“They Might Not Be ‘Yellow,’ But They Are Absolutely Not ‘Red’”:

The Political Lives and Subjectivity of Thailand’s Southerners Amidst Political Conflicts1
Anusorn Unno
Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University

Prologue
In the village of Ban Koh of Hua Sai District, Nakornsithammarat Province lives a man with
distinctive characteristics named “Uncle Sun.” He always jogs in the morning along the beach or
on the sidewalk alone while most neighbors are busy with making a living. He always expresses
opinions against those of the majority with no fear for anyone’s dislike. He also shows no care if
the hosts know he attends the fests because he always sits outside and leaves without informing
anyone. His neighbors therefore called him by various names, be they a man of himself or an
insane, depending on whether they want to tease or mock him.
In addition, “Uncle Sun” was regarded as the only PAD (People’s Alliance for
Democracy) or the “Yellow Shirts” of Ban Koh since he is one among few Ban Koh villagers
who attended the PAD’s rallies in town and only his house was installed “Black Plate” for ASTV
channel. Moreover, he was the only Ban Koh villagers who said will have “Vote No” campaign
banner hung in front of his house during the general election of July 3, 2011. His political
nicknames like the PAD and the “Yellow Shirts” then have implication close to his personality
nicknames like a man of himself or an insane.
The story of “Uncle Sun” fundamentally challenges general perception and understanding
on the relationship between “The Southerners” and “Colored-Shirt Politics.” In addition to
Bangkok, the South is said to be a stronghold of the PAD or the “Yellow Shirts” whereas the
North and the Northeast are the heartland of the UDD (United Fronts of Democracy against
Dictatorship) or the “Red Shirts.” However, given that not only is “Uncle Sun” the one among
few Ban Koh villagers who joined the PAD’s rallies but his political nicknames also have
implication like those of his strange personality which are themselves a mock, his being the
“Yellow Shirts” in Ban Koh then is a parody. In addition, some Ban Koh villagers are satisfied
with the policy and performances of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and sympathetic

1
A paper to be presented at the 12th International Conference on Thai Studies (ITCS12), 22-24 April 2014, the
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Please do not cite without the author’s permission.
 2

to the “Red Shirts” although they did not identify themselves with. These led to a question what
makes “Colored-Shirt Politics” in Ban Koh different from what is generally perceived.

Ban Koh: A Challenge to the General Explanation on the “Southerners” and “Colored-
Shirt Politics”
Ban Koh is an alias of a village in Hua Sai district of Nakorn Srithammarat province. It is located
along Hua Sai – Pak Panung road and has its eastern side abutting the Gulf of Thailand’s
seacoast whereas its western one abuts Hua Sai – Pak Panung canal. It has a population of 1,240
and an area of 2,668.75 rai. Most villagers are coastal fishermen and wage laborers whereas the
rest are traders, government officials, and shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) farmers as indicated in
Table 1.
Table 1: Main Occupations in Ban Koh

Main Occupations Average Number (persons)

Coastal Fishermen (owner) 90
Coastal Fishermen (crew) 130
Wage Laborers (shrimp selection) 120
Wage Laborers (shrimp catching) 40
Wage Laborers (fishing net disentangling) 50
Dancers 10
Shrimp farmers 10
Marine animal traders 3
Shrimp traders 3
Government officials 30
Traders 25
Business operators 25
State enterprise workers 10
Brackish Water Fishermen 20
Others 45
Total 611
 3

In average, each Ban Koh household earns 131,645.54 baht a year, mostly (115,859.60
baht or 88% of total income) from wages and salary whereas most of the rest (15,785.94 baht or
12% of total income) are from coastal fishery and shrimp farming. Given that average members
of each household are 4, Ban Koh villagers then have average annual income of 32,911.38 baht.
Although the income is above the poverty line (1,678 baht/month or 20,136 baht/year in 2010), it
is still low as it is below half of the average annual income which is 75,264 baht. Not to mention
that most of them are landless (they sold their land to outsiders during the expansion of tiger
shrimp farms in the area) and in debt. This means that average Ban Koh villagers are
economically insecure.
Ban Koh villagers’ economic status is significant when considering it in the context of
the “Southerners” and “Colored-Shirt Politics.” This is because the explanation of the
“Southerners” personality – Nukleng (bold), broad-minded, freedom lover, and non-state reliance
– (Narong 2544, Akhom 2543) is primarily based on economic factors. Nidhi (2548), for
example, argues that the reason why the “Southerners” are not only hard-headed, cunning, fierce
and stubborn but also distrust and do not want to rely on the state is that they were involved with
commercial production system before the advent of the state and they are economically self-
reliant. This observation is in line with academic writings on community economy in the South
which point out that the inhabitants of this region had been in semi-subsistence and semi-
exchange economic systems before the expansion of the monetary economy and they have
adjusted themselves continually especially in form of production diversification in agriculture
sector. (see Chalita and Anusorn 2546 for example)
However, Ban Koh’s economic history and condition are not in accordance with such a
general story. While the oft-cited southern community economic system has rubber trees as an
integral part, Ban Koh’s economic system has nothing to do with rubber trees. About a century
ago, Ban Koh was part of the “Ranode’s Field” where rice was cultivated for sale in domestic
market and for export. The village was also a famous palm sugar and palm wine production site.
When marine fishery industry expanded along the Gulf of Thailand in the 1980s (Chalita 2543)
Ban Koh villagers did intensive coastal fishery along with rice farming. In the 1990s they did
tiger prawn farms, converting paddy fields into shrimp ponds. However, after faced with
 4

