those which are poor. This is of course the same the world over, and in this is nothing
new. However, from what I have experienced so far, the misbalance in the distribution of wealth is both significant and particularly shocking in its scale. On the one side, we have the poor, who are without a doubt, some of the poorest people I have come across in my travels. These are mainly comprised of illegals from Burma, Cambodia, North Korea, Laos and other poorer neighbouring countries. These Illegal’s make up a large percentage of the unskilled labour force in Bangkok, and without their cheap and unquestioning labour I don’t think the country would be as economically strong as it is now. I personally estimate that there are between 2-3 Million of them here. On the other side, we have the rich and extremely rich, who earn the same as the richest people in Western cultures. What makes this divide so particularly noticeable is the way in which the economy of the country works. There is no black market for currency here, so at the same time life can be extremely affordable, and at the same time extremely expensive. It is not overstating to say that one can survive in this city on 250B a day (equivalent to £3.30) including accommodation. I personally am paying what equates to 120B a day for my humble but decent westernised apartment, and with the massive market and food culture here in Thailand, it is very possible for me to eat well and travel to and from a destination on the remaining 130B.

With this concept in mind, and its application to the quality of life achievable, it is easy to see how the rich become the super rich in Bangkok. If you make a western salary or its equivalent, the cost of living is such that you can afford much more than the equivalent in the West.

There is a very noticeable divide towards money on all levels here, and across the spectrum of rich and poor. This obsession with money is partly a sub-conscious quest for happiness which strangely enough goes directly against Buddhist doctrine. With 95% of the population in Thailand being of this faith, this change in attitude over the last fifty years can be viewed as somewhat alarming. The concept of happiness being related to wealth is without a doubt a subsidiary of western influence, namely capitalism, which has prevailed and marked this culture and other which it has encroached upon since it’s very creation.

If tourism collapsed, so would the foundations of the economy here in Thailand. How much more are Thai’s exploiting themselves, and how much are they being exploited from the outside?

So how does our mystified, image of Eastern decadence change when we look at it in reality? Is this allure something which is inflected western myth, or is its existence rooted in fact? Of course it is our own created subjectification of a persona which has taken shape through five centuries of our own history which became intermingled during the creation of trade routes with spices and gemstones, precious metals and materials etc (of course our own little addition to this was weaponry – well done Europe, the early form of war mongering). Our misunderstanding of other on both cultural and anthropological levels has fed our own ignorance. Thai people, as with all people all over the world suffer the same misfortunes which come with our influence, both direct and indirect. However, what we perhaps don’t see, is that we are all now under the same cloud of illusion. The real question is, would you rather know about it, or live in ignorance? I mean, we now love to live in western ignorance, but I think western and eastern ignorance, as far as the way in which the world works are very different. That is to say, the two structures of control are in nature different. I can see and have met Thai’s who are politically active, but so many Thai’s are fiercely patriotic to their monarchy.

So, because of this fierce patriotic nature which descends from the historic position of King as ruler/protector/unifier/peacekeeper, I think that the problems in politics, corruption and economy become very difficult for Thai’s to organise and rebel against. Some of this comes from the ‘mai pen rai’ attitude which is installed in the culture from Buddhism. This attitude is far from being a negative attribute, in fact I really respect it and I don’t think Thailand would be able to function without it. I’m merely pointing out a place, a situation, whereby its position is exploited. Is there a place for Buddhism next to Capitalism? How can they co-exist? Surely, one is not beneficial, and in direct conflict with the ethics of the other. How can so many people refuse to see this? I think that the divide is exemplified here by the movement and migration of people within Thailand from village to city. Again not a new concern, we have seen it happen in different countries for similar reasons, and for what reason? To find work. In Thailand, there is a secondary motivation which is linked to the primary one. The drive for work is rooted in its reasons, for helping to support family, to satisfy financial needs and also for personal development. But more and more, this displacement has been occurring from the poor farming communities in the regions north, south east and west of Bangkok, to the big increasingly overcrowded, polluted, rotting centre of Bangkok, which becomes metaphor enough for its countries problems.

So, where is the symptom which creates the cause? Who or what is to blame? If only it was as simple as attributing blame to a single system/person/movement/body. In actual fact, it never is. Well, behind the blame of American bankers who now lay claim to owning the world. In a cause and effect model, this is of course where we would end up – do question about it. Of all the western countries to hold influence over here, the USA must be the strongest and in extension of that, the most culpable. In this way, the USA has goals with every country it has sties with, and invades, there is always a reason for this, as we know with Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and now Iran, and the same is applicable whether the advance is hostile or through corrupt consent.