FILM AND REAL LIFE 5: THE BANGKOK BOURGEOIS PARTY

--PARTIAL FILMOGRAPHY OF PRAP BOONPAN

1.TWO WORLDS IN ONE WORLD (TAWIPOP NAI EKAPOP) (2004, A+)

2.”POLITICAL” MOVIE (NANG GARNMUANG) (2005, 28 min)

I haven’t seen this film, but the synopsis says that “the film illustrates the meanings of ‘politic’ in Thai society through photographs of historically political events.”

3.THE SPECTRE: 16 YEARS LATER (NANG PHEE: 16 PEE HANG KWAMLANG) (2006, A+)

4.LETTER FROM THE SILENCE (JODMAI JAK KWAMNGIAB) (2006, 5.11 min, A+)

5.THE BANGKOK BOURGEOIS PARTY (KWAM LUKLUN NAI NGAN RUENREANG) (2007, 28.51 min, A+)

(I used to refer to this film as AN INCONVENIENCE IN A HAPPY PARTY)

I don’t know if Prap Boonpan directed other films than these or not. It would be much appreciated if anyone can give more information.

-------------------------------------------------------


--THE BANGKOK BOURGEOIS PARTY talks about many issues, one of which is the fear that there might be a war between the rich and the poor in Thailand.

Recently I just read an article in Prachatai.com which reminds me of THE BANGKOK BOURGEOIS PARTY. The article is an interview with Attachak Sattayanurak, who talks about current class struggles in Thailand.


http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=159


Interview with Attachak Sattayanurak: The Meaning of Ten Million Votes: “The Poor and Class Consciousness”!

Papan Raksritong25 August 2007
News

The referendum on the draft 2007 constitution was not important just as a ritual to either accept or reject the supreme national charter. There are many hidden meanings in the tense, distorted and manipulative political manoeuvring by the powers that be in the past few months. Despite that, more than ten million voters dared to come out and voice their opposition to the powers that be.


Assoc. Prof. Attachak Sattayanurak from the Department of History, Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai University and a member of the Midnight University which has been a major force in the campaign to reject the draft 2007 constitution has this to say about this historic referendum.


Prachatai - What does the result of the referendum tell us?


Attachak - There are many interesting aspects about this referendum. First off, it took place amidst a vehement campaign to promote the endorsement of the draft 2007 constitution. Despite that, ten million people opted to challenge this campaign. It is remarkable how grassroots villagers rose up and I do not think their action could be attributed to the mobilization by the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) or our group (Midnight University).


Our campaign might influence a dozen people in Bangkok, whereas the UDD's campaign might reach a few more, but not all ten million people. In the North, including Chiang Mai and other areas I am familiar with, I heard nothing about allegations of vote buying by the Thai Rak Thai people. We ought to look beyond what the government or the CNS (Council for National Security) imagines. This is not just a matter of pro-Thaksin people.


The two red zones (in which the ‘no' votes were higher) in the North and Northeast are actually the constituencies of the poor whose livelihoods depend on agriculture on the one hand and the informal sector on the other. After 19 September 2006, their two-pronged livelihood has been seriously affected. Just go and ask any of the vendors on the street in Chiang Mai and everyone will tell you that their income has fallen by something in the range of 30-50% after 19 September 2006. As a result, they have vented their frustration and anger (in the referendum). They voted to reject the draft constitution as they felt that the coup and the draft constitution will continue wrecking the economy.


To put it plainly, many of them have not properly read the constitution. What they feel is that the constitution has been backed the army and that will lead political instability. Some may miss the 1997 constitution and as a result voted against the draft 2007 constitution. Nevertheless, this was a class struggle waged by the suffering poor.


It is a fact that our brothers and sisters in the Central Plains, the East or the South are wealthier than those in the North and Northeast. Therefore, if we look beyond the careless thinking put out by the army that their votes were the result of their support for Thaksin, the new government will really have to plan thoroughly on how to tackle income distribution and welfare for the poor. Here the class struggle began, and conflict between the classes will become even more intense.