problems and down-at-heel, they ceased doing shrimp farming. Most shrimp ponds were
abandoned and one-fifth of them were converted into Litopenaeus vannamei shrimp ponds and a
few into “natural” fish ponds. Since the 2000s onwards, most villagers have turned back to
intensive coastal fishery and wage labor. The problem is therefore how to explain Ban Koh
villagers who appear to be economically insecure as the “Southerners” who are generally
portrayed the other way round.
In addition, Ban Koh villagers’ economic status is not in line with those of the majority
of each “colored-shirt.” Although Ban Koh villagers are not the “new class” or the “lower middle
class” resulting from economic changes in the rural over the past 3 decades, they share
something in common with the “emerging class” in that they are not so poor but they have no
secure occupation either. But while the “new class” or the “lower middle class” especially in the
North and the Northeast are an integral part of the “Red Shirts” (Apichart et. al. 2553), no Ban
Kho villagers said they are “Red Shirts.” On the contrary, initially many of them supported the
PAD or the “Yellow Shirts” like the “urban middle class” and their fellow region men although
their economic status differs from these people. The problem is therefore how to explain their
support to the “Yellow Shirts” whose economic status differs from theirs and why they did not
identify themselves with the “Red Shirts” whose economic status is similar to theirs. Are there
any other factors leading to such a condition?

Kinship: A Building Block of Social, Economic, and Political Relations

Apart from being bold, freedom-lover, non-state reliant, and even anti-state, the other
characteristic that has always been emphasized as part of the “Southerners” is kinship. Suttiwong
(2544) maintains that the “Southerners” generally ask each other in their first meet about parents
and birth places. He also argues that this is part of southern local culture manifest in such phrases
as “Sao-Yart Nub-Yote” or “Sao-Yarn Nub-Yote,” meaning tracing back common blood ties.

Kinship is significant in social relations in Ban Koh as well. Although Ban Koh has a
population of some 1,000, many villagers are kinsmen either through blood or affinity, partly
manifested in the same surnames including Jieujaew, Ninriem, Songkhun, Yimyaem, and
Kaewta, to name the large ones. Kinsmen of these clans usually have their houses built close to
 5

each other or in a cluster. For example, members of the Ninriem clan have their houses built
around the village hall. And when combined with members of other clans affined with the
Ninriem clan via marriage who have their houses there, this renders the area around the village
hall which is heart of the village the “Ninriem’s zone” by default. Likewise, many members of
the Jieujaew clan have their houses in an alley, leading Ban Koh villagers to call the alley “the
Jieujaew’s Alley.”
Moreover, Ban Koh villagers built stupas containing their ancestors’ bones close to their
houses. For example, the Ninriem clan built a stupa next to the village hall, which contains not
only their ancestors’ bones but also those of other affined clans living in the area. During major
festivals such as the Tenth Lunar Month, these villagers put pictures of their ancestors and dead
relatives around the stupa and have monks perform rite to make merit for the dead. The stupa and
related rites are therefore like a bond among kinsmen in Ban Koh.

Kinship also has economic significance. “Uncle Mood” said the reason why he sold his
boat and turned himself into a “crew” of his younger brother “Uncle Tu” is that he does not want
to have a burden and “I want to help my younger brother. I don’t feel I work for other people.”
Many shrimp farmers hire their relatives to look after shrimp ponds because they can trust their
relatives. For example, “Sister Poong” said “My husband’s older brother hires my husband to
look after his shrimp farm because they are relatives; trustworthy. He has money. My husband
has knowledge and expertise and he is trustworthy. Brothers should help each other. There’s no
reason to cheat.”
The economic significance of the kinship helps explain why Ban Koh villagers said they
are “poor but not pale-faced.” (Not to mention fishery-related industry and shrimp farming
nearby that are able to absorb numbers of laborers in the area.) Although most of them are wage
laborers and coastal fishermen, they have relatives with secure careers to support them from
outside. For example, “Grandma Tung” has eight children but only two of them live in Ban Koh,
one is the youngest daughter who has a shrimp farm in the area whereas the other is the second
daughter whose husband is a coastal fisherman. The remaining six children have family and
secure careers in Bangkok and vicinity: the third son is Labor of the Province, the fifth son is
Land of the Province, the fourth son is a high-ranking government official in the provincial hall,
 6

the sixth daughter has a husband working and having share holdings in a famous restaurant in
America, and the youngest son is a businessman whose wife is a famous actor. In addition to
monthly remittance for “Grandma Tung,” the six children always help the second daughter on
the ground that she is “ill-fated,” uneducated, and poor. Moreover, during the Tenth Lunar
Month festival, the six children pay “Granma Tung” a visit and make merit in Ban Koh. Some
fly with the plane, others drive expensive cars, rendering the front yard of “Grandma Tung’s”
house packed with personal cars, unlike in other regions where taxis and pick-up trucks are
prevalent during major fests.

Kinship has political significance in Ban Koh as well, as manifested in the fact that local
political leaders are from big clans. For example, Ban Kho village headman, who is also the sub-
district headman, is from the Ninriem clan whereas one member of SAO (Sub-district
Administrative Organization) is from the Ninriem clan and the other is from the Jieujaew clan.
Both Ninriem and Jieujaew are big clans in Ban Koh and they have affined with many other
clans. They are therefore in advantage over other clans that are smaller although wealthier. And
this led many well-to-do in Ban Koh to refrain from local politics. For example, “Uk,” the lathe
owner and the largest shrimp farmer in Ban Koh said the reason why he does not “play politics”
although he is wealthier than many in the village is that apart from his dislike of “playing
politics,” he thinks “it’s hard for us to win the election because our kinsmen are in small number.
If we really want to win the election, we need to use a lot of money, which is not worthwhile.”

