The Perception of Risk Society in Thailand

Abstract

Thailand is now facing many challenges including social, economic and political problems. During the administration of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a number Thai people enjoyed his populist policy changes in the fields of public health, education, anti-drug, and social welfare. At the same time however, Thaksin’s government has also been frequently accused of corruption, criticized for its engagement in projects creating conflicts of interest, and violation of human rights. After Prime Minister Thaksin announced a House dissolution on February 24, 2006, Thailand’s political impasse accelerated to a crisis. The research was conducted during the climate of political uncertainty in Thailand (March – September 2006). The research objectives were:
1. To examine the perception of risk society among Thai people;
2. To define “safe society” in Thai social context;
3. To identify the components of risk in Thai society.

The research adopted a qualitative approach using focus group discussions and document analysis. The sample comprised four groups of Thai people (312 children, women, seniors and disabled persons) in four main rural regions. The data were collected through purposive sampling.

The research found that the perception of risk society among Thai people varied according to their socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, with distinctive differences among the four groups of samples. The top ten social risks mentioned by the samples were those associated with: health, economics, food, education, family, crime, residence, work, moral, media and technology. The research also showed that most risks were classified as personal risks. However the researchers concluded that Thai people perceived “safe society” as:

“The society where its members can live their daily lives without fear of lacking/instability in food security, family, residence, communities, and environments. The people were provided equal opportunities and extensive means to access health and education services. They had secured employment and adequate income in order to live their lives on the “sufficiency economy” concept. Their perception of a safe society should be risk- free from natural disasters, accidents, violence, drug and crime. The people should be offered/provided with media literacy and protected equally by law and political rights. Society should be magnanimous, its members upholding high morale and values, appreciative of religion, and noble-minded.