7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) Mon Diasporas in and the Notions of “Home”

1. Pakawadee Thongchompunuch: [email protected] M.A. in Mekong Studies at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, KhonKaen University, Thailand. 2. Patcharin Lapanun, Ph.D: [email protected], Lecturer in Mekong Studies Program, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, KhonKaen University.

Abstract This article aims to explain meanings of “home” given by Mon living in Thailand. It employs the concept of “home” of diasporas as the analytical framework. Qualitative research methodology is used in this study. The study indicates that Mon diasporas has been living in Baan Wang Ka, since AD.1949. The ethnic suppression policies in are the major cause of transnational mobility of this , although, in the later periods, some of them left their homeland to go to Thailand for trading and eventually resettled at Baan Wang Ka. Currently, in Baan Wang Ka include four generations. Although they are from Myanmar and heirs of those from Myanmar, Mon in the village gave definitions of their “home” differently. Those of the first generation define their homeland as their “home.” The second to fourth generations refer to their “home” in association with the place where they live in Thailand or their homeland. The diverse notions of “home” have to do with not solely generation differences and causes of migration, but also an individual’s experiences, economic opportunity, legal status as well as social status in Thailand and assimilation to Thai society. Thus, this paper shows that the definitions of “home” are constructed and multiple – rather than fixed and specific – and such definitions relate to their contexts as well as migration periods.

Keywords: Notions of “home”, Mon ethnic group, diaspora

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 595

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) Background Home” has a wide range of meanings. It could refer to a tangible residence or convey the feeling of family members, closeness to a certain area, or the origin of a person when we talk about “homeland”. The varied meanings of “home” are inevitably related with conditions at an individual level at which the meanings are defined. For this reason, “home” is not defined without a solid ground. This article aims to investigate the concept of “home” in studies about diasporas and its meanings, and the factors that contribute to such meanings given by Mon diasporas at Baan Wang Ka1, who emigrated from the State of Mon, Burma2, and have settled down in Sam Prasop Area3, , Kanchanaburi Province since 1948. The ethnic suppression policies in Burma are the major cause of transnational mobility of this ethnic group. In addition, it was found that some of Mon diasporas left their homeland to resettle at Baan Wang Ka for economic reason as they consider Thailand as a better place for trading opportunity than the motherland with economic recession. Even though Mon diasporas left their homeland for different reasons, they are identified by Thai government as “Myanmar diaspora4”. Mon diasporas currently living at Baan Wang Ka emigrated to Thailand on 3 major occasions5; the first in 1949, the second 1950, and the last 1951. Each flow of migrations was caused by the war between Myanmar Government and ethnic group armed force. In addition, Sangkhla Buri is a district near the Myanmar border, far from jurisdiction of the Thai state. The area is also abundant in resources and a suitable

1 The name of the village “Wang Ka” means a land full of fish. “Wang” is a Thai word, meaning an area underwater with suitable depth for variety of fish species and “Ka” means fish in . This name is common among villagers in the village and surrounding areas though the official name of the village is “Mu Baan Phaen Din Tham Phaen Din Thong”. 2The informants often used the word “Burma” to refer to Republic of the Union of Myanmar – the official name which is not common among Mon people I talked to. Thus, in this article I uses “Burma” when referring to Republic of the Union of Myanmar. The use of the term “Burmer” also conveys the feelings and stories better than the term that the informants are not familiar with. 3 Sam Prasop Area is where three rivers meet i.e. the Song Kalia River, the Bikhli River, and the Ranti River. The Mon diaspora choose this location to settle down and build their community. 4 When they move to Thailand, these Mon people have the status as Mon diaspora with Myanmar citizenship. According to the announcement of Ministry of Interior, Myanmar immigrants who had fled the war to Thailand before 1976 are Myanmar diaspora. (Orawan 2003) 5 The 3 flows of migration are the major flows. More than 60 families of Mon people fled to Thailand and the migration is still remembered at Baan Wang Ka. At the meantime, it was found that the migration of this group has continued recently, only in a smaller group of people, not the whole family.