However, kinship not only has the benevolent side or “social capital” convertible to other
kinds of capital (Bourdieu 1986), but it is also the origin of problems and conflicts. Disputes and
quarrels over money among kinsmen are common whereas different political stances led to “kin
cutting” as seen in the election of the village headman on June 6, 2011.

Local Politics: Kinship and Money

The Ban Koh’s village headman election on June 6, 2011 is complicated. It began with the
resignation of Mr.Chakart Ninriem who was the village headman at the time before his term
ended so as to reenter the election because, according to rumors, he thought he was at a political
 7

advantage. His move created dissatisfaction among Ban Koh villagers especially those believing
that Mr.Chakart always uses his position in seeking personal advantages and gets involved in the
spread of drugs in the area. Interestingly enough, Ban Koh villagers who were dissatisfied with
Mr.Chakart the most are his relatives or those in the Ninriem clan. They said previously Mr.
Chakart was a “useless guy” addicted to gambling and drugs. They then supported him in
running for the village headman in previous election believing that the position will help turn
him into a “new leave.” But they were disappointed as Mr.Chakart instead used his positions as
the village headman and especially the sub-district headman in seeking more personal
advantages and behaved worse. Knowing that Mr.Chakart resigned before the term ended and
reentered the upcoming election, they then discussed with each other how to stop Mr.Chakart’s
plan.
After discussions, they came up with an idea that they will support someone in the
Ninriem clan in running for the village headman to compete with Mr.Chakart. They chose
Mr.Archya Ninriem, Ban Kho SAO member at the moment, because they thought he is a man of
new generation, committed, and polite. They then asked Mr.Archya to resign from the SAO and
enter the village headman election to compete with Mr.Chakart who is his uncle. They also
helped raise funds among the relatives for his political canvass.
Mr.Archya accepted the invitation. He then invited Mr.Chettha Jieujaew to join his team
as his deputy. This is because apart from being a young man holding a bachelor’s degree in
engineering from KMITNB, Mr.Chettha is a son of “Uncle Doon” who is the largest marine
animal trader and Jieujaew is the largest clan in Ban Koh. Mr.Archya believed that if two big
clans in Ban Koh join hand, they can defeat Mr.Chakart regardless of Mr.Chakart’s “helping
hand.”
Mr.Chakart gave importance to kinship as well. Although his two deputies are not from
big clans, Mr.Srichoke who is one in his “team” is from the Jieujaew clan. He gave Mr.Srichoke
a promise that if he wins the village headman election and then is elected the sub-district
headman, he will appoint Mr.Srichoke the sub-district headman deputy. However, Mr.Chakart
utilized kinship in political canvass less than Mr.Archya partly because he was aware that most
of his relatives are with Mr.Archya and the relatives of Mr.Srichoke are more with Mr.Chettha.
He is well aware that without a “helping hand” he could not have defeated Mr.Archya.
 8

Initially, Mr.Archya canvassed by walking and talking to people at homes and he was
warmly welcomed as he is polite and performed well while in office. On the contrary,
Mr.Chakart was quiet at the beginning of the political canvass; he did not walk and talk to people
at homes. Ban Koh villagers saw him drive his pick-up truck back and forth but had no idea what
he was up to. Sometimes they saw him at home talking with his “team” at night. Mr.Chakart
canvassed “aggressively” in the week before the election day, causing Mr.Archya to change his
political canvass strategy accordingly.
Three nights before the election day Mr.Archya went to “Uncle Doon’s” house to discuss
political canvass in the next few days and brought with him the official voter list whereas those
in his “team” had the list of voters they made contact with. Mr.Archya read the names of the
voters one by one to check if they are in the lists of those in his “team.” After all 935 voter
names were read out, it turned out that 424 of them are in the lists of the “team.” They estimated
that about 700 voters will come to vote. And given that 424 voters will vote Mr.Archya, it means
that Mr.Archya will win the election. After finishing calculating the votes, Mr.Archya gave his
“team” money to give to the voters in their lists.
Mr.Chakart checked the voter lists of those in his “team” as well. He estimated that he
will gain about 600 votes, meaning that regardless of the amount of the turnout, he will win the
election. His estimate was more accepted because he was odds-on among the bet circle in
downtown Hua Sai district. However, Mr.Archya said Mr.Chakart overestimated himself
because many voters who take Mr.Chakart’s money will not vote Mr.Chakart. But Mr.Archya
did not bet, just saying that the election result will tell who is deceived.

The election was held at the village hall. Voters came before time. The more time passed
the more people came. There were not only Ban Koh villagers who came to vote but also people
from other villages and sub-districts who wanted to watch this “world-stopping boxing match.”
The atmosphere was increasingly intense so much that five more policemen were summoned in
addition to the two existing ones. Around noon Hua Sai police superintendent came to check the
situation himself, and so did Hua Sai district chief in the afternoon. The election ended at 3.30
 9

pm. with the result that Mr.Chakart won with 490 votes to 324 votes with 4 “no-votes” and 18
void ballots. 836 voters from the total of 935 voters (89.41% of total voters) showed up.
The election result brought jubilance to Mr.Chakart’s circle. His house which is next to
the polling station was packed with people, including relatives, friends, village headmen, sub-
district headmen, and local politicians, who came to congratulate him. On the contrary,
Mr.Archya celebrated his loss in solitariness in front of “Grandma Tung’s” house. There were
only immediate relatives, close friends, and the “team” coming to soothe each other. “Uncle
Yom” said in pain that he has never thought before that those in his Jieujaew clan will place
more value on money than on kinship. “Teacher Somkuan” said he felt so painful he was
deceived by his own children. “Teacher Narm” said she was regretful that her relatives betrayed
her and added that “from now on I will never ever help relatives who betrayed me. No longer
help or guarantee anyone. Will never recommend anyone’s children for job because I was so
disappointed with people here.”
However, Mr.Chakart’s supporters explained Mr.Chakart’s victory the other way round.
For example, “Grandma Um” said Mr.Archya should have not entered the election in
competition with Mr.Chakart as Mr.Chakart has more relatives and his deputies also have
numbers of kinsmen. She said Mr.Chakart’s relatives came back from Bangkok and other far
away provinces to vote for Mr.Chakart and Mr.Chakart only paid them for travel expenses. For
the relatives here he paid nothing for. “Grandma Um” also added that Mr.Chakart helped the
villagers a lot while in office especially the flood compensation money (5,000 baht per
household) although they were not affected by flood at all. These villagers then voted
Mr.Chakart without having to be paid by him, she concluded.

