FRAMING THE COLOURS OF THAINESS: THE EMERGENCE OF YELLOW AND RED THAI IDENTITIES
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science
in the University of Canterbury
by
Suthida Pattanasrivichian
University of Canterbury
2016 i
To my parents, Jim, Na Yai, and Pa O
Thank you very much!
ii
Abstract
This thesis explores the movement of the Yellow and Red Shirts in their early periods. Sondhi Limthongkul created the Muang Thai Rai Supda group. This was the initial group of the Yellow Shirts, while the Red Shirts was originally started as the several anti-coup groups.
In a successful social movement the leaders need to ensure long lasting support, thus a large number of participants are vital to enlarge and strengthen the movements. To achieve this, framing becomes a significant tool for the leader to select and highlight effective issues and events, and frame them to resonate with their followers and bystanders. In Thai social movements, frames have been employed into many movements, particularly nationalist frames. Four nationalist symbols the king, nation, religion, and democracy/modernization metaframes have become sources of mobilizing frames which stem from these metaframes.
To understand social movements in Thailand, the cases of Sondhi Limthongkul and the anti-coup groups were selected for investigation through social movement and framing theories, including the Thai metaframes concept. The questions asked by this research focus on how the metaframes and mobilizing frames of Sondhi Limthongkul and the anti-coup groups were applied, focused on, and adjusted in their early movements. In addition, the different identities which derived from framing are questioned and explored. To investigate the framing tactics the timeline of the two studied cases are divided into two phases. In each phase, the focus of frames in each group is revealed to see the differences of frames, framing tactics, and the diverse identities of Sondhi and the anti-coup groups.
The results tell that the focus on the metaframes and mobilizing frames of the two groups are different. The movement of Sondhi concentrated on the king, religion, and nation metaframes, while the democracy/modernization and nation metaframes were emphasized by the anti-coup groups. The mobilizing frames that
iii
were mostly used by Sondhi were the king, Somdet Pra Sangkarat, and corruption, while the anti-coup groups concentrated on the anti-coup, anti-amat, and people s democracy mobilizing frames. The problem definition, causal attribution, and moral’ evaluation functions are heavily focused on in the framing of the two groups. Notably, the two groups enhance the power of the frames by promoting them together as a package, while the culprits were blamed individually for clear and simple recognition.
Another major result of this study is that the different focuses on frames bring about different identities. Sondhi Limthongkul focuses on the three nationalist symbols of the king, religion, and nation, and persuades his participants to protect these symbols. Thus, his identity is focused on being a true Thai . In contrast, the democracy symbol is emphasized the most in the framing of the anti-coup groups. They demand the restoration of democracy, the 1997 constitution, and the elected government. As a result, the democratic Thai is framed as the identity of the anti- coup groups. The different identity of the two groups results from the different focus on the metaframes and mobilizing frames. Framing identity could create strong bonds between the movement and the participants and increase support. He cost of doing so was a deeply rooted sometimes violent conflict based on diverging identities.