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 596

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) trading opportunity between Thai and Mon people. These factors attracted Mon diasporas to Thailand. Presently there are 4 generations on Mon diaspora. The first generation includes those who migrated to Thailand due to ethnic suppression policies in Myanmar. Some of them escaped to Thailand for a better economic opportunity as mentioned earlier. Departure from home with pressing situation and loss has reflected the feeling of yearning for home of the diasporas because home has more implications than being only a place, but also heart and soul, a place of learning about life experience. When they, with the feeling of loss, were forced to live in a foreign land, it is normal to form the feeling of being alienated, having common yearning and imagination to go back home. However, this explanation is debated; scholars pointed out that many Jewish diasporas in the did not wish to go back to their motherland. But they want to live their lives and die in America. (Rattana 2012) The second to the fourth generations are the heirs of the first generation. Some of them have received Thai citizenship but they maintain consciousness of being diasporas and passed this on from one generation to another, through stories and beliefs. The stories and beliefs mirrored the origin of families, communities, and ethnic self-awareness of which group they belong to. Some scholars proposed that the connection between each generation of diasporas is formed through memories, memorization, and commemoration to the events that drove their ancestors to leave their motherland through the stories about ancestors told to the newer generations. (Barh 1996 cited in Bundit 2006:6) This study aims to explain the conditions influencing the definitions of “home” given by Mon diasporas residing at Baan Wang Ka. Data collecting was conducted through interviewing and reviewing related literature. The results presented in this paper include the discussion on the concepts of “home” in the literature about diasporas and the notions of “home” defined by Mon diasporas at Baan Wang Ka.

Objectives/Research Questions 1. To survey the concept of “home” in studies about diasporas 2. To explain the meanings of “home” defined by Mon diasporas and the conditions influencing such definitions

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 597

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) Research Methodology Baan Wang Ka was selected as the research site because this village has been residential area for the Mon diasporas who moved to Thailand for more than 60 years. Also, they can still maintain the transnational relationship between their motherland and the asylum without disconnection from the cross-border relative, economic, social, and cultural relationships despite their status of diaspora. This research applies qualitative research approach; data is collected through participant observation, non-participant observation, and in-depth interview. The in-depth interview was conducted with 9 Mon diasporas from generations 2-4. Stories about the first generation were collected from their heir since most people of the first generation have passed away. Triangulation method – such as comparing the data in the same topic with the information obtained from other informants - was used.

Findings 1. The notions of “home” in studies about diasporas The term “diasporas” comes from a Greek word “diasperin”. Its meaning is about sowing seeds so that they grow up and settle down with roots (Kasem 2009). “Diaspora” first appeared in the Hebrew bible translated into Greek (Septuagint) during the 2-3 centuries B.C. (Evans 2009: 1-3 cited in Monchai and Manimai 2013). In 1973, the term was developed to use for a social concept. “Diaspora” was used in a social encyclopedia to refer to the exile of Jewish people from the holy land. It has the implied meaning of uprooting, suppression, and pain in adjusting to a new environment until they could create and maintain their own cultural center continuously, refusing to leave their identity (Monchai and Manimai 2013). This article emphasizes the definitions and discussions about the concepts of “home” which many scholars have proposed to explain the traditional diasporas and the modern ones. The term diasporas appeared in the literature in 1980 - 19906. It refers to victims who were forced to leave from an area or a specific place that they considered homeland (Thirawut 2007:11). This meaning was criticized that it explained too

6 Phil Cohen 1999 cited in Sujitra 2010) noted that there were 216 books used diasporas as the title or sub-title during 1975-1999. New journals such as Diaspora or Global Network have also published articles about diaspora regularly since 1990.