Although each side explained the election result different and there are some facts that
need to be verified, the village headman election in Ban Koh reflects major tendencies of local
politics in the South (which has implication in other regions of the country as well).
First, kinship remains a key factor in local politics because both Mr.Chakart and
Mr.Archya are from the second largest clan in Ban Koh and they also have those from the largest
clan in their team. Previously, a rumor had it that those from other clans will enter the election
but they changed their minds after knowing who will run for the position because they thought it
 10

is hard to defeat people of these clans. In addition, although some villagers are wealthier than
those of the Ninriem clans, they did not want to enter the election because it takes a lot of money
to win, which they think is not worthwhile. Kinship is therefore a necessary or a primary factor
in local politics in Ban Koh.
Second, although kinship is a necessary or a primary factor, it is not sufficient. Of 935
voters, 41 are from the Ninriem clan. Although combined with other clans via affinity, the
Ninriem clan does not constitute the majority of Ban Koh villagers. Most villagers do not take
kinship as a key factor in voting. Rather, factors in consideration include clique, obligation,
performance, and money. Performance is the least important factor partly because village
headman is a governance position which provides only few means for active performance.
Although obligation is more important than performances, it is mostly confined within patron-
client networks such as “phae system” (marine animal trade) which embraces a few villagers and
does not entail political commitment, as seen in the fact that most of “Uncle Doon”s “clients” did
not vote Mr.Archya although “Uncle Doon”s son was assigned Mr.Archya’s deputy. Clique is
more important than obligation as it covers a larger number of villagers and many young men are
committed to this kind of relationship. However, for Ban Koh villagers in general money is a
main factor because most of them are wage laborers who are not committed to any specific
employer and do not care much if the candidates have performed well. The way they earn their
living is insecure. They then choose immediate concrete benefit when having to make a decision
on voting.
Third, the village headman election is the most competitive local politics because the area
is small and there is only one candidate to be elected. In addition, the position has now become
very attractive because apart from being in position until retirement at the age of 60, the village
headman has the salary increased and welfare almost similar to government official (while not
having to commute every day). Not to mention a variety of projects implemented via the village
headman. Taken together, they are an important cause leading candidates to “invest” a lot for
victory. Mr.Chakart spent some 1 million baht to overcome Mr.Archya who spent some 4
hundred thousand baht in running for the village headman. Mr.Archya said this village headman
election totally differed from previous SAO member election he entered. The SAO member
election is not much competitive and he won with small canvass expenses. This is similar to the
 11

by-election of SAO member after the village headman election which is not much competitive
and the decisive factors are kinship and political faction.

However, canvass mechanisms like kinship, clique, and money that play important roles
in local politics are less significant when it comes to national politics which involves political
parties. Most Ban Koh villagers have voted Democrat party’s candidates for more than two
decades although they have no kin relation with the candidates and the candidates neither “buy
votes” nor perform well. Therefore, the question is what mechanisms and tactics the candidates
and the Democrat party employed to win “hearts” of Ban Koh villagers for such a long time.

National Politics: The “Southerners” and the Democrat Party

Askew (2008) argues that the reason why the Democrat party has been able to “conquer” the
South is that on the one hand it portrays itself as the “Southerners’ Party” with the number of the
southern MPs and former party leader Chuan Leakphai as references. On the other hand, it
represents itself as a “moral party” via the portrayal of Mr.Chuan’s trustworthy and the checking
of the government as it has always been the oppositional party. These images were produced and
circulated along with the emphasis on the characteristics of the “Southerners” that are different
(in other words – superior) from their fellow countrymen in other regions in that they are
politically enthusiastic, supportive of moral politicians, and against unfair state power.

Ban Koh villagers in general favor the Democrat party for the same reasons. Initially,
they did not vote the Democrat party’s candidates. Although later they began to vote the
Democrat party’s candidates, it is not so much about their favor in the Democrat party as about
their favor in the candidates’ personal characteristics. They have voted the Democrat party’s
candidates with their affection in the Democrat party as a main reason since Mr.Chuan was the
party’s leader. As “Grandpa Luek” put it, “The Democrat party began to win the hearts of people
here when Mr.Chuan was the party’s leader because it made the party the party of the
southerners and Mr.Chuan is not cheating. All political parties are cheating. But although the
 12

Democrat party is cheating, it cheats less than other parties because the party’s leader Mr.Chuan
is not cheating. If the master is not cheating, the henchmen will not dare to cheat much.”2
However, some Ban Koh villagers do not favor the Democrat party mainly because the
Democrat party’s politicians in their view did not do a good job. For example, “Uncle Wai” said
“I have never voted the Democrat party because it never helps us with anything. They never did
any work.” Likewise, “Teacher Narm” said “I never voted the Democrat party because its
politicians never came to develop Hua Sai.” In addition, Ban Koh villagers who oppose the coal
power plant construction project think the Democrat party’s politicians have something to do
with the project and said they will not vote the Democrat party’s candidates in the July 3, 2011
election. As “Uncle Rood” put it, “I will not vote the Democrat party’s candidates in the
upcoming election because they support the power plant although I have voted them for long.”
The 3 July 2011 general election is therefore an indicator of the Democrat party’s popularity
among Ban Koh villagers.

