In November 2007, Roger Casas sent in a report on the dedication of a new central temple outside of Jing Hong in Sipsongpanna.  Roger introduced this temple and its dedication as something of a compromise between the desires of the local government to develop its “tourist industrial complex” and the desires of the local Sangha to expand its educational capacity (and also one suspects to have a big showy temple not unlike their colleagues in larger cities in China).  The funding for this temple, as Roger reported, came from a Liaoning real estate company, who in return would be given the opportunity to run the temple for at least five decades.  I was in Jing Hong in mid-June of this year, and thought that some New Mandala readers might be interested in a brief follow-up report over how this compromise might be working out. 

To be succinct, not very well, at least not from the point of view of the monks or the local Dai-lue population. 

I visited this temple during its construction and at the dedication as well, and most of the people that I talked with in 2007 were filled with a great deal of excitement over its construction.  Dai folks that I met on the street, particularly during the festivities surrounding its dedication, commented to me that this would be “their” temple (it is sometimes referred to as wat long meuang lue).  Yet even at this point there was some trepidation over the temple’s future. 

A huge number of people attended the second day of the dedication (as Roger reported) to both make merit and see the completed temple.  Almost all the Dai that I talked to that day reported that they had come to see the temple because they were certain that once the celebrations were over they would have to pay admission to enter the temple.  This was curious, I thought, because in the contract signed by the local Buddhist Association with the “donor” (ie the Liaoning real estate company), it was specified very clearly that the Dai and other local Buddhists such as the Bulang would not have to pay to enter the temple.  I understand that this part of the deal been upheld, but only just barely.  Apparently folks claiming to be Dai-lue are often required to produce their national identity cards (which lists their nationality) in order to receive free admission.  Most of them don’t carry these cards with them and so getting in has become something of a chore for the local Dai population.

It’s perhaps for this reason that on the days that I visited the temple, it was essentially empty of all but Chinese tourists. 

While the wat is not quite the “Dai Disneyland” that Grant Evans referred to in 2001 (a phenomenon one can see in various minority parks around the city), it is not far off.  It is a place filled with ersatz Dai-ness.  Tourguides of various ethnicities dressed in “traditional” Dai clothing take Chinese tourists around, explaining the complexities of “Hinayana” Buddhism both in its Buddha images and its notions of making merit.  These tourists can buy candles for making merit or coins for putting in the bowls of the stone “arahants” who line the mountain behind the viharn which leads to the 40 meter walking Buddha image (still under construction) from other men and women marked as Dai solely by their clothing.  The grounds are filled with the sound of monks chanting in Pali at all times of day, provided by speakers hidden behind bushes around the complex. 

Perhaps the greatest (and most offensive) moment of this faux Dainess is in the viharn where young Han men dressed in formal Dai outfits help the tourguides show the Han tourists how to pay respect to the image like Dai people do and then lead them to the stand where they can buy Buddhist trinkets.  (I was unable to take a picture of this little operation because every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard would come over and tell me to put it away).  I was told by some of the monks in the Buddhist Association that for a while the company running the operation was dressing young men up as monks in order to have them bless the tourists! 

Indeed, I was told by a friend who is also a Dai tourguide that the Dai people don’t consider it to be a Dai temple. 

So what are we to make of what is happening at the temple and the fact that portions of the local Dai-lue population do not consider this to be legitimately “their” temple?  It is, I think, too early to declare this temple a lost cause for the Dai-lue people of Sipsongpanna.  Chinese armies in the late imperial period would occupy Jing Hong for as much as several decades before getting chased out by malaria; it is only fifty years that the temple will be run by Chinese firms.  It is also possible that the Sangha will be able to reassert more authority over the place.  The monks of Sipsongpanna after all have been relatively adept over the years at fostering productive relations with the local government.  Nonetheless, only time will tell if the deal to get this temple built was made with the devil or not.

Thomas Borchet is Assistant Professor in the Department of Religion at the University of Vermont

I am delighted to announce the publication of Tai Lands and Thailand: Community and State in Southeast Asia. It has been published by National University of Singapore Press,  NIAS Press, and University of Hawaii Press. The book is the result of research collaboration that has been going here at the Australian National University over the past six or so years. It features chapters by myself, Craig Reynolds, Nicholas Farrelly, Holly High, Sarinda Singh, Warren Mayes and Antonella Diana (all of whom have made previous contributions to New Mandala).  Here are the opening paragraphs from the first chapter, “Modern Tai Community”.

