Rse and Ideology in Social and Linguistic Practice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BQA&Q8(9P9I@9XB2 _#B& QBFS'P “: QB# 8JQFQ6 BB@^DOLW3@ QB26T@T4 La6A_3A@L&:.S9P4S)SIP FP17`)TFS'QFP” Cambodian Views of Thailand: Identifying Discourse and Ideology in Social and Linguistic Practice Dr. Peter Vail (National University of Singapore) Assoc. Prof. Sommai Chinnak (Ubon Ratchathani University) 2553 IP,,T RDG5210049 BQA&Q8(9P9I@9XB2 _#B& QBFS'P “: QB# 8JQFQ6 BB@^DOLW3@ QB26T@T4 La6A_3A@L&:.S9P4S)SIP FP17`)TFS'QFP” #2O;FX S'P 1. Dr. Peter Vail National University of Singapore 2. Assoc. Prof. Sommai Chinnak Ubon Ratchathani University )W3_#B& QBF'S PA “W3_#B& QB)QA^38a6A^DO]=VL (LT4L )” IQ8P &Q8 L&6W8I8P9I8W8 QBFS'P 1 I8P9I8W Q8P6W8I8P9I8W8 QBFS'P (.) (]J$`T]:!X FS'P . a ']:4 ]J$83]a:) #2O;X F'S P 1. Dr. Peter Vail LQ'QBA University Scholars Programme, National University of Singapore 2. Assoc. Prof. Sommai Chinnak LQ'QBA S)QIP&#@GQI4B SD:GQI4B @JQFS6AQDPALW9DBQ)7Q8T ;X ) FAF'S P 1. Suthee Sathrakhom 2. Arpaporn Boontawee 3. Nittaya Saenbut 4. Yoothasart Ngamin 96#P3A IP,,Q]D!6T RDG5210049 PI: Peter Vail, National University of Singapore Project Coordinator: Sommai Chinnak, Ubon Ratchathani University BOAO]FDQ3Q]8S: 15 S@ 2009 - 13 @H 2010 S'P^ : 5 I = @P` ?; ^:8 QBIBW: 3Q]8S8&Q8_#B& QBFS'PA6P@*U:?Ha F86T:8966T 1 a ?S:5U& QB3Q]8S8&Q8FS'PA, :@, FS7T^=V86]T >9! @X ^QJBP 3 W36 QA6T]JDVL8P8'O]!T`PH2(=*U:8 DPH2 @S'PA6T@5a:4T=S@=a A6T^4 4P^4 966T 2-4 P a:=V4T=S@= P9FQBIQBBO3P ^` ?;P :a: ?=: T 2 “:,JQ P T@ ^4 a@ ` P a: @W@@`8) P&)Q4S8S@ (Post-National) P@=X)Q6T@T4 =VL89 `4V” @W :>@`a:T@T:.` ]J>` xenonym (Q ]BT:G) QF "T@” V "Siem" (?H@QJBP9#QF '@' V 'Siam') ^cTa ^` ]J>5@U W@@P@=X)Q6T@T4 :Ga a "T@" a @:8#Q6T@T@@`S& *U` ]BT^QF "a" T` ]BT=VL)T`]J >5&L3U T4:Ga`W2P B8S@ LV ^= 24*Ua IB @T` ^ 2P^@ ^ALA Q&LA Q& ^=JDQA6 T5VLF :8FP17@@ /P T5VLF ` #QF "T@" `@@S&D98P >#VL'Q ]BVL&BQF6T`V@, S5T:.S9P4S3 Q8FS)Q)T=`W @a8Q]6TAF6TLAX `4S2P- 7@, ^T8P ]!TA8#8LcV aT GUH@W@@@6T@4T a ^4 @Ta ^` ]J>8 F `44V:GP@=X*U:=V86T6:T ` @T@P@=P76T)P3]'8 :GP a :a ^V` #QF "T@" P8 >a ^` ]J>5@U W@@`8) post-national 6T@T 4 :Ga P8 #> V QF "T@" `:''W9Pa@ a 8@: 8#@V7@ (synonym) T` ]BT^ #QF "a" ^4 JQ 8@` ]BTA DW @T^44 Q& Pa:`P@a@ QF "IT@" P8 8@` ]BTA IP@aT:8 DW @WBPH8@`S F8 DQ&!L& B=NW T])V@P=/P :7S:4 *U@TJPFJ8 =V ?SIS7S T, W @=P7@S4:=V:7S:a4VL DW @ `c >4@T D QFL 5U&IS7S'Q L3T4`=V83S8JBVL6W83Q8F P17@^@ QF "a" `:''W9P` ]BTA #865T VLI4P SaPa: a)QFT P@=X@T@P@=P76T:8BX:7@ ^T@T @X IU=P9I8W8 DW @ "V^" @V`4P PHS2 S8FP4^ ^W @ aTa@ D QJDP&LAX P9L3T4@:2P B8S@^4 @TJPF QFJ8 ^` @Q#P, P@P@=P73 Q8 GH/S'6T@TGP?=`/T:=V/Q#P` @P@=P7 T 3 “P7S:GSDQ#DP4S8S@: W86Q&FP17@T5X AV^=@^a- P@=X" @W & :>@`a:T@S4S])S@4 c@P^ &]BV4^T QDP&] S3!U8] TAF P: :TAOFSMT, 4@V, ^ Takrabey @S88Ta^` ]J>4W2(=4 c 4P3IS8#3T GW4S7@ :G (G) `: .G. 1962 ^^` ]J>8F Q#4P3ISGT3X #DW@VL8Pa ` ] S?