Ban Koh is in the election zone 3 of Nakhorn Srithammarat province, which covers Hua
Sai district, Chien Yai district, Chalermprakiat district (6 sub-districts) and Pakpanang district (3
sub-districts) with 7 candidates entering the election.

1. Mr.Somsak Lertphaiboon (Pheu Thai Party)

2. Mr.Wittaya Kaewparadai (Democrat Party)
3. Mr.Puan Narkpaen (Phoomjaithai Party)
4. Second Lieutenant Aphirerngnarong Thongkaew (Thailand’s Farmer Network Party)
5. Mr.Pornchai Boonrodruk (Chartthai Phattana Party)
6. Ms.Thanaporn Onphakdee (Matuphoom Party)
7. Police Lieutenant Khanet Srisak (Power of the Sportsman Party)

2
In addition, there are “practical reasons” why some Ban Koh villagers voted the Democrat party’s candidates and
the significant one is to pay gratitude to the Democrat party’s politicians. For example, “Aunt Tew” said the reason
why she voted the Democrat party’s candidates is that apart from her taking it as the “Southerners’ party” is that
“our siblings have worked with the Democrat party’s politicians. Uncle Rarn [her younger brother] used to be a front
desk of […] and “Uncle Bow” [her older brother] who is now the Labor of the Province has been helped out by
[…]”
 13

However, only three candidates – Mr.Somsak, Mr.Wittaya, and Mr.Pornchai – canvassed

seriously whereas the four others had only their signs installed at main intersections. Mr.Somsak
canvassed by walking and talking to people at homes, temples, and market places. He also
employed local media such as radio and newspapers and held a workshop for election
observation volunteers. Mr.Pornchai utilized car caravans, small group conservations, and small
public addresses. Mr.Wittaya held grand public addresses (one time per one district) with, apart
from him, other Democrat party’s politicians in Nakhorn Srithammarat province joining.

The election was not competitive and the result was as expected. Mr.Wittaya won with
61,342 votes whereas Mr.Pornchai who won the second place gained only some 6,900 votes.
Mr.Puan won the third place with some 5,000 votes followed by Mr.Somsak who gained 1,979
votes. The three other candidates gained some 200 votes each. Mr.Wittaya’s victory was in line
with those of other Democrat party’s candidates in Nakhorn Srithammarat province, rendering
the Democrat party “conquer the whole province” seven times in a roll.
Although the election result in Ban Koh was in line with the big picture, the difference
was not that much. Although Mr.Wittaya won with some 300 votes, Mr.Pornchai who won the
second place gained 187 votes or more than half of the number Mr.Wittaya gained. This is also
the case in terms of the party list. That is, although the Democrat party won with some 400 votes,
the parties that won the second and the third place gained some 100 votes. Mr.Pornchai and his
political party gained a large number of votes in Ban Koh partly because he has relatives here
and partly because he was a three-time member of the Provincial Administrative Organization in
the area. In case of Mr.Puan and his political party, it is said that vote buying is the reason
behind.
Interestingly enough, although taking money, many Ban Koh villagers “sold” their votes
for the MP only whereas in case of the political party they still voted the Democrat party.3 In
addition, some Ban Koh villagers still voted the Democrat party although they did not vote

3
As “Aunt Tew” put it, “I voted number 16 for the MP because an acquaint person came asked for it and he gave
me 200 baht too. But in case of the political party, I still voted the Democrat party.”
 14

Mr.Wittaya.4 Importantly, many Ban Koh villagers who opposed the coal power plant
construction project still voted both Mr.Wittaya and the Democrat party although they were so
dissatisfied with Mr.Wittaya and said they will not vote him in this election. As “Uncle Pod” put
it, “It’s like when you were at the ballot box your hand moved in accordance with the ancestors.
The power plant is a tiny spot. I vote the Democrat party anyway because I have voted it since I
was 18. I have voted the Democrat party according to my parents and my dad also ordered me to
do so.”
It is also important to note that Ban Koh villagers’ favor in the Democrat party
significantly shapes the way in which they get involved with “colored-shirt politics” in which the
Democrat party is an important actor.

“Yellow Shirts”: The PAD, Democrat Party, “Civil Society Sector,” and the Monarchy
The move of People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) in 2005 was of Ban Koh villagers’
interest. In addition to mass media, some Ban Koh villagers installed satellite dish with special
equipment to receive signal from the ASTV channel although they did not join the PAD’s rallies
in Bangkok due to travel difficulty.
Initially, Ban Koh villagers were supportive of the PAD because they agreed to the cause
– to oust Thaksin on the ground that he was corrupt and wanted to change the political regime
from constitutional monarchy into presidency. This is to be combined with the PAD’s good
relationship with the Democrat party. For example, “Uncle Pod” said he “may not be a Yellow
Shirt” because he disapproved of the PAD’s seizure of the Suvannabhumi airport and its use of
violence. But the reason why he supported the PAD’s in the initial stage is that, he said, “I
wanted the Democrat party to be the government.”
As such, when the Democrat party became the government and the PAD launched a
campaign on the Preah Vihear Temple, many Ban Koh villagers disagreed with the PAD. “Uncle
Sun” said there are two kinds of “Yellow Shirts” in Ban Koh, one is “real Yellow Shirts” – those
4
As “Uk” put it, “I voted Sor Jor Toi [Mr.Pornchai] because he is my customer and I have many relatives in Bang
Sai, the same village as Sor Jor Toi. For the party list, I voted the Democrat party. This is partly because I don’t like
Wittaya and Thepthai because they are arrogant; they never wai anyone. And Wittaya has no workings. But that’s
not the issue for the Democrat party because the Democrat party is the Southerners’ party although now its leader is
a central-region person.”
 15

who agree with the PAD’s principles and methods – and the other is “fake Yellow Shirts” –
those supportive of the PAD because the PAD has a good relationship with the Democrat party.
He added that he is a “real Yellow Shirt” although now he disagreed with the PAD’s move in
some issues. He also said that in fact only few Ban Koh villagers are “Yellow Shirts” because
most of them are not seriously concerned about politics.