This book provides a new approach to the study of community in the Tai world of mainland Southeast Asia.

Much of the current ethnographic work in the Tai world is constrained by a conceptual framework that associates community with tradition, locality and subsistence economy. This traditional community is commonly portrayed as being undermined by the modern forces of state incorporation, market penetration, globalisation and population mobility.

In this volume, we take a very diff erent view. We challenge the widely held view that community is a traditional social form that is undermined by modernity. Using case studies from Thailand, Laos, Burma and China, we explore the active creation of ‘modern community’ in contexts of economic and political transformation.  Our aim is to liberate community from its stereotypical association with traditional village solidarity and to demonstrate that communal sentiments of belonging retain their salience in the modern world of occupational mobility, globalised consumerism and national development.

Our focus is on the Tai world, made up of the various peoples who speak Tai languages. The largest groups are the Thai of Thailand, the Lao of Laos, the Shan of Burma and the Dai of southern China. Of course, each of these categories is problematic; they are all the modern products of historical circumstance rather than being natural or self-evident ethnic groups. There are certainly linguistic and cultural similarities that justify the shared label ‘Tai’ but this must be treated as a preliminary delineation of a field of interest without rushing to assumptions about a common identity or a sense of shared history. Indeed, our primary goal is to critically examine contemporary notions of belonging in this Tai world.

Here is the table of contents.

Tai Lands and Thailand is part of the Asian Studies Association of Australia Southeast Asia Series. Special thanks to the staff at NUS Press for a great job on producing a very attractive volume!

Given the diverse historical associations with elephants it is not surprising that these animals are cultural icons in contemporary Laos but not in a clear or uncontested manner… Elephants are inextricably associated with varied political meanings that allow interpretations of these animals to be used to demonstrate, legitimise and question the given social order. The social potency of elephants is ensured in contemporary Laos by their ambiguity and malleability to local contexts. Significantly, elephants are national symbols that belong to the Lao state and as such they provide a means for people to reflect on the state – as useful symbols they both convey and produce meaning… In rural areas of Laos where royalty had a limited historical presence, the salience of royal symbols today derives from their ability to speak to present concerns rather than necessarily denoting a strong royalist presence in the past… Local interpretations of elephants in central Laos implicate these animals as symbols of the potentiality of the paa (forest), especially in beliefs about spirit-worship and the special properties of elephant meat. While symbolising the uncivilised nature of the paa the wild elephant also represents a unique form of potentiality that can be harnessed through domestication because of their similarity to people and idealised utility. Respect for elephants is fundamentally a reflection of human endeavours to domesticate the paa and maintain social order. Despite major changes in the recent history of Laos and considerable differences between rural and urban areas there is continuity in the association of elephants with power, prosperity and social status. As the largest animals in Laos elephants imply strength and danger. They are often called sat nyai, ‘big animals’, which historically belonged to phuu nyai, ‘big people’ or ‘elites’. Large animals of the paa and elites are similar in deserving both fear and respect… Elephants are effective symbols of potentiality because they build upon more widely shared Tai worldviews that frame elephants as powerful symbols of the relations between the muang (city) and paa.

The tusks photographed by Nicholas at the Manau ground in Laiza are a good example of a cultural motif that is widely distributed in the southeast Asian region.

According to the blurb:

The Royal Institute of Thailand, in cooperation with UNESCO-Bangkok, UNICEF-Thailand, the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO), the Embassy of Australia, and SIL International, invite scholars, government officials, and language practitioners from around the globe to submit abstracts…

Important details on the conference and the full call for papers are available from this PDF.  If any New Mandala readers are planning to attend we would, as usual, be keen to host a report on proceedings.

This academic jamboree takes place every three years. All the usual subjects were on the agenda – Buddhism, weaving, democracy, the history of Ayutthaya, agrarian relations, and Thai arts. But there was also something new and different. Three panels were devoted to discussion of the monarchy. Another two focused on the sufficiency economy. And more papers on monarchical topics were scattered around other sessions. Never before has this subject attracted such attention.Of course, it is odd to have any serious discussion of Thailand past and present without factoring in the monarchy. At previous conferences, the matter has been treated gingerly out of a mixture of deference and fear of legal complications. But the public presence of the monarchy in the life of the nation has expanded steadily over past decades. This is partly the result of the current long and remarkable reign, as reflected in the two massive celebrations of the 60th jubilee and 80th birthday over recent months. It is partly because the idea of the sufficiency economy has been placed in the public domain and vigorously promoted as a guide for policy-making that will affect everybody. And it is partly because some figures closely associated with the monarchic institution have had prominent roles in the tense political conflict of the past two years. More and more, the monarchy has become a subject that is impossible to leave out.

