Contributor, Editor, Supervisor
2,313
edits
Difference between revisions of "Sinnamjai (Thailand)"
no edit summary
Editor2018 (talk | contribs) |
Editor2018 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
''Sinnamjai'' should be distinguished from a patronage network, though it may subtly lubricate relations among actors within such a network. In a formal patronage network, patrons protect and take care of their subjects while the subjects give labour, property and loyalty in return. Patrons who rank highly in the social hierarchy will bestow ''sinnamjai'' on their subjects when the latter fulfil their assigned tasks. Informally, however, subjects or low-ranking officials may approach other powerful patrons who can guarantee protection (Rabhibhat 1998<ref> Rabhibhat, A. 1998. '' Rabob uppatham lae krongsarngchonchan samai rattanakosintorn ton''. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press | ''Sinnamjai'' should be distinguished from a patronage network, though it may subtly lubricate relations among actors within such a network. In a formal patronage network, patrons protect and take care of their subjects while the subjects give labour, property and loyalty in return. Patrons who rank highly in the social hierarchy will bestow ''sinnamjai'' on their subjects when the latter fulfil their assigned tasks. Informally, however, subjects or low-ranking officials may approach other powerful patrons who can guarantee protection (Rabhibhat 1998<ref> Rabhibhat, A. 1998. '' Rabob uppatham lae krongsarngchonchan samai rattanakosintorn ton''. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press | ||
</ref>). In this form of relationship, subjects are expected to repay their patrons by presenting ''sinnamjai''. This reflects the emphasis placed by Thai society on the practice of returning favours which, culturally, has a moral implication. Hence, giving ''sinnamjai'' to other people is, by virtue of the interpretation of returning a favour, morally acceptable in Thai society. The moral roots of ''sinnamjai'' lie in the values of big-heartedness, generosity and sacrifice, underpinned by Buddhist virtues such as the four ''sangaha vatthu'' (‘the four principles of service’—generosity, kindly speech, helping others, impartiality), to which Thai people attribute great importance. These values justify the giver’s moral motivation in presenting ''sinnamjai''. | </ref>). | ||
In this form of relationship, subjects are expected to repay their patrons by presenting ''sinnamjai''. This reflects the emphasis placed by Thai society on the practice of returning favours which, culturally, has a moral implication. Hence, giving ''sinnamjai'' to other people is, by virtue of the interpretation of returning a favour, morally acceptable in Thai society. The moral roots of ''sinnamjai'' lie in the values of big-heartedness, generosity and sacrifice, underpinned by Buddhist virtues such as the four ''sangaha vatthu'' (‘the four principles of service’—generosity, kindly speech, helping others, impartiality), to which Thai people attribute great importance. These values justify the giver’s moral motivation in presenting ''sinnamjai''. | |||
In traditional times, ''sinnamjai'' not only was a formal component of the established patronage network but also operated informally in the personal relationships between people of different status in the social hierarchy. Even when the feudal system collapsed in the early nineteenth century, the cultural and moral roots of ''sinnamjai'' remained firm. They were however adjusted to fit new social realities. During the transition to the modern state, ‘the patrons who used to benefit from their subjects’ provision through the self-remuneration system had to adapt themselves by relying upon an extralegal channel to maintain their gains’ (Bowie 2008:476-77<ref> Bowie, K. 2008. ‘Vote Buying and Village Outrage in an Election in Northern Thailand: Recent Legal Reforms in Historical Context,’ ''The Journal of Asian Studies'', 67(2):469-511 | In traditional times, ''sinnamjai'' not only was a formal component of the established patronage network but also operated informally in the personal relationships between people of different status in the social hierarchy. Even when the feudal system collapsed in the early nineteenth century, the cultural and moral roots of ''sinnamjai'' remained firm. They were however adjusted to fit new social realities. During the transition to the modern state, ‘the patrons who used to benefit from their subjects’ provision through the self-remuneration system had to adapt themselves by relying upon an extralegal channel to maintain their gains’ (Bowie 2008:476-77<ref> Bowie, K. 2008. ‘Vote Buying and Village Outrage in an Election in Northern Thailand: Recent Legal Reforms in Historical Context,’ ''The Journal of Asian Studies'', 67(2):469-511</ref>). The relationship between patron and subject turned, therefore, into one linking the bureaucrats as a service provider with the people as a service receiver. In other words, the subject turned into a client who expected good service. | ||