Ban Koh villagers as well as Hua Sai residents “Uncle Sun” called “real Yellow Shirts”
collaborated with groups and organizations (which always comments on state development
projects as well as the performances of the Democrat party’s politicians and joined the PAD in
the early stage) in opposing EGAT’s (Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand) coal power
plant construction project. The coalition started with a study trip to Bo Nok sub-district of
Prachuabkirikun province funded by “Dub Barn Dub Mueng Project” which was funded by the
Health Promotion Fund. When back, they founded “Hua Sai Coal Power Plant Construction
Opposing Group” which has “Teacher Louis,” a former school director, as a chair person. The
group disseminated information especially the negative impacts of the coal power plant and
collected names of Hua Sai residents to submit to relevant agencies to terminate the project.
In addition, the group held public addresses for a couple of times. For example, on
January 10, 2011, Mr. Sumrarn Rodpetch and Mr. Bunchong Nasae gave public addresses in
Moo 2 of Nasatorn sub-district. Mr. Sumrarn is a PAD leader and a native to Kohpetch sub-
district of Hua Sai district whereas Mr. Bunchong is a senior marine and coastal resources NGO
worker who always gave addresses in the PAD’s rallies. Moreover, Ms. Nataya
Waewweerakoop, a ThaiPBS news anchor, was often the moderator in the live-broadcast talks
held in the area. The protest against the coal power plant construction project is therefore the
convergence of locals, PAD, NGOs, local academics, and media, which are called by themselves
and others “civil society sector.”

Although most of Hua Sai residents who protested against the coal power plant
construction project are PAD members, some Ban Koh villagers who joined the protest disagreed
with the PAD. For example, “Uncle Wai” said he disagreed with the PAD because although
Thaksin may did things wrong, he disapproved of the ways in which the PAD “punished”
 16

Thaksin. He wanted regular procedures to be employed. He also added that the PAD’s move that
in large part led to the 19 September 2006 Coup made him feel more negative toward the PAD.
He thinks the coup cannot solve the “Thaksin Problem” as well as the country’s ones. Rather, it
aggravated the situation.
On the other hand, although the “Yellow Shirts” comprise the “PAD Yellow” and the
“Democrat Yellow,” what the two “Yellows” share in common is loyalty to the monarchy.
“Uncle Sun” who called himself “real Yellow Shirt” said “lucky Thailand that it has the king
because the king did everything for Thais, unlike the politicians who are cheating. Now Thailand
is governed by bad guys. The military should seize power once again and have good guys govern
the country as in the king’s speech.” Likewise, “Uncle Pod” who once supported the PAD
because he wanted the Democrat party to be the government again said “the king is very much
concerned about us. He has tirelessly worked for the Thai people. Now he is in the hospital but
he still follows the news.”

Loyalty to the monarchy is not limited to being “Yellow Shirts” but it extends to cover
being the “Southerners” as well. For example, “Uncle Pod” said “Southerners love the king” as a
group was discussing the roles of the monarchy in Thai society today. He then asked
affirmatively “who here do not love the monarchy; did not love the king” with confidence that no
one will disagree. The binding of the “Southerners” to loyalty to the monarchy is quite new. In
addition to being a consequence of a nation-wide process of building loyalty to the monarchy
over the past five decades, it partly results from the Democrat party’s construction of the
Southerners’ political subjectivity. That is, the Democrat party highlighted loyalty to the
monarchy amidst the political conflict plus the fact that General Prem who is the Privy Council
chairperson is native to the south and closely linked with the Democrat party. The “Southerners”
which were constructed through the Democrat party therefore have loyalty to the monarchy as
their integral part accordingly.

Ban Koh villagers’ loyalty to the monarchy directly shaped their attitude toward the “Red
Shirts” – most of them believed that the “Red Shirts” want to abolish the monarchy. For
example, “Uncle Sun,” who claimed that he is a “real Yellow Shirt” said “there were
 17

communists among the Red Shirts. They want to snatch power from the king.” Likewise, “Uncle
Pod,” who is a “Democrat Yellow Shirt” said “I believe that the Red Shirts truly want to abolish
the monarchy. We saw in TV that they kept saying about the invisible hand.” In other words, the
reason why Ban Koh villagers did not support or hate the “Red Shirt” is that they thought the
“Red Shirts” want to abolish the monarchy. And this reason is more significant than their
perception that the “Red Shirts” are related to Thaksin and the Pheu Thai party they dislike on
the ground that the two are the competitors of their favorite Democrat party.