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 598

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) narrowly the conditions and characteristics of diasporas. According to Cohen (1977)7 (Kanlaya 2008:15). Diaspora can be voluntary without being victimized, but rather to seek advantage from the host country. Economic diasporas such as foreign merchants found at many continents The definition given by Cohen expands the meanings of diaspora used in the previous studies. On the basic of scholarly discussions, the notions of diasporas can be categorized into 2 types: 1) Traditional diaspora: It focuses on classification and model for analyzing diasporas such as the concept used in the article “Diaspora in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by Safran (Safran 1991 cited in Yos 2003). The article discussed the meaning and the 6 common characteristics of diasporas including: 1) a minority group forced to evacuate from their motherland to the marginal area of another society, 2) the group still have the common memories or stories about their homeland, 3) they believed that they are unaccepted or hindered by the new society that they move in, 4) they hope that one day they could go back home, 5) they are committed to improve their homeland, and 6) the common awareness of diaspora or their identity is significantly based upon the relationship with their home. This set of explanation describes the characteristics of the Jewish diaspora, which has become the explanation of characteristics of other diaspora groups. It is evident that meanings and criteria used by Safran value the idea of returning “home” so as to develop the criteria regarding characteristics of diasporas. In this explanation the concept of “home” associated with physical area – homeland where diasporas leave. The shared feeling of returning homeland and the common dreams about “home” distinguish diasporas from other group who relocate from their motherland. These characteristics are the key aspects of the traditional diaspora. 2) The concept of modern diasporas: In the globalized era where border crossing phenomena become more complicated, the definitions of diasporas and causes of migration are expanded. Cohen (Suchitra 2015) pointed out 5 causes of migration: 1) the victim diasporas forced to leave motherland, 2) labor diasporas leaving motherland for a better job, 3) merchant diasporas leaving motherland for business purpose such as oversea Chinese, 4) colonial diasporas, and 5) cultural diasporas. Furthermore, the emigration from motherland does not necessarily occur involuntarily. It can be

7 Cohen’s concept of diaspora will be further discussed in the next section.

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 599

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) motivated by better income or security in life such as in Iwa Ong, and Donald Nonini’s work “Modern Chinese Transnationalism”. This research gives a different view toward diasporas in the way that they are not victims and a various pictures of the victimized Chinese who exploited the social, economic, and political conditions to thrive economically and gain acceptance in the new society they moved to live in (Rattana 2009). The concept of modern diasporas leads to the discussion about the criteria for a broader scope of diasporas. In addition, the concept of modern diaspora also criticizes the idea of returning home as a “too narrow” explanation. In the globalization era which border crossing mobility become more common diasporas may be closely related to many places. There are homes and diaspora communities all around the world. The awareness about home is not necessarily fixed to only one specific place, but may also means the capability of “creating their own culture” in many different areas under many different conditions. 2. Mon diasporas and the concepts of “home”

“Chetoi Topsoep Bankoet Fangrok”7 8 is a Mon saying that reflects the importance of “homeland” as the place of the spiritual origin and the source of life experience that makes them understand the world and the society. According to the informants in Baan Wang Ka, the concept of “home” is not defined by the cause of migration only, rather it is constructed under different contexts associated with life experience, social milieu, and time of migration. Therefore, this section discusses the diverse meanings of “home” given by Mon diaspora at Baan Wang Ka in each generation, and the contexts in which such meanings are developed through their stories and experiences. Historically, Mon is an ancient ethnicity. It is assumed that they settled down in approximately 2,000 years ago (Ong 2007). Mon culture flourished on the east of River. However, since the Burmese King Alongphya won a war over Mon, Mon had been under the absolute control by Burma. According to Robert Halliday, a well-known scholar in Mon Studies, Mon has never had a chance to restore their nation and only existed as “people without a country”, (Juajan 2006: 2). Life in the has never been easy as the ethnic suppression policies by Myanmar gave rise to war between ethnic groups and . The war affected Mon people near the battlefield. Their villages were burned down by Myanmar soldiers or plundered by

8 The saying is transcribed from Mon words from the interview. Mon pronunciation herein may be different from Mon pronunciation in Myanmar but reserves the original meaning.

