1970s peasant revolts in Thailand

Last updated July 07, 2023

Thailand witnessed several uprisings by farmers from several central Thai provinces in the mid-1970s. Thailand, transitioning to democratic government after nearly forty years of dictatorship, was beset by revolution involving several segments of the population. Farmers were one of several politicized groups that rioted on the streets. They implored Thai Prime Minister Thanom Kittikachorn to reduce their debt and to ensure fair rice prices.

These appeals were ignored, with the prime minister refusing to meet with farmers. In their desperation, farmers tried to enact change by themselves. Unafraid of creditors and other capitalists, they hoped for a change which would free them from debt-bondage. They announced their intention to cease paying taxes and refused to recognise the authority of Thai state leadership. By setting up an autonomous liberated zone, the farmers sought greater freedom and the ability to better influence rice crop prices in order to better sustain themselves.

The aims of the farmer's revolt were to be recognised for their contributions to the state and subsequently to be treated with respect equal to that of their landlords. From the revolt, the Farmers Federation of Thailand (FFT), a national, autonomous Thai farmers organisation, emerged. The FFT led the struggle in northern Thailand to pass a law which standardised and lowered the level of rents on rice land, the Land Rent Control Act (LRCA) of December 1974.^[1]

What followed in the wake of the 14 October 1973 movement were mass protests by farmers and their allies such as students and professional classes who challenged the ruling elite to improve the lives of farmers.^[1] The revolt antagonized landowners and state officials. In response, activists were harassed and murders were to follow. Between March 1974 and September 1979, 21 FTT leaders were assassinated with the killings concentrated in the Chiang Mai region.^[2] The assassination of FTT leaders created an environment of pervasive fear in the countryside and ended the revolutionary efforts of the FTT.

Social and economic situation

How easy to thresh from these stalks a stream of grain. Who but the farmer knows all the hardships involved? Drops of sweat, who cares to count how many. But drop by drop I can count every one of my worries. How many bulging sinews of mine, tear up from the earth what you put in your mouth?
— Jit Phumisak, ^[3]

Major issues in Thai society were rural poverty and regional underdevelopment. Cities enjoyed sharp growth and along with it, a growing and prospering urban middle class.^[4] Composing up to 78 percent of Thailand's total labour force, peasant farmers formed the largest occupational group in Thailand.^[5] Agricultural output, mainly rice, accounted for nearly 30 percent of Thailand's GDP.^[6]

The producers of these commodities, however, were not among the beneficiaries. Farmers depended on rice sales to survive. To better protect themselves, they organised themselves and formed a national coalition of farmers against exploitative market conditions. Though the farmers attempted in vain to defend their livelihood and source of income, their efforts were systematically frustrated by governmental authorities in collusion with landlords and others with vested interests in ensuring that rice prices remained low.^[4] In the 1970s a Thai farmer's average per capita income was only US$49. In contrast, the average national per capita income was US$125, and that of urban residents stood at US$428.^[7]

The growing income gap

Year	Per capita income of farmers (baht) (A)	Per capita income of city dwellers (baht) (B)	A/B (%)
1960	1,044	6,434	16.2
1970	1,310	8,618	15.2
1975	1,433	10,061	14.2
1980	1,525	12,964	11.8
1985	1,724	15,110	11.4

Source: News report in Prachtnippatai, 23 Jul 1974. quoted from Akira Takahashi, "Thailand: Growing Land Problems", in Z. M. Ahmadi, ed., Land Reform in Asia, Geneva, 1976, p. 118.^[4]

Thailand had not previously suffered from the runaway population growth found in most developing nations. The productivity of its soil, along with its external environment, combined with a non-existent political culture, based on the tenets of respect and love for a hereditary monarch, had the effect of creating political passivity in Thailand's rural population.^[5] But several policy changes enacted by the government had an adverse effect on rural Thailand, particularly during the period of open politics from 1973-1976. The combination of a sudden uptick in Thailand's population along with the increasing scarcity of arable land led to increasing political and social conflict.^[5]

Invariably, tenancy and debts increased among farmers, especially in the north and central plains. Though there was increased interaction between farmers and governmental officials due to improved infrastructure and the increasing presence of the government in the countryside, the nature of these interactions was frequently negative. Farmers were distrustful and over a period of time finally reached their breaking point. They turned to political action to make their grievances known to the government. In an era of more open politics, there were instances of petitions against land rents and demonstrations leading to the emergence of the Farmer Federation of Thailand (FFT). The FFT frequently clashed with the ruling elite in its attempt to improve the lives of the Thai farmers.^[5]

Rice production policies

Rice farmers transplanting rice, Chaiyaphum Province Tranplant-rice-tahiland.JPG — Rice farmers transplanting rice, Chaiyaphum Province