“Red Shirts”: A Challenge to a Moral Political Order

“Brother Khao” was the first to be mentioned when the question of who are Ban Koh’s “Red
Shirts” was asked. He is a man of average income, primarily earning his living by farming 2
shrimp ponds. He supported the “Red Shirts” because he thought they were treated unfair. He
said “the Yellow Shirts take advantage. They did whatever they wanted without being put in jail.
They seized the government house, the airport, but no one can bring them into justice. They are
the privileged.” He also added that when conflicts between “Yellow Shirts” and “Red Shirts”
were at peak, “if someone wore red shirt, they were scolded by almost all villagers. But it’s OK
if you wore yellow shirts. But if you wear red shirts, people will scold you that you’re insane,
stupid.”
“Brother Khao” favored Thaksin for Thaksin’s policy and performances coupled with his
dissatisfaction with the Democrat party. Likewise, although “Uncle Wai” was not sympathetic
with the “Red Shirts” as much as “Brother Khao” was, he was fond of the ways in which
Thaksin managed the country and had his dissatisfaction with the Democrat party’s
performances as a comparison. However, some Ban Koh villages are sympathetic with the “Red
Shirts” but not in favor of Thaksin and still support the Democrat party. For example, “Uncle
Jaew” said personally he understands and does not hate the “Red Shirts” and he does not like the
PAD either because the PAD takes advantage over others and uses the monarchy as an excuse.
But he is not in favor of Thaksin’s policy and workings; he favors the Democrat party better.

As such, while the “populist” policy is an important factor enabling Thasink to win hearts
of those in the provinces especially in the North and the Northeast and in turn causing these
 18

people to oppose the 19 September 2006 Coup in the name of the “Red Shirts,” it did not do so
in Ban Koh. In terms of the Village Fund, for example, “Teacher Narm” said it is good because it
is a low-interest loan and no Ban Koh villagers waived their rights to the fund. But they did not
relate the fund to Thaksin and they did not appreciate the fund much either. “Teacher Narm” said
this is because “villagers here dislike Thaksin as priori. They didn’t say this is Thaksin’s money.
If they think of Thaksin, they think of him only as a traitor.”5
In addition, Ban Koh villagers critiqued the “populist” policy in many aspects. For
example, “Teacher Wa,” Moo 8 Savings Group chairperson, said “People in the north and the
northeast get the fund larger than us. They received more. But we in the south get no more than
three hundred thousand baht.” “Grandpa Pard” said the universal health coverage project is not
necessary for him because he has many children working as government officials. For the
Village Fund he said it generated split among villagers and made them indebted.
In other words, the reason why the Thai Ruk Thai party government’s “populist” policy
was not politically successful in Ban Koh has something to do with the villagers’ political
subjectivity tied to the Democrat party and their economic status. That is, because the Thai Rak
Thai party is a competitor of the Democrat party, Ban Koh villagers then were critical of the Thai
Rak Thai party from the beginning. On the other hand, although most villagers are wage
laborers, it does not means that they are so “precarious” that they will appreciate helps the Thai
Rak Thai party government provided. This is because besides job vacancies to choose, they have
relatives who have secure occupations assist them. This is to be coupled with the fact that most
of them are hired laborers, not farmers or entrepreneurs, which makes economic opportunities
the Thai Rak Thai party government provided via the “populist” policy hardly has anything to do
with their economic lives.
Meanwhile, how Ban Koh villagers take part in politics generally has little to do with
changes in power relations. In the past, they sporadically blocked the roads and enclosed the
district office building when faced with occupation-related problems. But they did not form
themselves as a group or organization to tackle the problems structurally. Their taking part in

5
On the other hand, Ban Koh villagers who thought the Village Fund is “Thaksin’s money” did not comply with the
fund’s rules and regulations. As “Uncle Run” put it, “some villagers said the Village Fund is Thaksin’s money, not
ours. So we can exploit it. And the Democrat’s politicians also told villagers to think like this.”
 19

politics is mostly to support the Democrat party in the elections while they are inclined to view
“grassroots movements” as chaos. The rise of the “people’s movement” in the 1990s did not
have them included. Their first time “social movement” in the protest against the coal power
plant construction project tends to be conservative because the protest is rhetorically to protect
“sufficiency economy” and the royal projects from the threat of capitalism coming along with the
project.
As such, although Ban Koh villagers in general did not identify themselves with both the
“Yellow Shirts” and the “Red Shirts,” they are more leaning towards the former than the latter.
This is because the “Yellow Shirts” at least praise the moral political order which has the king at
the top whereas the “Red Shirts” fundamentally challenge such a political order. Ban Koh
villagers regarded the Nukleng characteristics of the “Red Shirts” leaders on the stage as
aggressive and disregardful. They view the “Red Shirts” move as an attempt to abolish the
monarchy which they said they will definitely never let it happen.6

Epilogue
Ban Koh villagers in general favor the image of the “Southerners.” They take great pride in the
saying that the “Southerners” are Nukleng and they are pleased to play such a role. Meanwhile,
they are aware of the overlap between the image of the Democrat party and the image of the
“Southerners” and many of them support the Democrat party because of such an overlap. They
said although the Democrat party contains certain shortcomings, the image it portrays and the
role it plays which are in accordance with their expectation are another factor that enables them

6
Although Ban Koh villagers in general did not support the “Red Shirts,” it does not mean that there are no “Red
Shirts” in the South. The point is while the majority of the “Red Shirts” in the North and the Northeast are the “new
middle class” especially in the “rural area,” the majority of the “Red Shirts” in the South are “urban middle class”
and “old comrades.” They are not “Thaksin Red,” “Pheu Thai Red” or “Populist Red” but are those called
themselves “Liberal Democracy Red,” which was formed after the 19 September 2006 Coup and expanded after the
crackdown on the “Red Shirts” on 19 May 2010. They strive for neither “monopoly capital” nor “feudal capital” but
for people’s movement negotiating for the benefit of the majority. Their goal is therefore the revolution of social,
economic, and political structures. The “Red Shirts” core group in Nakorn Srithammarat province is a local media
group which has a monthly newspaper and community radio as a medium for disseminating ideas and news and
information about the “Red Shirts” and other related issues for locals.
 20

