The “Spirit of Development” in Thailand under the Sarit Regime through a Study of the Media

Abstract

Previous development studies of Thailand have focused on the authoritarian system and ideological aspects of “development, ” while ignoring the actual recipients of this ideology. This essay illustrates the media interpretation of the ideology of “development” during the Sarit Regime (1958-63), which was, incidentally, the first Thai government to implement a development promotion policy.Besides launching an economic policy through his National Economic Development Plan, Sarit tried to spread his ideas of development among the people through slogans and speeches, in order to inspire active people instilled with the “spirit of development” through such concepts as self-help, independence, and an understanding of the value of work, money, savings, and so on. Sarit provided an ideal “life roadmap” for the people and encouraged them to work for their happiness.A study of three Thai newspapers and one weekly magazine, however, reveals a gap existing between Sarit's images of development and those portrayed in the media. The media images may be characterized as follows. First, they portrayed development as a passive concept, regarding it as something given by the Government, and often used the phrases “receive development” and “demand development” from the Government, although Sarit had encouraged the people to embrace their own spirit of development. Secondly, the media perceived development as a government-organized “event, ” describing local development activities as venues with entertainment and dinner. Finally, the media did not understand the spirit of development in the way Sarit intended. Sarit tried to communicate his ideas about development to the people, but it seemingly in vain, for his audience thought he was simply issuing practical orders or regulations.The reasons for this gap between Sarit's images of development and those appearing in the media would seem to be as follows. First, Sarit's images did not correspond to his political style, which showed the kind of paternalism in which a ruler cares for his people like a father. Sarit's paternalism could well have been incompatible with the images of development, such as independence, that he tried to promote. Secondly, factors other than Sarit's efforts, such as new technologies or consumer goods entering Thailand during that period, influenced people's images of development which may have made it more difficult to communicate his intended meaning of the “spirit of development”.In conclusion, further discussion of development in Thailand would require additional further study and research into various aspects of development and images of development.