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 600

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) ethnic groups’ armed force or Myanmar army. This kind of effects are reflected by a Mon heir generation 3 who talked about the stories told by ancestors from generation 1. “...Grandpa and Grandma had to make dinner before nightfall. After finishing dinner, they had to close the doors and sleep in the forests at night for fear that Burmese soldiers and Karen armed men would plunder. They would steal everything including rice cooker. Living there at the village was not safe anymore. They eventually managed to flee to Thailand…” (Sonhalay (pseudonym), Mon diaspora generation 3). Apart from the migration due to ethnic suppression which is the main factor that forced Mon people to resettle at Baan Wang Ka, it was found that some of the Mon diasporas of generation 1 left their motherland for the economic reason. For instance, Bee’s mother who earned a living by cross-border trading and she often came to sell her goods in Sangkhla Buri District. That was the reason that Bee’s mother decided to migrate from her home in Burma to relocate at Baan Wang Ka. Besides the risk of living a pathetic life and the threat from Burmese soldiers, the woman migrated to resettle in Baan Wang Ka because the location is suitable for border trading or going back to Burma to visit relatives or join the religious ceremonies (Jaimarok (pseudonym), Mon diaspora generation). The above mentioned reasons are the main factors that drove Mon people to migrate to Thailand. Apart from different migration reasons, it was found that “home” is defined differently among the 4 generations of Mon diasporas. Mon diasporas generation 1 who were born and lived in Mon State were closely related with their original home while generations 2-4 who were born, grow up, and live in Thailand defined “home” as the residence in Thailand or the other in Burma. These definitions were not given with no grounds, but close related to their contexts. This paper discusses 4 factors influencing such definitions. 1) Legal status: Mon diasporas generation 1 had the legal status of being diasporas holding Myanmar citizenship. Inevitably, this made their life difficult. For example, they were not allowed to go outside of the area to make a living (Juajan 2006:182). Generation 1 felt alienated while living in Baan Wang Ka, thus they want to go back to their homeland. “...Father and Mother had to go back to Burma in summer every year. They would live there until all money was used up and then they would come back here. It was like this every year. They went there to visit the relatives, pay homage to the monks, and see Mon

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 601

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) drama. It was like they lived in Thailand to just earn money and spend it all in Burma…” (Namphueng , Mon diaspora generation 2) The story of Namphueng Sawatsuk reflected the close relationship between Mon diasporas generation 1 and their motherland, as well as their wish to go back to live in the place they call “home”. Some of Mon diasporas generations 2-4 have received Thai citizenship while some have not. However, the latter group still define “home” as the place they live in in Thailand. “...I feel that I am a Thai person. I go to Thai school. I can read and write in Thai. When I did not have the ID card, I was afraid of the police as they asked to check it. Now that I have one, I want to wear Mon Sarong to let them know that I am a Mon. I want them to check my ID card because I have one, even though in the house registration certificate Grandpa and Grandma told the registrar that our birthplace is , but, in fact, I was born here and my home is here in Thailand…” (Apong (pseudonym), heir of Mon diaspora generation 3). While an heir of Mon diaspora generation 2 feels that he is a Thai person and “home” for him is the place that he lives in Thailand even though he has not received Thai citizenship. “...I feel a little slight because when we want to go out of the area, we need to ask permission from the authority at the District Office. Sometimes, we wanted to go to Kanchanaburi for a day. If the authority does not issue the permission, we cannot go anywhere even if we are exactly like . We are local people. Our home is here. My kid gets Thai citizenship upon birth because his father is a Thai…” (Pa-nga (pseudonym), Mon diaspora generation) Thai citizenship is everything Mon diasporas would want because it certifies that they are Thai people. However, it was learned that some Mons feel that they are Thai even though they have not possessed one. This feeling is explained through a feeling of being Thai such as ability to speak Thai and they loyalty to Thai monarchy. Therefore, having Thai citizenship is only for the official labeling for being Thai. 2) Assimilating to Thai society: Due to language barrier and ethnic bias, Mon diasporas generation 1 in Baan Wang Ka who grew up in Burma interacted within Mon community more than with Thai people. Language barrier and ethnic bias made it harder for the first generation than the second to the fourth generation to blend in Thai

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 602

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) society though cross-cultural marriage or education system. As a result, Mon diasporas generation 1 felt that “home” is where they came from while generations 2-4 define “home” as their homes in Thailand. “…At school, I don’t want to speak Mon anymore because other people cannot understand me. They are all Thais. That’s why I prefer to speak Thai. Nobody knows we are Mon anyway. When we go outside the village, we look exactly like Thai people, because we are Thai people too…”(Bikhaliang (pseudonym), heir of Mon diaspora generation 3). The Thai education system helped create awareness of being Thai. Each family would want their kids to speak Thai because they believe that the ability to speak Thai will enable them to communicate with Thai people. In the meantime, the feeling that one belongs to a specific society would influence the feeling of closeness to such place, and result in the feeling that such a place is one’s “home”. 3) Economic opportunity: Economic opportunity is a key factor that influences the definitions of “home”. In case of Mon diasporas generation 1, most of them migrated to Thailand to escape from political unrest in Burma. They wanted only land to build a house and earn a living. In contrast, Mon diasporas generation 2-4 are the new generations who seek for progress in life. Thailand offers a wide range of occupation both in the village and elsewhere. Currently, Baan Wang Ka is an important tourist attraction. Thus many villagers have made their houses into homestay for tourists or provided the rental service of tent and sleeping facilities. This is a new way of earning for Mon people in the village.