to bear with poverty and not to severely question the party. In addition, they are pleased with the
image “Southerners love the king” which in part is tied to the Democrat party as well as the
Privy Council chairperson. As such, they more support the “Yellow Shirts” than the “Red Shirts”
because although the “Yellow Shirts” caused chaos while the Democrat party was in power, the
“Yellow Shirts” praise the monarchy whereas the “Red Shirts” in their opinion not only support
Thaksin who is cheating and betrays the nation but also want to abolish the monarchy which they
will not let happen.
The subjectivity of the “Southerners” especially the part tied to the monarchy is
theoretically significant because it is a kind of subjectivity that is not caught within the logics of
domination and resistance.7 This is because if we take the cultivation of loyal subject as the
operation of controlling power, the sentence “the Southerners love the king” is to employ such
operation of power in making the subjectivity of the Southerners at the same time. It is the
subject-making through observing the norms like the crafting of religious subjectivity through
piety. However, while religious subjectivity was made along with agency conducive to changes
in power relation in the name of the sovereign, Ban Koh villagers’ socio-political subjectivity
has limited agency because the sovereign they refer to is highly involved in power relation. As

7
McNay (2000) argues that Foucault’s notion of Subjectivation which is influential among feminists is negative as
subject is understood in a passive term as an effect of discursive structures and actions whereas subject’s agency is
mainly understood as resistance to or dislocation from dominant norms. She proposes a positive way in examining
subjectivity and agency, which has been adopted by certain anthropologists studying women in religious realms. In
terms of Islam, Mahmood (2001, see also 2005) argues that Islamic virtues such as modesty, shyness and patience
which Egyptian women sought to cultivate and are contradictory to the secular and liberal notion of agency are in
fact these women’s form of agency. Likewise, rather than viewing Malaysian women’s educative activities and their
performances of religious duties as either resistance to male-dominated social order or false consciousness or
internalized patriarchal oppression, Frisk (2009) investigates them as a means through which Malaysian women
develop agency within the orthodox Islamic context. In terms of Christianity, Mack (2003) maintains that “Quaker
women defined agency not as the freedom to do what one wants but as the freedom to do what is right. Since ‘what
is right’ was determined by absolute truth or God as well as by individual conscience, agency implied obedience as
well as the freedom to make choices and act on them” (156-7). Similarly, Griffith (2000) maintains that through
submission to God North-American Christian women become God’s obedient daughters whose pains and sorrows
were eased and whose marriage relations transformed. She argues that it is through this kind of “mediated agency”
or through their reliance on the omnipotent God that these women were enabled to attain freedom and effect change.
 21

such, when combined with the sovereign’s features which basically are hierarchical, Ban Koh
villagers’ socio-political subjectivity is therefore not conducive to changes in power relation.
Rather, it will strengthen the dominant power regime which is asymmetrical in nature.
 22

References

Askew, Marc.
2008. Performing Political Identity: The Democrat Party in Southern Thailand.
Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
Bourdieu, Pierre.
1986. “The Forms of Capital,” in J. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, NY: Greenwood.
Frisk, Sylva.
2009. Submitting to God: Women and Islam in Urban Malaysia. Copenhagen: NIAS
Press.
Griffith, Marrie R.
2000. God’s Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission.
Berkeley, CL: University of California Press.
Mack, Phyllis.
2003. “Religion, Feminism, and the Problem of Agency: Reflections on Eighteenth-
century Quakerism,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. Vol. 29, No. 1.
Mahmood, Saba.
2001. “Feminist Theory, Embodiment, and the Docile Agent: Some Reflections on the
Egyptian Islamic Revival,” Cultural Anthropology. Vol. 6, No. 2.
2005. Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
McNay, Louis.
2000. Gender and Agency: Reconfiguring the Subject in Feminist and Social
Theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Thai
ชลิตา บัณฑุวงศ์
2543 : พัฒนาการ ลักษณะ และการปรั บตัวของชาวประมงพืน้ บ้ านอันดามัน กรุ งเทพฯ:
โครงการความร่ วมมือเพื่อการฟื น้ ฟูทรัพยากรธรรมชาติอนั ดามัน
 23

ชลิตา บัณฑุวงศ์ และอนุสรณ์ อุณโณ

2546 : 4 :
รศน์
ณรงค์ บุญสวยขวัญ
2544 วิ ถีชีวิ ตของประชาชนในพืน้ ที่ล่ ุ ม นา้ ปากพนั งอั นเนื่ องมาจากการพั ฒนาของรั ฐ ในระยะ
แผนพัฒนาฉบับที่ 1-8 กรุ งเทพ: สานักงานกองทุนสนับสนุนการวิจยั
นิธิ เอียวศรี วงศ์
2548 “ปั กษ์ ใต้ บ้านเรา,” มติชนสุดสัปดาห์ 25 มีนาคม 2548 ปี ที่ 25 ฉบับที่ 1284
ภูเมฆ สัตยพิพฒ ั น์
2550 พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ กับการสร้ างฐานความนิยมในภาคใต้ ภาคนิพนธ์ รัฐศาสตรมหาบัณฑิต (การ
ปกครอง) บัณฑิตวิทยาลัย มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์
สุธิวงศ์ พงศ์ไพบูลย์
2544 ง แ ล ะ พ ล วั ต วั ฒ น ธ ร ร ม ภ า ค ใ ต้ กั บ ก า ร พั ฒ น า ก รุ ง เ ท พ ฯ :

อภิชาต สถิตนิรามัย และคณะ

2553 รายงานโครงการวิจัยการเปลี่ ยนแปลงด้ า นเศรษฐกิจและสั งคมของชนชัน้ ใหม่ เอกสารอัด
สาเนา
อาคม เดชทองคา
2543 หัวเชือกวัวชน กรุ งเทพฯ: สานักงานกองทุนสนับสนุนการวิจยั