![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
This study analyzes discourse on conflict resolutions in Thailand’s Deep South. It is based on the critical concept that discourse defines gazing and codification of problem issues with specified language, signs, and taxonomy. Public policy is dependent on these constructed things leading to problematization, agenda-making, and solutions. National strategies and integrated programs to rectify the problem of the Deep South were designed and implemented by Thailand’s 2014–2019 military junta, but in the process, it confronted dialectical relations between discursive policy and other elements. Based on the empirical research, the article shows that the hegemonic discourse of Thailand’s military junta after 2014 coup led to discourse about the efficient command and control of state administration. The consequent dynamic process of discourse had evolved around this discursive power and formulated the strong public policy statement about integrated program to rectify problems in the Deep South. But local people have different argumentation from the state, which is possible to transform to a new policy problematization and contestation of the hegemony.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 This article is based on a research titled “Survey of People’s and Stakeholders’ Opinions on Solutions and Development Policy in the Southern Border Provinces of Thailand”, funded by National Science Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF), Thailand, 2021.
2 The general definition based on this approach is politics in terms of the authoritative allocation of values (and resources) for a society. See David Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).
3 James E. Anderson, Public Policy-Making (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1975); J. Oliver Williams, “Policy Analysis: What Governments Do, Why They Do It, and What Difference It Makes,” American Political Science Review 72, no. 2, (1978): 635–636, doi:10.2307/1954120; Donald S. Van Meter and Carl E. Van Horn, “The Implementation of the Intergovernmental Policy,” in Public Policy Making in A Federal System, ed. Charles O. Jones and Robert D. Thomas. (Beverly Hills: Sages Publications, 1976).
4 Giandomenico Majone, Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
5 Carol Bacchi and Susan Goodwin, Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
6 Frank Fischer and Herbert Gottweis, eds., The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice (Durhan & London: Duke University Press, 2012), 1–25.
7 Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004), 136.
8 Michel Foucault, “The Order of Discourse,” in Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader, ed. Robert Young (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), 48–78.
9 Marianne W. Jørgensen and Louise J. Phillips, Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method (Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2002), 13.
10 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1990), 92.
11 Norman Fairclough, “Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies,” Critical Policy Studies 7, no.2 (2013): 177-197.
12 Ibid., 192.
13 Fred W. Riggs, The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity (Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1966).
14 Kriangchai Pungprawat, “Budgeting System and Bureau of the Budget in Thailand,” Chulalongkorn Journal of Economics 21, no.1 (2009): 49–71.
15 Jón R. Blöndal and Sang-In Kim, “Budgeting in Thailand,” OECD Journal on Budgeting 5, no. 3 (2006): 10.
16 Tippawan Lorsuwannarat, “Integrated Budgeting for Development: Mechanism for Strategy Integration of Five Economic Ministries,” Thai Journal of Public Administration 13, no. 2 (2015): 147–176.
17 Tippawan Lorsuwannarat and Ponlapat Buracom, “Performance Management Reforms in Thailand,” in Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Macao, ed. Evan M. Berman (New York: CRC Press, 2011), 108.
18 Office of the National Counter Corruption Commission, “Research on Reform of Thai Budgetary System for Counter Corruption (การปฏิรูประบบงบประมาณของไทยเพื่อต่อต้านการทุจริต),” ThaiPublica, December 26, 2012, https://thaipublica.org/2012/12/red-flags-corrupt-budgeting-1/(accessed October10, 2022).
19 The Budget Bureau, “On Defining the Approach for Budget Preparation and Budget Calendar of Fiscal Year 2017” (The Internal Memo Submitted to the Prime Minister, October 22, 2015).
20 The Budget Bureau, “Structure of Strategies for Budget Consideration on Fiscal Year 2017” (Internal Document of The Budget Bureau, 2016).
21 The major agencies that have coordinated to develop the integrated programs and strategies are the Budget Bureau (BOB), the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), the National Security Council (NSC) and Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC).
22 The Budget Bureau, “On Budget Ceiling and Strategies for Budgetary Process of Fiscal Year 2017” (The Internal Memo Submitted to Deputy Prime Minister, February 4, 2016). This document is evidence to show that it might be the first time that the National Strategies were designated as six strategies, even before the enactment of the Constitution of 2017.