“…I think Thailand is home, my home. My family is here. My business is here. If I ever go back to Burma, I have no idea how to make a living. My rubber tree plantation over there was sold long ago. I never have a thought of going back to live there again. But it’s ok just visiting relatives or going for a trip…” (a coffee shop owner, Mon diaspora generation 3). In a different context, an heir of Mon diasporas generation 3 views that Burma is an economic opportunity. “...My father and mother are Mons. I as a child cannot get Thai citizenship. I cannot buy land or go to work anywhere. So my parents went back and opened a home plastic-ware shop at Tong Shu Market in Burma because they thought it would be easier to make a living there than in Thailand. My family has been living in Burma the whole time. Living there feels like home…” (Mudoeng (pseudonym), heir of Mon diaspora generation 3). The definitions of “home”, therefore, is not fixed to a physical area or legal status, but also economic opportunity, which is a key factor for defining “home” as economic security would lead to family security.

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 603

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) 4) Nationhood: Mon diasporas generation 1 had to leave their motherland which is the land of Mon ethnics, even though not as the Mon Kingdom like in the historical period. However, they love and related to their homeland as owners and wished to return to live in Mon State.

“...Father and Mother supported the movement of Mon National Liberation Army of the New Mon State Party. Our family is close to Mr. Shwe Kyin, the leader of the New Mon State Party. He once spent a night at our home to promulgate his national liberation ideal. When Mon soldiers got injured, my parents would help them, hoping that their national liberation would be successful and get the motherland back from Burma…” (Namphueng (pseudonym), Mon diaspora generation 2) “Home” as defined by Mon diasporas generation 1, apart from referring to their origin in Mon State, is also related to the concept of “nationhood”. Most Mon diasporas generations 2 – 4 still have ethnic awareness and the feeling that they are Mons and have their history and kingdom. But the later generations do not want to liberate their nation like the first generation. There is only a former Mon soldier in generation 2, who once joined the national liberation, mentioned about “home” in relation to nationhood; as he put it: “…I would like the Mon land back. It’s ok if we are not ruled by a monarch like before. We could have our own president because that’s our home. I have to go back. Home can only be in my heart for now… (former Mon soldier, heir of Mon diaspora generation 2). In sum, the notions of “home” given by Mon disaporas associated with various factors including legal status in Thailand, assimilating to Thai society, economic opportunity as well as nationhood. Such factors influence individual experiences of the disasporas as well as shape the meanings of “home” given by these people.

Discussions Definitions of “home” given by Mon diasporas at Baan Wang Ka in all 4 generations were constructed based on such factors as legal status, assimilation to Thai society, economic opportunity, and the background of nationhood which relates with social context and time of migration. These differences result in variations in definitions of “home” among the generations despite the shared status of being diasporas. All in all, the discussion reflects the complexity of the notions of “home” given by Mon diasporas which related to their social and political contexts, migration periods as well as

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 604

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) individual characteristics and experiences. Such definitions are constructed and multiple – rather than fixed and specific. On another score, the traditional diaspora approach associating the notion of “home” with the specific physical area – homeland - provides a rather limited explanation. The modern approach emphasizing that diasporas may be closely related to many places thus the meanings of “home” are rather diverse and they are not necessarily fixed to only one specific place has more explaining .

References Aratoh Ohchima. (1993). Life Ceremony and Identity of Mons in Thailand: The case study Baan Pong District . MA Thesis, Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University.

Bundit Grivijitr. (2006). The Life of Diaspora: Karenni Diaspora in Mae Hong Son. MA Thesis, Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University. Juajan Wongpolganan. (2006). Identity Construction of Mon Women at Thai-Burma Border and their Interactions with the Burmese and the Thai: The Case of Mon Community in Kanchanaburi. PhD Dissertation, College of Interdisciplinary Studies, Thammasat University.