iv
Table of content
Page Acknowledgement i Abstract ii Table of contents ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv List of tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... vii List of figures …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... viii Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Chapter 2 Literature………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… review and methodology .. 13 2.1.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... Literature review 13 2.1.1 Social movement concept ………………………………………………………………… 13 What are social……………………………………………………………………………………. movements? 12 Emergence of social m……………………………………………………………………….. 15 ……………………………………………………………… Participation in social movements 16 ovements………………………………………………………… Leadership in social movements 18 ……………………………………………………… 2.1.2. Frames and social movements 21 2.1.3. Mobilizing frames and Metaframes ………………………………………………………… 23 Mobilizing frames ………………………………………………………………… 23 Metaframes ………………………………………………………….. 25 ………………………………………………………………………………. 2.1.4. The Thai metaframes 28 The pre-official……… nationalism……………………………………………………………………………….. era 29 The official nationalism……………………………………………………………………………… of King Vajiravudh 33 …………………………………………………………. The chat idea 33 …………………………………………. The religion idea 36 ………………………………………………………………………………….. The king idea 40 …………………………………………………………………………….. The origin of democracy in Thailand 44 ………………………………………………………………………………….. The nationalism of the P s Party 48 ………………………………………………….. The nationalism of Phibulsongkram 51 eople’ ……………………………………………… The Seri Thai 55 ………………………………………………… The nationalism of Sarit Thanarat 57 movement…………………………………………………………………. The 1973 student 62 …………………………………………………… Conclusion 63 movement…………………………………………………………... 2.2. Research questions and hypotheses...... 65 2.3. ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 66 The cases 67 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………….. The case of Sondhi Limthongkul 67 …………………………………………………………………………………………… The case of the anti-coup group 68 …………………………………………………….. Data 69 ……………………………………………………... The case of Sondhi Limthongkul 69 source……………………………………………………………………………………….. The case of the anti-coup group 71 ……………………………………………………. Method of analysis 72 …………………………………………………….. Mobilizing frames 72 ……………………………………………………………………………... Metaframes 74 ………………………………………………………………………….. 2.4 Structure of the thesis 75 …………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………..
v
Chapter 3 Framing and identity of Sondhi Limthongkul .. 77 Sondhi Limthongkul and Thaksin Shinawatra in the old days 79 Muang Thai Rai Supda and the beginning of the…………………………………………………... news war 83 In the first phase at Thammasat University ………………………………. 88 1. The corruption mobilizing frame ………………………………... 88 …………………………………………………………. 2. The monarchy mobilizing frame 96 …………………………………………………………… 3. The Somdet Pra Sangkarat mobilizing frame 102 ……………………………………………………………. 4. The media control mobilizing frame 108 ………………………………………….. 5. The populism mobilizing frame 114 ………………………………………………………. 6. The Thaksin's police state regime mobilizing frame 121 ……………………………………………………………... 7. The violence in the southernmost provinces mobilizing frame 126 ……………………………….. In the second phase at Lumpini Park 133 ………………... 1. The corruption mobilizing frame 135 ………………………………………………………………….. 2. The monarchy mobilizing frame 143 …………………………………………………………… 3. The Somdet Pra Sangkarat mobilizing frame 153 ……………………………………………………………. 4. The media control mobilizing frame 158 ………………………………………….. 5. The populism mobilizing frame 163 ………………………………………………………. 6. The Thaksin's police state regime mobilizing frame 167 ……………………………………………………………... 7. The violence in the southernmost provinces mobilizing frame 170 ……………………………….. The Conclusion 178 ………………... Chapter 4 Framing and identity of the anti-coup groups 187 Thaksin Shinawatra,………………………………………………………………………………………………….. the mastermind of the Red 188 The decline of Thaksin …………………………………………………… 192 Shirts………………………………………... The 19 September 2006 coup 193 Shinawatra……………………………………………………………………... The formation of the anti-coup groups 195 …………………………………………………………………………….. The first phase of the anti-coup groups ...... 198 ……………………………………………………………….. 1. The anti-coup mobilizing frame 198 movement……………………………………...... 2. The anti-amat mobilizing frame 205 …………………………………………………………….. 3. The unproductive Surayud Chulanont government mobilizing frame 214 …………………………………………………………….. 4. The democracy mobilizing frame 220 ……… 5. The media control mobilizing frame 228 people’s …………………………………………….. 6. The Buddhism mobilizing frame 234 ………………………………………………………. 7. The Thaksin mobilizing frame 236 ……………………………………………………………. The second phase of the anti-coup groups 240 ……………………………………………………………….. 1. The anti-coup mobilizing frame 242 movement……………………………………. 2. The anti-amat mobilizing frame 247 …………………………………………………………….. 3. The unproductive Surayud Chulanont government mobilizing frame 254 …………………………………………………………….. 4. The democracy mobilizing frame 257 ……… 5. The media control mobilizing frame 266 people’s ……………………………………………... 6. The Buddhism mobilizing frame 273 ………………………………………………………. 7. The Thaksin mobilizing frame 277 ……………………………………………………………. The 283 ……………………………………………………………….. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