@PG6T] TAF P9! L!P^ &6T QDP&] S3!U8LAX 8TLA a `T]BQ'O a ]J>8F 4QJ8S^ QFJQF Q! L!P^ &6T] S3!U88P8I` ] S@VL3U:Ga, T :Ga@T:P@=P76T^ ^4 'BSc ^ =S2 L D QFJQ3P& D ^ F'O]J>8F :8 QB a@ A4W S7@==S2` 9BS:P4SG4 ^Pa ^` ]J>8F QDP7S4S8S@ P@=X@T@ a4 :>86T] TAF P@P& LBLA a ` ]J>8F @` F&8T6T] TAF P9 ::TAOFSMTAB8P^44 Q&LA Q&IS8])S& P@T] TAF! L& P9#4P3ISG a ^ ^` ]J>8F QIS&8Ta ;` ]J>@ Q!L&6PG4S!L&)QF P@=X)QLA a T `TAP& a ?S:5U@V?`:GPa@ F ::GaV:GP@=Xa :4W` @ !P^ :!W U8LT #BPa LA a ^a? S:5U;:W!U@P^ &#BP`@ 8TF Q I ;4 4S2=V86T=@^ a VL'Q 8P@TAPa ^^ a:*U& :=T^TAF6T8 :a:a 8P8 >#V P&<a^P@=X@P9F @VL&8P@5U&6Q& 4P^ ^S7T6T'O QF! @; ?P& D !U86O]9TA8B @::TAOFSMT:@ _D 8P5VLF :`^^ a:,JQ3P& D ^4 _L QI8T >a5X 6a:^ F]8VL&'Q BP/aP`QA!FQ'P T 4 "VL! QA! @=@^: TFS4`^^:T :,JQBOJF =@^a-P@=X” @Ta GUHPH2T`TFS4:QFP84@4=V86T^a- P@=X)Q!L&6P 2 :^ =V:@S8F @T]#BVL! QA! @=@^ Q8` Q&6T;X #8APa LAX ^:4 @Q >#V@TFQ6 @T] S3!U`P96 583S ` Q&6T^` ]J>8]#BVL! QA! @=@^a LA Q&)P @TAPa =S2 @` 5S888!P P^ P9I8W VLD @ -@S&)Q4S8S@V@^ JDP 6T]J>a 'Q IV@VL) L&6Q&LcV a LA a @XD6Q&3@ WHS6AQ6T8@` `@ 8Ta @GUH4T4P&LAX `4=V86T^, ^4 &&Q8! @4S, @P@=P7!L& DW @ 4@=V86T^, S@;S-@ ((=P4Pa@ ), @P@=P73 G FP17@^^4 Q&3 S88T8;W: S7TFS^P@P`@ 6T QDP:86T8S@` :''W9Pa@ @5T7S:.2^S@`89BS2^a 3T8P W#JDP@P`@a 7S9QA :.2 QB]#DVL8A ^ W ^P17@ @=@^`?= ^4 F Q QB9P&#P9#F9#W@ ^B Q&!L&B/P P96` S@S2^:.T S9P4SLAX ::Q)O&P &P@ Q6T'O:4PFJD L ]DT@P@=P7! @=@^ @ `S5T:.S9P4S! @=@^`/T:8B L&BLA!L&FS5T :.S9P4S`VL8A ^@P@=P7`X:^S@ *U&D F8 QDa:`/P T:@^>&6VL!L& =@^^/P > DP:?TB9 F8FS5)T TFS4;X @U8]BVc Abstract Project Code: RDG5210049 PI: Peter Vail, National University of Singapore Project Coordinator: Sommai Chinnak, Ubon Ratchathani University Project period: Aug 15 2009 - April 13 2010 Ch. 1. Introduction Introduction discusses the proposed aims, methods, and field sites. Ch. 2. “Trouble with Siem but not with Thai: Cambodian’s Post-National Views of their Northern Neighbor” This chapter focuses on an emerging discourse centered on the xenonym ‘Siem’ (Khmer for ‘Siam’), and how it encapsulates Cambodian views towards Thailand. ‘Siem’ has become a pejorative substitute for the word ‘Thai’, used to index Thailand’s imperial past, its expansion at the expense of the Khmer empire, and its wholesale appropriation of many facets of Khmer culture. Evidence for pejorative use of Siem is based on mass media accounts, on professional practices among tour guides at the Angkor complex, and on the work of other authors who have examined Khmer views of Thailand. But this article further argues that in northern Cambodia, where the population has tangible ties to Thailand and Thai people, that the choice of Siem or Thai now denotes a post-national view of Thailand. That is, Siem is not simply a pejorative synonym for Thai, but rather denotes different segments of Thai society altogether. Siem refers specifically to Bangkok-centered conservative Thai society, associated with the Abhisit-led Democratic