One example of this relationship is when a bureaucrat exercises his or her authority to specifically and swiftly deliver a service to a certain client. However, the relationship depends also upon the bureaucrat’s willingness to accept ''sinnamjai''. Hence ''sinnamjai'', within this relationship, operates as a lubricant that facilitates the expectations of both parties since the client is expected to present ''sinnamjai'', symbolically or materially, to the bureaucrat. In this regard, simultaneous action reflects both an expression of gratitude and the practice of returning a favour. | |||
Presenting ''sinnamjai'' also highlights the use of practical solutions to deal with the bureaucracy. In certain contexts, and especially when state bureaucrats are involved, presenting ''sinnamjai'' may be regarded as bribery. Therefore—and especially after 1997, the year that marked the beginning of political reforms in contemporary Thai politics—a series of anti-corruption laws was enacted. These include the fundamental anti-corruption law of 1999 that determines the conditions under which politicians and state bureaucrats may receive gifts or other benefits. They may, for example, accept a gift worth up to (but no more than) 3,000 Thai Baht (about €70) as long as the gift meets professional and moral obligations. However, there is no clear definition of such moral obligations. Consequently, presenting ''sinnamjai'' can be interpreted differently depending on the context, and this demonstrates the ambivalent character of ''sinnamjai''. Presenting ''sinnamjai'' has been practised and, to some extent, accepted not only by Thais but also by foreigners visiting Thailand. For instance, some foreign visitors have presented ''sinnamjai'' to Thai officers in recognition of special services (ThaiPBS 2017<ref> ThaiPBS News. 2017. ''Makkutesk Songlka riakrong tormor yokleurk “Nguen sinnamjai” hettamlaikarntongtiaw,’ '' ThaiPBS, 8 July, https://news.thaipbs.or.th/content/264194</ref>). | Presenting ''sinnamjai'' also highlights the use of practical solutions to deal with the bureaucracy. In certain contexts, and especially when state bureaucrats are involved, presenting ''sinnamjai'' may be regarded as bribery. Therefore—and especially after 1997, the year that marked the beginning of political reforms in contemporary Thai politics—a series of anti-corruption laws was enacted. These include the fundamental anti-corruption law of 1999 that determines the conditions under which politicians and state bureaucrats may receive gifts or other benefits. They may, for example, accept a gift worth up to (but no more than) 3,000 Thai Baht (about €70) as long as the gift meets professional and moral obligations. However, there is no clear definition of such moral obligations. Consequently, presenting ''sinnamjai'' can be interpreted differently depending on the context, and this demonstrates the ambivalent character of ''sinnamjai''. Presenting ''sinnamjai'' has been practised and, to some extent, accepted not only by Thais but also by foreigners visiting Thailand. For instance, some foreign visitors have presented ''sinnamjai'' to Thai officers in recognition of special services (ThaiPBS 2017<ref> ThaiPBS News. 2017. ''Makkutesk Songlka riakrong tormor yokleurk “Nguen sinnamjai” hettamlaikarntongtiaw,’ '' ThaiPBS, 8 July, https://news.thaipbs.or.th/content/264194</ref>). | ||
''Sinnamjai'' is often linked with electoral politics. In an opinion survey conducted in the run-up to Thailand’s 2011 parliamentary elections, Pankaew (2011<ref> Pankaew, A. 2011. ‘Changes, Continuity, and Hope: A Note from the 2011 General Election,’ ''King Prajadhipok Institute Journal'', 9(2): 29-47 (in Thai) | |||
</ref>) together with King Prajadhipok’s Institute examined public attitudes to the behaviour of members of parliament (MPs). Respondents were asked to rank the importance of a range of MPs’ activities. The survey results found that respondents still considered activities related to ''sinnamjai'' as important, with more than 50 percent choosing ‘important’ or ‘most important.’ | ''Sinnamjai'' is often linked with electoral politics. In an opinion survey conducted in the run-up to Thailand’s 2011 parliamentary elections, Pankaew (2011<ref> Pankaew, A. 2011. ‘Changes, Continuity, and Hope: A Note from the 2011 General Election,’ ''King Prajadhipok Institute Journal'', 9(2): 29-47 (in Thai) </ref>) together with King Prajadhipok’s Institute examined public attitudes to the behaviour of members of parliament (MPs). Respondents were asked to rank the importance of a range of MPs’ activities. The survey results found that respondents still considered activities related to ''sinnamjai'' as important, with more than 50 percent choosing ‘important’ or ‘most important.’ | ||