- Extracted from Chang Noi’s “Thai studies and the monarchy”, The Nation, 22 January 2008.  Thanks to Craig for bringing this important report to our attention.

Banned royal book stirs rare debate in Thailand
Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:19am IST

By Ed Cropley

BANGKOK (Reuters) – Thailand’s banning of a rare “warts and all” biography of revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej only stokes interest in the book and risks an eventual explosion of pent-up political tension, an academic said.

“Banning books is usually something we associate with fascist and repressive regimes,” Australian anthropologist Annette Hamilton told a seminar on “The King Never Smiles” at an international Thai studies conference in Bangkok on Thursday.

“When silence is enforced for a long time, noise — when it comes — is deafening.”

The book, by U.S. journalist Paul Handley, portrays King Bhumibol as an austere and deeply political monarch whose overarching desire for stability and unity during 61 years on the throne has stifled Thailand’s democratic development.

Many of the southeast Asian nation’s 63 million people regard the king as semi-divine and credit him with steering Thailand through huge political and social turbulence, including more than a dozen military coups.

However, critics say this perception is propped up by draconian lese majeste laws, which make any insult or threat to the monarchy punishable by up to 15 years in jail.

Even though the King himself made it clear in 2005 that he should not be above criticism, the government banned the book in January 2006 under its 1941 Printing Act, arguing it “could disrupt public order and the good morals of society”.

This was clearly not the real reason, Hamilton said.

“The main issue is that it challenges the agreement to silence, or the agreement not to disagree, which is a main strategy in Thailand for maintaining harmony. But we’ve seen this method does not guarantee peacefulness,” Hamilton said.

“Instead, it results in a situation where fears, hopes, dreams and interpretations are bottled up for years and decades, circulate through rumor and gossip and may come out in terrible, violent confrontations.”

WHAT’S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT?

The book also contains lots of rumor and gossip about the royal family, in particular heir apparent Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, who does not enjoy the almost unquestioning respect accorded to his 80-year-old father.

Handley, declared persona non grata in Thailand, did not attend the conference, one of the few times the monarchy has ever been debated critically in public inside Thailand.

But his paper on the role of the King’s advisory council was read out on his behalf.

Australian scholar Craig Reynolds said much of the underground hype about the book might be overblown as studies in Thai have already pointed to Bhumibol’s overtly political reign, backing various democratic and military regimes.

Thai journals have also questioned how the monarchy has become such an important totem for the generals who staged the September 2006 coup against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

“His political neutrality has been exposed time and again for what it is — namely, the mere appearance of political neutrality. In reality the King is not neutral,” Reynolds said.

Instead, he said, much of the offence seemed to stem from outrage at an outsider, in particular a journalist, trying to lift the lid on the central pillar of Thai society.

“Who is he to comment on the sacred institution which has held the country together during crisis after crisis?,” Reynolds said of the prevailing view of Thai critics of the book.

(Editing by Darren Schuettler and Alex Richardson)

I am happy to open the forum to others to comment on the content and effectiveness of these three panels.

From my point of view, like yesterday’s panel on sufficiency economy, they provided a relatively open forum for the expression and discussion of ideas about the role of the monarchy in the contemporary political system. Though the discussion was, at times, rather more restrained than some may have hoped the panels did represent an important breakthrough in international Thai studies. The key message of the panels was that the persistent self-censorship imposed by the international academic community can now be cast aside. The sky will not fall in if we talk freely and frankly about the king’s role in contemporary Thai politics. Let’s make sure this is a starting point for ongoing frank and public discussion.

As I did yesterday I invite others attending the conference to submit their comments, reflections and reports.

On the issue of Thai media covereage of the conference, my media monitors tell me that apart from the Bangkok Post report (which I have inserted as a comment to yesterday’s post) there has been no subtantial press coverage. Please let us know if you have spotted anything.

In the afternoon I was involved in two sessions which discussed sufficiency economy. A lot of ground was covered and I think it fair to say that the sessions provided for an open and frank critical discussion of the royal theory. One hardened critic even commented to me afterwards that for a period during the session he actually felt sorry for sufficiency economy!

Those who are attending the conference are very welcome to provide their own comments, thoughts, reflections or reports from specific panels. It would be useful if New Mandala readers could also provide details of any media coverage the conference receives in local or international media.