Class issues are always there and poor people do exist. But now, the poor are starting to become conscious of class issues, and the new government and civil society have to bear this in mind. The middle classes have to learn to understand the poor. Right now, the middle class in Bangkok thinks they are cleverer and use SMS to attack the poor folk on TV.


We have to think anew. Past development has left many poor people to their own devices. Now, these ten million people are yelling "you ought to take care of us, too".


P--All these "red zones" have had unique backgrounds and many of these areas have in the past rejected state authority. Did this play any role in their rejection of the draft constitution?


A--The North and Northeast are significantly different from the South. Of course, Northerners still retain the consciousness of being part of the Lanna Kingdom. But we have been annexed as part of Siam for so long that it is too difficult to resurrect the past. I tend to believe that their rejection of the draft constitution was largely due to their desire to make the agenda of the Northern poor known to the public. There are definitely those in some areas who voted against the draft constitution to show their loyalty to Thaksin, but I think they were the minority.


P--Did incidents from the past play any role in their current decision, such as the abduction of politicians in the Northeast or the Communist smear campaign?


A--There might be some remnant feeling from the cases of Mr. Thong-in Phuripat (Ubon Ratchathani 1906-1949), Mr. Chamlong Daorueang (1910-1949), Mr. Thawin Udon (Roi Et 1909-1949), Mr. Tiang Sirikhan (1909-1952) and Dr. Thongplew Chonlaphum (Samut Sakhon 1912-1949) from the Northeast. Their names still resound, but none from the North. During that time, the Northern MPs were politically less active than MPs in the Northeast including four Northeastern Ministers who were abducted.


In the Northeast, the feeling still remains and there have always been references made to the Phi Bun Uprising during the reign of Rama V, or the cases of the Northeastern MPs or the Communist campaign. But I do not think these historical facts play a more important role than their class consciousness.


P--With this sign of class consciousness, how should the state react?


A--The CNS and the government have to be more cautious and humble. With humility, candidates for the next Senate could be slightly better even though the recruitment structure is inherently weak. For the rest, they have to careful about their role in providing services and control.


One remnant from Thaksin is undeniably the reshaping of state mechanisms to provide extensive services to the villagers and the privatization of control or administration such as the introduction of CEO and marketing systems in place of bureaucratic systems.


This state reengineering cannot be undone. The new government has to live with it and ought to be aware that this state reengineering is not a personal matter of Thaksin or by Abhisit (Democrat Party leader). Don't pretend to say you can do better than Thaksin and that you can provide people with free education. Don't go looking for votes based on false promises. At least, you cannot now reject this legacy of state reengineering by Thaksin, so you simply have to capitalize on it and make it serve the people even better.


P--What should be the next political move?


A--Now that our poor brothers and sisters have voted against the draft constitution, we have to wait and see how the new state, new constitution or new political parties will react, how they will change their role in providing services and control.


To mobilize now is premature and may produce weak results. I have no idea what the thinking is of the student anti-coup group, or the 19 Sept group.


As for the Midnight University, we will keep monitoring the proposed laws related to the constitution, the draft Internal Security Act, etc. I would like to reiterate here that the Midnight University has not played that big a role in triggering the ten million votes.


P--Looking back to the past, coupled with an analysis of the current situation, what do you think will be the long-term changes?


A--If the new coalition, the military and those political factions behind the 2007 constitution, are clever enough and understand the dynamics of Thai society, then after they form a new government, the first thing they must do is to promote public participation. For example, if the villagers submit complaints to the Senate, they have to act promptly in order to minimize class tension. This is my dream. But I am not so hopeful as their previous actions have proven that they are not that clever.


If they do not perform well, their honeymoon period may last just five or six months. And we ought to keep a close watch. After that the conflicts will get heightened until the government or the coalition becomes too weak to do anything. I cannot think of what will happen then. It could be that all the rifts will get entangled across the board, or the villagers will rise up. Or there could be internal conflicts within the military and this may lead to another coup.


Therefore, if we want to contain military power, during the first six months after the election, we have to gradually ostracize their role in politics. We have to push them hard to return to the barracks. But to achieve that, we have to work with greater unity.


Translated by Pipob Udomittipong