The table illustrates that ''sinnamjai'' helps to facilitate the relationship between politicians and voters. Such a relationship is multidimensional: it not only reflects the satisfaction of voters’ expectations but is also seen as expressing politicians’ big-heartedness and good-will. At the same time, ''sinnamjai'' is subject to the prevailing vote-buying discourse. It is therefore not possible clearly to determine whether presenting ‘sinnamjai‘ in a political context is a form of corrupt practice or just an expression of kind-heartedness. The latter can be justified by moral and cultural underpinnings. This demonstrates the ambivalence in the exchange aspect of reciprocity (Lebra 1975). | The table illustrates that ''sinnamjai'' helps to facilitate the relationship between politicians and voters. Such a relationship is multidimensional: it not only reflects the satisfaction of voters’ expectations but is also seen as expressing politicians’ big-heartedness and good-will. At the same time, ''sinnamjai'' is subject to the prevailing vote-buying discourse. It is therefore not possible clearly to determine whether presenting ‘sinnamjai‘ in a political context is a form of corrupt practice or just an expression of kind-heartedness. The latter can be justified by moral and cultural underpinnings. This demonstrates the ambivalence in the exchange aspect of reciprocity (Lebra 1975). | ||
Moreover, ''sinnamjai'' is closely linked to powerful provincial strongmen (''pumeebarameenaichangwat''; ผู้มีบารมีในจังหวัด). Sawasdee (2006:32<ref> Sawasdee, S. 2006. ''Thai Political Parties in the Age of Reform''. Bangkok: Institute of Public Policy Studies | |||
</ref>) argues that a culture of political patronage is more commonly found in rural than in urban areas. Furthermore, Eiawsriwong (2017<ref> Eiawsriwong, N. 2017. ''Rabob upatham nai kanmuangthai'', Prachatai, 6 July (in Thai) https://prachatai.com/journal/2017/06/72194 | Moreover, ''sinnamjai'' is closely linked to powerful provincial strongmen (''pumeebarameenaichangwat''; ผู้มีบารมีในจังหวัด). Sawasdee (2006:32<ref> Sawasdee, S. 2006. ''Thai Political Parties in the Age of Reform''. Bangkok: Institute of Public Policy Studies</ref>) argues that a culture of political patronage is more commonly found in rural than in urban areas. Furthermore, Eiawsriwong (2017<ref> Eiawsriwong, N. 2017. ''Rabob upatham nai kanmuangthai'', Prachatai, 6 July (in Thai) https://prachatai.com/journal/2017/06/72194 | ||
</ref>) and Haas (1978:284-6<ref> Haas, D. F. 1978. ‘Clientelism and Rural Development in Thailand,’ ''Rural Sociology'', 43(4):280-92 | </ref>) and Haas (1978:284-6<ref> Haas, D. F. 1978. ‘Clientelism and Rural Development in Thailand,’ ''Rural Sociology'', 43(4):280-92 | ||
</ref>) see patronage networks as a channel leading to resources and favours. Provincial strongmen who start their careers by building up public support as local politicians, satisfy their voters’ expectations by securing government funding for local development projects that benefit their constituents, and this in turn enables the politicians to build charismatic popularity (''baramee''; บารมี). Voters return the favour by voting for the politicians. Despite its similarity to pork-barrel politics (Sidman 2017<ref> Sidman, A. 2017. ‘[[Pork barreling]],’ Global Informality Project, 6 September, http://in-formality.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pork_barreling</ref>), such a phenomenon can be differently perceived when seen through the prism of ''sinnamjai''. The use of state funding to develop one’s own constituency can be portrayed as a provincial strongman showing his big-heartedness. Voters see it as morally acceptable for them to return the favour by casting their votes and expressing their loyalty. In this respect, ''sinnamjai''plays a crucial role in sustaining provincial strongmen’s popularity. | </ref>) see patronage networks as a channel leading to resources and favours. Provincial strongmen who start their careers by building up public support as local politicians, satisfy their voters’ expectations by securing government funding for local development projects that benefit their constituents, and this in turn enables the politicians to build charismatic popularity (''baramee''; บารมี). Voters return the favour by voting for the politicians. | ||
