Published on December 23, 2005

Is Thai society suffering from collective amnesia when it comes to certain vital facts related to the distant and not so distant past?

Take for example the December 26 tsunami of a year ago. Soon after the waves struck, killing 8,000-plus people in Thailand and many more in Indonesia and beyond, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra ordered an investigation into the handling of the disaster by the Meteorology Department. The goal was to find out if the department could have taken steps that would have saved countless lives.

By March, the chief of the investigation, Smith Dharmmasaroj, decided that it would be better for Thailand if no report was published on his team’s findings. Letting the truth out, he reasoned, could have led to an avalanche of lawsuits from relatives of the thousands of foreigners killed in the calamity, for possible negligence on behalf of the Thai government.

Ask most Thais today what they think about the investigation or its unpublished findings and they are likely to respond “What investigation? What report?”

At commemorations for the first anniversary of the tragedy on Monday, we will watch beautiful fireworks and see scenes of Miss Universe taking part in the event in Thailand. But the media and the public will not be asking about the report or whether some people have failed so many of us in incalculable ways by not issuing a warning about the tsunami as it approached Thailand – if they even tried to.

A similar case of our choosing to remember only part of the story involves the ongoing confrontation between media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul and Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Many appear not to be at all aware of – or are unconcerned about – the fact that not long ago Sondhi was one of Thaksin’s biggest self-appointed cheerleaders.

Then there’s this general forgetfulness about many incidences of Siam’s aggression against its neighbours, including the torching of Luang Prabang, invasion of Cambodia and brutal wars for and annexation of Pattani.

It is difficult to account for all these examples of such a selective collective memory. Yet it would be too simplistic to dismiss Thai society as forgetful. Rather, Thais forget things when it’s convenient to do so and choose to remember things that are useful to them.

While most Thais don’t have a good grasp of their country’s violent treatment of other peoples, their memories of when they have been the recipients of aggression are clear. All Thais know that the Burmese invaded and destroyed the old Siamese capital of Ayutthaya.

Why do we know about some events but not others?

It’s because the mainstream elite and historians realise that reminding Thais of our historical pain serves to unite us. It serves the purpose of inducing patriotism, as they see it.

They do not, however, sufficiently appreciate how we can also learn about who we are by knowing more about incidents in which we have been the aggressors. Many people today, out of sheer ignorance of history, still naively talk about how there has been “centuries of peaceful coexistence” between Thai Buddhists and Malay Muslims in Pattani.

We see similar afflictions of historical amnesia in regard to the case of Sondhi vs Thaksin. Five years ago, when Thaksin was so popular, many people who now criticise him were voting for him and cheering him on. The spectacle of witnessing a rich businessman adding political clout to his economic power was too intriguing to resist being a part of.

Now, after a number allegations involving corruption, human rights abuses and nepotism, on top of the shaky economy, the Thai public is willing to listen to anyone who can prominently point a finger of blame at Thaksin – never mind if that person was a major ally of Thaksin just a short time ago.

So what of the unknown findings of the investigation into the tsunami?

Alas, many Thais hold to a rather twisted notion of nationalism. They, along with the majority of the local media, appear to be in effect saying that there’s no point in crying over spilled milk when it comes to the events of December 26, 2004. Many agree with Smith that bygones should be bygones, and are inclined towards fatalism.

As for justice for those killed, as to whether the department may not have tried to issue a warning on the morning of December 26 for fear of disrupting the tourism industry if no tsunami occurred, such issues simply don’t feature prominently in their collective consciousness.

How then can Thai society learn from past mistakes if the memories of so many of us are selective and easily manipulated? Is there any way out, or will people be forever caught in this cycle of remembrance and forgetfulness?

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Post your comment to this story here