23 National Strategy Secretariat Office, Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, “National Strategy 2018 - 2037 (Summary)”, https://www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/pdf/National_Strategy_Summary.pdf (accessed October 10, 2022).
24 Cabinet and Royal Gazette Publishing Office, “The Legislation for Preparation of the National Strategies of 2017,” Royal Thai Government Gazette, July 31, 2017; The Secretariat of the Cabinet, Cabinet’s rules about the approach for proposing plans to the Cabinet, Office of the Prime Minister No. 11, December 4, 2017, https://cabinet.soc.go.th/soc/Program2-3.jsp?top_serl=99326907
25 Self-sufficient economy is the royal ideas claimed to be initiated by King Bhumibol (King Rama IX), which support self-sufficient ways of life for the people during his reign, represented by many Royal Projects for the poor. See in Chaipattana Foundation, Philosophy of Sufficient Economy, https://www.chaipat.or.th/eng/concepts-theories/sufficiency-economy-new-theory.html (accessed October 15, 2022).
26 The Budget Bureau, “Budget Document Volume 4: Budget of Expenditures for Fiscal Year of 2017,” in Budget of Expenditures by the Strategic Program Structures (Bangkok: The Budget Bureau, Office of the Prime Minister, 2016), 3.
27 Srisompob Jitpiromsri, Kusuma Kooyai, Romadon Panjor, Fareeda Panjor, and Suthisak Duereh,
“Assessment of the Baseline Data on Basic Needs of the People to Improve Achievement Indicators of Government Policy for Human, Social and Economic Development under the Problem Solution and Development Administration of Sothern Border Provinces between 2017 and 2019” (Research Report, Center for Conflict Studies and Cultural Diversity, Prince of Songkla University, 2019), 10.
28 Cabinet and Royal Gazette Publishing Office, “The Budget Procedure Legislation of 2018,” Royal Thai Government Gazette, November 11, 2018. See legal texts in article 31 and 35.
29 Srisompob Jitpiromsri, Kusuma Kooyai, Arthasith Hastheetham, Romadon Panjor, Suwara Kaewnuy, Fareeda Panjor, Suthisak Duereh, Oracha Rakdee, Parichard Benrit, Surawut Chomaitong, et al., “Executive Summary Report: Monitoring and Evaluation of the Integrated Program for Mobilization of Problem Rectification of Southern Border Provinces during the Fiscal Year of 2017” (Research Report, Center for Conflict Studies and Cultural Diversity, Prince of Songkla University, 2018), 4.
30 The specific English term of this program is officially coined in the national budget document. This article uses this term for the sake of showing “style” and “genre” of discourse. See The Budget Bureau, Thailand’s Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2017 (Bangkok: The Budget Bureau, 2017), 8.
31 Paul Chambers and Napisa Waitoolkiat, “The Role of Security Forces in Thailand’s Deep South Counter-Insurgency,” Asian International Studies Review 20, Special Issue (June 2019): 63.
32 There is another agency called the ‘Forward Command of the Committee for the Mobilization of Solutions to the Southern Border Provinces Problems’ established as a special representative of the government responsible for coordinating between the cabinet, the central government agencies and local agencies to achieve in the integration. The order was issued in 2016. See Royal Thai Government Gazette, “The Order of NCPO’s Chief No. 57/2016 On Improvement of Administration to Solve the Problems of Southern Border Provinces,” (Cabinet and Royal Gazette Publishing Office, September 15, 2016).
33 Srisompob Jitpiromsri, Kusuma Kooyai, Arthasith Hastheetham, Romadon Panjor, Suwara Kaewnuy, Fareeda Panjor, Suthisak Duereh, Oracha Rakdee, Parichard Benrit, Surawut Chomaitong, et al., “Executive Summary Report: Monitoring and Evaluation of the Integrated Program for Mobilization of Problem Rectification of Southern Border Provinces during the Fiscal Year of 2017”, 4-5.