Rice is central to Thailand's economy and culture. Cultivation occupies approximately 55 percent of Thailand's arable land and is the staple food across all income brackets.^[8] Thailand in the 1970s invested heavily in infrastructure improvements, agricultural research, and road networks to increase its rice production.^[8] The use of technology, combined with advanced knowledge of rice strains and fertilisers, along with helpful governmental policies, increased rice production. From the 1950s to the 1970s, rice production per unit of land increased by almost 50 percent.^[9]

Concomitantly, the government sought to accelerate growth in urban areas. One of its policies was to tax the rice industry and use the profits to fund much-needed projects in the larger cities. Thai authorities levied taxes on rice exports known as the "rice premium". This increased tax revenues, while at the same time decreasing the price of rice domestically. The government, in enacting this policy, shifted from protecting the farmers to leaving the rice industry to market forces, often leading to unbridled profit taking.^[5]

Though technology had greatly improved rice production, it had not translated into success for peasant farmers. Escalating prices left many farmers unable to hold onto their lands. Many had to become tenants to sustain themselves. Despite uncertainty in the Thai economy, the government appeared unconcerned. Taxes were collected good year or bad, which further drove down farming profits.^[9]

The introduction of new technology meant that rice farming barriers to entry mounted, leaving most peasant farmers unable to own their land outright. Larger farming operations were able to meet the rising costs of these new technologies and were able to purchase fertiliser, improved rice strains, and machinery without much problem. The average farmer though, had to make a living as a manual labourer on a farm earning barely enough to feed himself and his family.^[9]

Problems of tenancy and rural debt

The construction of new rural infrastructure was initiated and managed by the bureaucratic elite in Bangkok rather than by rural villagers. At the top, corruption was prevalent. High-ranking officials received kickbacks. While the government sought to implement measures to improve agricultural output, these projects in general did relatively little to improve farmer's lives. Instead, the agricultural sector was plagued by the growing issues of indebtedness and land shortages. The country's total agricultural debt was estimated at 143 million baht, with the bulk of the debt (78 percent) concentrated in Chiang Mai and the central plains.

Though indebtedness in rural areas was present as early as the 1930s,^[10] farmers during that period still owned their lands outright. Tenant farmers and absentee landlords were non-existent. A survey conducted by the National Statistical Office found that 40 percent of farmers were renting out part or all of their land they farmed in the central plains. In Chiang Mai and other northern regions, up to 18 percent of farmers were tenants, whereas in other areas of Thailand the figures were comparatively lower.^[5]

Eight years later, another study was conducted which found 56 percent of farmers in the central plains rented some of the lands they tilled while 27 percent did not own any land at all. In a decade, the rate of tenancy in the central area had more than doubled with only approximately 17 percent of farmers fully independent of landlords. The report also found that four of every five farming families were in debt for an aggregate sum of 16 billion baht. The average farm family debt was US$200, compared to an average family income of less than US$300 a year. Some of the families lived on US$25 or less a year.^[5]

A number of significant factors contributed to the higher rates of tenancy, rural indebtedness, and land rents in the north and central plains. It was found that the land holdings in the north were smaller than in any other region of the country, thus reducing efficiency. Farming was done on a much smaller scale, which combined with lower productivity, yielded low incomes.

Population growth in Thailand

As the Thai economy evolved with higher standards of living, farmers saw their incomes shrink. Small scale farming operations had to borrow from money lenders, usually middlemen involved in the rice trade or owners of rice mills. The loans made at high interest rates.^[11] The problems of land fragmentation and subdivision also contributed to problems in the north. A report submitted by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) found that subdivision of land holdings was growing rapidly in Thailand. Sub-divisions occurred mostly following the death of the landholder.

	1850	1911	1943	1958	1967	1973	1978
Population in millions	4	8	16	24	32	40	47

Source: Compiled from National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), Bangkok.^[4]

Relations between farmers and landlords

Aggravating the situation, farmers, often illiterate, were often cheated. When harvests were poor, farmers had no choice but to mortgage their land as collateral to obtain a loan. Should the farmer fail to repay the loan, he would forfeit his land. Farmers with a run of bad harvests, combined with high interest rates, would lose ownership of their land.^[5]

Farmers in the central and northern plains have suffered from severe indebtedness since the 1930s. By the 1970s, most of the farmers had lost their land to creditors. The government ignored this issue as Thai farmers lacked political clout. Farmers were seen as disorganised, scattered, and politically apathetic, accepting misfortune and poverty as their lot in life. This all changed in 1973, when farmers decided to take matters into their own hands and sought to change their lives.^[5]

The political mobilization of farmers

1973 was a watershed year for Thai politics. The government transitioned from a military dictatorship to a moderate civilian government. This provided an opening for the political mobilisation and participation of various segments of society in the political affairs of the country. Social discontent and the urgent needs of oppressed classes formerly subjugated by authoritarian rule, were thrust into the forefront and these issues were openly raised. Labour disputes were suddenly discussed with great vigour.^[4]

Students and professional classes such as teachers and lawyers, fearful for their own long-term political survival, joined farmers to air their grievances. Student activists convinced farmers to organise themselves into a political body in order to pressure the government to act on their behalf. During 1973 and 1974, farmers took to the streets and protested against local district officers and other officials.