vi
Conclusion 295 Introduction 295 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Research questions and hypotheses …… 296 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Hypothesis 1 297 …………………………………………………………………… Research question 1 and Hypothesis 2 300 …………………………………………………………………………………………………... Research question 2 and Hypothesis 3 302 …………………………………………………………….. Hypothesis 4 308 …………………………………………………………….. Research question 3 and Hypothesis 5 315 …………………………………………………………………………………………………... Hypothesis 6 320 …………………………………………………………….. Practice and Theory 324 …………………………………………………………………………………………………... Limitations of the study 327 …………………………………………………………………………………………… Directions for future research 328 ……………………………………………………………………………………... References 331 …………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
vii
List of Tables
Table Page
1. The study timeline of Sondhi Limthongkul 70
2. The study timeline of the of anti-coup groupscase…………………………………………. case 71
3. The focused mobilizing frames of Sondhi and the anti……………………………………..-coup groups 308
4. The four function framing tactics in the mobilizing frames of Sondhi…………….. and 314 the anti-coup groups
5. The focused metaframes………………………………………………………………………………... and personalization tactics of the two groups 325
………
viii
List of figures
Figure Page
1. The relationships of the three nationalist symbols of Sondhi Limthongkul 317
2. The movement goal of the anti-coup groups …. 319
………………………………………………
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Thaksin Shinawatra, a key Thai political figure, has had an influence on Thai politics for a decade. He was a former prime minister and mastermind of the governments which ruled by his relatives and subordinates. Accordingly, those so-called nominee governments had been protested by his rivals such as the Yellow Shirts, elites, royalists, activists, scholars, Democrat Party, business factions, and the middle class.
From the time Thaksin Shinawatra was elected as prime minister in 2001, politics have been centred around him and his family. Thaksin was the
Thailand sleader of the Thai Rak Thai Party and the twice elected former prime minister who was accused of corruption and of violations of King royal supremacy, serious allegations which led to the overthrow of hisBhumibol s government. Throughout a decade, the battles between Thaksin and his rivals have caused the deeply rooted and sometimes violent conflicts which have widen into many parts of Thai society. The first major opponent of Thaksin which succeeded in uprooting his government was the Alliance of Democracy or the Yellow Shirts. To fight back, the
United FrontPeople s for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) or the Red Shirts was established by Thaksin and his supporters. A lengthy battle, as a result, brought about the deaths and injuries of both the Yellow and Red Shirts. The violent fights between the two groups have appeared in major cities, especially in the voting bases of Thaksin Shinawatra. The frequency of the fight increased during the demonstrations of them. To illustrate the conflicts that led them to a long term battle, in this chapter the backdrop of the two rival groups will be provided.
Political life of Thaksin began in the era of the Democrat-led government of 1997- 2001. The difficulties in the Asian economies in 1997 led then Prime Minister Chuan
2
Leekpai and Finance Minister Tarrin Nummanahaeminda to address the crisis with a pro-liberalization program and by closely following the IMF prescriptions (Dixon
2004 ). The government had been criticized hard over their policies while the dissatisfaction was mostly concentrated on the 1998 bankruptcy reforms and the selling of assets that followed the foreign advice. Several factions started to campaign against the foreign economic programs.
During this time, Thaksin saw a chance and formed the Thai Rak Thai Party to challenge the Democrat Party. He announced the economic nationalist policy to oppose the Western measures and protect local business. Furthermore, Thaksin promised to relieve the debts of the business factions of the elites (2004). Consequently, he was voted prime minister in 2001 and re-elected in 2005. In Hewison s view (Hewison 2010) Thaksin was elected because of his alternative policies to the neo-liberalism of the Democrat Party that had caused massive dissatisfaction among the public. His most famous campaigns (2010) were a universal health care program, a farmer debt moratorium, and soft loans for the community. He became personally popular among the grassroots. For the middle class, he promised to provide them with more credit for small and medium enterprises. Thaksin was the first prime minister who benefitted from the 1997 constitution in that he could have a stronger executive and party system .