34 Berghof Foundation, Berghof Glossary on Conflict Transformation: 20 Notions for Theory and Practice (Berlin: Berghof Foundation Operations GmbH, 2012), 10-16.
35 Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (1969): 167-191; Joan Galtung, “Cultural Violence,” Journal of Peace Research 27, no. 3. (1990): 291-305; Berghof Foundation, Berghof Glossary on Conflict Transformation: 20 Notions for Theory and Practice, 22-27.
36 Srisompob Jitpiromsri, Kusuma Kooyai, Romadon Panjor, Fareeda Panjor, and Suthisak Duereh, “Assessment of the Baseline Data on Basic Needs of the People to Improve Achievement Indicators of Government Policy for Human, Social and Economic Development under the Problem Solution and Development Administration of Southern Border Provinces between 2017 and 2019,” 14-15; The Staff of Government Secretariat of Peace Dialogues Panel, “Peace Dialogues for the Southern Border Provinces: The Challenges of Struggle for Ideas through the Peaceful Approach, Government Secretariat of Peace Dialogues Panel 2019,” 7.
37 Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 101.
38 Srisompob Jitpiromsri and Suwara Kaewnuy, “Conflict Transformation and Public Opinion in Thailand’s Deep South During the Period from 2015 to 2017,” Asian Affairs: An American Review 45, no.2 (2019), 119-138, doi: 10.1080/00927678.2019.1584281; Peace Survey Academic Network, “Peace Survey: Voice of the People, Voice for Peace, Report for the Press Conference of Peace Survey 5” (Center for Conflict Studies and Cultural Diversity, Prince of Songkla University, Pattani, Thailand, 2019), 34-35, https://cscd.psu.ac.th/en/node/290 (accessed February15, 2023); Peace Survey Academic Network, “Survey of People’s Opinion on Peace Process in the Deep South: PEACE SURVEY 6” (Center for Conflict Studies and Cultural Diversity, Prince of Songkla University, Pattani, Thailand, 2021), 19-20, https://cscd.psu.ac.th/th/node/342 (accessed February 15, 2023).
39 Peace Survey Academic Network, “Survey of People’s Opinion on Peace Process in the Deep South: PEACE SURVEY 6”, 75.
40 Srisompob Jitpiromsri, Kusuma Kooyai, Arthasith Hastheetham, Romadon Panjor, Suwara Kaewnuy, Fareeda Panjor, Suthisak Duereh, Oracha Rakdee, Parichard Benrit, Surawut Chomaitong, et al., “Executive Summary Report: Monitoring and Evaluation of the Integrated Program for Mobilization of Problem Rectification of Southern Border Provinces during the Fiscal Year of 2017.”, 4; Kusuma Kooyai, “Public Opinion and Stakeholders Survey about Policy towards Problem Resolution and Sustainable Development in Southern Border Provinces of Thailand.” (Research Report, Center for Conflict Studies and Cultural Diversity, Institute for Peace Studies, Prince of Songkla University, 2022.
41 Both research projects apply questionnaire survey to ask people who are randomly selected through a systematic sampling design. In 2018, there are 124 questionnaires that embody statements about indicators for the success of the projects in the specific approaches. In 2022, 111 questionnaires that are considered the statements indicating the success of program’s approaches related to projects in those years. The studies in 2018 and 2022 are consistent in terms of sharing seven approaches and related indicators, but the 2022 indicators are somewhat adjusted as there were a group of new projects proposed under these approaches, while some projects are weeded out. However, the meanings and indicators of approaches are similar in both years.
42 Fairclough, “Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies”, 177–197.
43 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, 136.
44 Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge, Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977 (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1980), 133.
45 Fairclough, “Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies”, 177–197.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Kusuma Kooyai
Kusuma Kooyai is the director of the Institute for Peace Studies, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand. She is also Assistant Professor of Communication at Faculty of Communication Sciences. Her academic work focuses on peace communication, discourse analysis, and the role of communication and media in supporting peace processes.
Srisompob Jitpiromsri
Srisompob Jitpiromsri is the director of Deep South Watch (DSW). His previous research publications are about the violent conflict and peacebuilding in the Deep South of Thailand