government, the PAD, and any groups who make historically-based claims to Khmer lands or cultural capital. Thai now refers to ‘ordinary’ Thai citizens, i.e. those with which Cambodians share concrete ties, with a special affinity for ‘red-shirts’, the populism of Thaksin Shinwatra and his populist policies, and segments of the Thai population that are not ‘backward’ looking to an imperial past but forward-looking, with an emphasis on potential economic ties as the basis for relations. Evidence for this distinction between Siem and Thai is drawn from interviews, social practices, and material artifacts encountered during fieldwork. Ch. 3. “Stone Temple Jingoism: Contested Cultural Capital on the Thai- Cambodian Border” This chapter focuses on discursive dimensions of the ongoing border disputes over Preah Vihear, Tamoen, and Takrabey temples. It reviews certain facets of the 1962 ICJ decision and how the Court’s peculiar decision set the ideological stage for the ongoing dispute. It argues that the blame for the dispute falls most often on Thai intractability, that Thailand conducts very poor public relations in this regard, and that such an assessment of blame is ultimately unfair given the historical context. It shows how Cambodian nationalism is hypersensitive to issues concerning Angkorian heritage, how the discourses currently in circulation about the temple are starkly different from those relevant to the ICJ decision, and how this exposes a certain hypocrisy in Cambodian views. It discusses how domestic politics in both Cambodia and Thailand have caused the dispute to reignite, and what the effects of this flare-up are on the ground at the border. It further argues that the only likely resolution will require both Thailand and Cambodia to accept the political deadlock and find ways to work across it. Dual-listing of the Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage Site offered such an opportunity, but this opportunity was squandered because the Thai government too easily panders to its far-right factions. Ch. 4. “Cross-border Connections: Life at the Troubled Thai-Cambodian Frontier” This article examines various aspects of everyday life along the Thai-Cambodia border, from both sides, to assess, firstly, what tangible cross-border connections people maintain, and secondly, what locally-constituted discourses inform these cross-border connections. The article further looks at how local discourses intersect, support, and/or subvert nationalist and other mainstream discourses that are afforded greater circulation in mass media and other channels. The ethnographic data informing this article derives from an examination of border markets, cross- border marriages, informal relations among military factions along the border, illicit activities (especially logging), religious/cultural connections and migrant labor.