Despite its similarity to pork-barrel politics (Sidman 2017<ref> Sidman, A. 2017. ‘[[Pork barreling]],’ Global Informality Project, 6 September, http://in-formality.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pork_barreling</ref>), such a phenomenon can be differently perceived when seen through the prism of ''sinnamjai''. The use of state funding to develop one’s own constituency can be portrayed as a provincial strongman showing his big-heartedness. Voters see it as morally acceptable for them to return the favour by casting their votes and expressing their loyalty. In this respect, ''sinnamjai''plays a crucial role in sustaining provincial strongmen’s popularity. | |||
Nishizaki (2005:186-8<ref> Nishizaki, Y. 2005. ‘The Moral Origin of Thailand’s Provincial Strongmen: The Case of BanharnSilpa-Archa,’ ''Southeast Asia Research'', 13(2):184-234 | Nishizaki (2005:186-8<ref> Nishizaki, Y. 2005. ‘The Moral Origin of Thailand’s Provincial Strongmen: The Case of BanharnSilpa-Archa,’ ''Southeast Asia Research'', 13(2):184-234 | ||
</ref>) argues that, while provincial strongmen are often associated with the use of violence in electoral politics, many build their power and popularity without resorting to violence. One way in which they do so is by expressing gratitude to their hometowns by presenting ''sinnamjai'' in various forms such as donating money to charities or sponsoring construction works. Thinbangtiaw (2010:196<ref> | </ref>) argues that, while provincial strongmen are often associated with the use of violence in electoral politics, many build their power and popularity without resorting to violence. One way in which they do so is by expressing gratitude to their hometowns by presenting ''sinnamjai'' in various forms such as donating money to charities or sponsoring construction works. Thinbangtiaw (2010:196<ref> | ||
Thinbangtiaw, O. 2010. ‘Political Economy on the Local Power Structure in Eastern Part of Thailand,’ ''Ratchaphruek Journal'', 28(3):184-209 (in Thai)</ref>) argues that such practices typify an accumulation of social capital rooted in the combination of big-heartedness, generosity, sacrifice and trust. These values fit well with Thai culture as shown above. | Thinbangtiaw, O. 2010. ‘Political Economy on the Local Power Structure in Eastern Part of Thailand,’ ''Ratchaphruek Journal'', 28(3):184-209 (in Thai)</ref>) argues that such practices typify an accumulation of social capital rooted in the combination of big-heartedness, generosity, sacrifice and trust. These values fit well with Thai culture as shown above. | ||
Recent research by Satitniramai et al. (2013<ref> Satitniramai, A., Pawakarapand, N. and Mukdawijitra, Y. 2013. Final Report: Re-examining the Political Landscape of Thailand. Bangkok: Thai Health Promotion Foundation (Thai Health) (in Thai) | Recent research by Satitniramai et al. (2013<ref> Satitniramai, A., Pawakarapand, N. and Mukdawijitra, Y. 2013. Final Report: Re-examining the Political Landscape of Thailand. Bangkok: Thai Health Promotion Foundation (Thai Health) (in Thai) | ||
</ref>) affirms that the relationship between patrons and their clients is seen not so much as hierarchical but rather as horizontal, with its focus on caring-for-each-other exemplifying the moral implications of ''sinnamjai''. Moreover, there is an old saying in Thai, ‘Remember to return a favour.’ Accordingly, presenting ''sinnamjai'' is seen as being more about returning the favour than about vote-buying. Put another way, ''sinnamjai'' is the act of giving that expresses the giver’s goodwill. Hence, the receiver should also act in a reciprocal manner. In this way, ''sinnamjai'' helps to oil the wheels, containing moral connotations that motivate reciprocity which, in its turn and to a certain degree, sustains the patronage relationship in Thai society. | </ref>) affirms that the relationship between patrons and their clients is seen not so much as hierarchical but rather as horizontal, with its focus on caring-for-each-other exemplifying the moral implications of ''sinnamjai''. Moreover, there is an old saying in Thai, ‘Remember to return a favour.’ Accordingly, presenting ''sinnamjai'' is seen as being more about returning the favour than about vote-buying. Put another way, ''sinnamjai'' is the act of giving that expresses the giver’s goodwill. Hence, the receiver should also act in a reciprocal manner. In this way, ''sinnamjai'' helps to oil the wheels, containing moral connotations that motivate reciprocity which, in its turn and to a certain degree, sustains the patronage relationship in Thai society. | ||