Kanlaya Chularattakirn. (2008). Narrative of Displacement : A case of Displaced Ethnic Hmong Women in Mueang District Chiang Mai Province. MA Thesis, Graduate School, Chiang Mai University.

Kasem Penpinan. (2009). “Confusion of the Cultural Studies” in Confusion of the Cultural Studies. Overhaul Cultural Studies, ed Suwanna Griahggraiphet, : Princess Maha Chakri Sirindharn Anthropology Centre, pp 11-105.

Monchai Phongsiri and Maniemai Thogyou. (2013). “Generic Immigrant or Diaspora?: Negotiation on Self-defining of Thai Diaspora in Thai Society”. Journal of Mekong Societies. 9(2), p1-24.

Natcha Sagunngam. (2012). Mon’s Vernacular Architectural Dynamic : Case Study at Ban Phandin Tham Phandin Thong, Moo2, Nongloo Sub-district, Sangknlaburi District, Kanchanaburi Province. MA Thesis, Department of Architecture, Graduate School, Silpakorn University.

Ong Bunjoon. (2007). Mon Women Power and Royal Court. Bangkok : Matichon.

Ong Bunjoon. (2007). Mon Women in the Royal Court of Siam during Ratanagosin Period 1782-1932. MA Thesis ,Graduate Shool, Srinakarinwirot University.

Orawan Thabsakul. (2003). Luang Por Uttama: Culture Hero and The Social and Cultural change of Diaspora Mon Village in Sangkhiburi. MA hesis,Graduate School, Silpakorn University.

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 605

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) Pallop Suriyagol Na Ayudhaya. (1999). Ethnic Identity and Cultural Change of Mons: A Case Study of Jedethong Village, Thambol Klong Kwai, Samkok, . MA Thesis, Faculty of Political Science, University.

Pornpimon Trichot. (1999). The Burmese Government and the Ethnic Minority Groups. Bangkok: Thammasat University.

Ratana Tosakul. (2009). Huan Kaie Yoo Oo Kaie Non Dtong Jon Jam La: Lao Refugees in the United States in Confusion of the Cultural Studies, Overhaul Cultural Studies, ed. Suwanna Griahggraiphet. Bangkok: Princess Maha Chakri Sirindharn Anthropology Centre, pp 179-361.

Sipim Sornbanlangs and Surachart Bamrungsuk. (2012). “The Sources of Migrant Workers from Myanmar in Thailand”, Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Burapha University 20(33):19-37.

Sujit Wongthes. (2004). Mae Klong River Basin : History Ethnic “Mon Kinship”. Bangkok: Matichon

Sukanya Baonoed. (2009). Mon in Kingdom of Siam. Bangkok: Limited Partnership Sri Bun Computer.

Sukanya Baonoed. (2006). Identity for nation of Mon Migrants : A Case Study of Transnational Workers in Samut Sakorn Province. MA Thesis, Faculty of Political Science Chulalongkorn University.

Sujitra Plianroong. (2010). Communication for the Construction, Maintenance and Negotiation of A Monness Identity by A Diasporic Ethnic Mon Group Under Globalization Currents. PhD Dissertation, Faculty of Communication Arts Chulalongkorn University.

Suporn Ohcharoen. (1998). Mons in Thailand. Bangkok: Thammasat University.

Wasana La-angplew. (2003). Marginality and Social Space Construction of Displaced People: A Case Study of Dara-ang in Chiang Nao District. MA Thesis, Graduate School, Chiang Mai University.

Yos Santasombat. (2008). Power Space and Ethnic Identity: Political Culture of Nation State in Thai Society. Bangkok: Princess Maha Chakri Sirindharn Anthropology Centre.

Interview

A coffee shop owner [Pseudonym]. (27 October 2014). Interview. Baan Wang Ka.

Apong [Pseudonym]. (29 October 2015). Interview. Baan Wang Ka.

Bikhaliang [Pseudonym]. (3 November 2014). Interview. Baan Wang Ka.

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 606

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings) Former Mon Soldier [Pseudonym]. (29 January 2015). Interview. Baan Wang Ka.

Mudoeng [Pseudonym]. (10 January 2015). Interview. Baan Wang Ka.

Namphueng Sawatsuk. (25 October 2014). Interview. Baan Wang Ka.

Pa-nga [Pseudonym]. (6 January 2014). Interview. Baan Wang Ka.

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 607