Tenant farmers in the north and on the central plains were particularly demonstrative. Activists helped to organise several complaints against land owners over land mortgages and unfair land rents and also against local officials for corruption.^[5] Thousands of farmers marched to the prime minister's office in Bangkok to demand the return of their lands from landlords, middlemen, and creditors. The demonstrations signaled the farmers' will and determination to implement policies which would change the landscape of the agricultural sector after years of abuse and neglect by Thai authorities.^[4]

In March 1974, farmers, supported by the NSCT (National Students Center of Thailand), staged their first large-scale protest, gaining nationwide attention for their demands to increase rice prices. From August to November 1974, land disputes were widespread and discontent was vented.^[4] Newspaper reports reported that approximately 7,000 farmers from eight different provinces threatened to relinquish their Thai identification cards and go about setting up a "liberated area" unless the government met their demands.

On 19 November 1974, the assembled farmer representatives in Bangkok declared the formation of the Farmers Federation of Thailand (FFT). FFT then handed the government a list of demands. The government acceded to some of the demands of the FFT, albeit slowly. A few half-hearted agrarian reform laws were passed, including the seed certification law, a land rental law, and a moderate land reform law. The FFT clamoured for the Land Rent Control Act (LRCA) to be ratified and its laws to be made applicable to the whole country. It was finally enacted in December 1974.

The 1974 act was more extensive and differed from an earlier 1950 law in terms of application, terms of rent, and terms of enforcement. The 1974 act stipulated the establishment of provincial and district committees to oversee its implementation and administration and also to mediate conflicts between tenants and farmers. The officials on these committees were to be selected from the sub-districts where there was land tenancy. By involving farmers directly in the administration of the law, farmers were to be entitled to a fair hearing from fellow farmers rather than government bureaucrats.^[1]

The 1974 act also established the need to assess land quality and harvest success when determining rental amounts, as opposed to the 1950s act which stipulated rental amounts from 5 to 25 percent of the harvest irrespective of other factors. The act thus brought welcome relief from exorbitant rents.^[1]

Assassinations of FFT leaders

The three years between 14 October 1973 and 6 October 1976 were a tumultuous period filled with political possibilities and change in Thailand. Groups whose political action was restricted under military rule organised and protested in unprecedented numbers. Thais from all walks of life transcended class and social status to challenge injustice. But throughout 1975 and 1976, students, journalists, socialists, employees, and farmers were subject to growing harassment, intimidation, threats, and finally assassination. From March 1974 to August 1975, approximately 21 FFT leaders were murdered.^[1]

It was thought that these murders were committed to intimidate. All those murdered were active FFT members. The killings took place within a short span of time. In many instances, the murders pointed to the work of a highly professional assassin and not to random murder by an angry villager motivated by revenge.

Murdered FFT activists

Name	FFT position	Province	Date assassinated
Suit Sridej	Representative to executive committee	Phitsanulok	31 Mar 1974
Mrs Bunting Sirak	Member (ordinary villager)	Phitsanulok	Oct 1974
Boonma Somprasith	Provincial committee member	Ang Thong	Feb 1975
Hieng Sinmak	Representative to executive committee	Lamphun	6 Apr 1975
Aye Thongtoe	Representative to executive committee	Lamphun	13 Apr 1975
Ngoen Larwong	District committee member	Udon	21 Apr 1975
Mongkol Suknoon	Leader, Provincial Branch	Phichit	May 1975
Tawil (last name not reported)	Member (ordinary member)	Phichit	May 1975
Tawil Mungtunya	Representative to executive committee	Korat	26 May 1975
Charoen Songnark	District committee member	Korat	26 May 1975
Jar Jakrawan	Leader, District Branch	Chiang Mai	13 Jun 1975
Put Ponglung-ga	Information not available	Information not available	22 Jun 1975
Keo Pongchakum	Information not available	Information not available	22 Jun 1975
Prasert Chomamarit	Leader, district branch	Chiang Mai	3 Jul 1975
Som Jandeng	Leader, district branch	Chiang Mai	Jul 1975
Amnuay (last name not reported)	Leader, District Branch	Chiang Mai	Jul 1975
Klieng Mai-iem	Deputy leader, district branch	Lamphang	20 Jul 1975
Metta (last name not reported)	Representative to executive committee	Chonburi	Jul 1975
Prasart Srimuang	Representative to executive committee	Surin	8 Jul 1975
Intha Sribunruang	Vice president, FFT; president, northern branch; leader, provincial branch	Chiang Mai	Aug 1975
Sawat Tadawan	Leader, District Branch	Chiang Mai	Aug 1975

Source: David Morell: Political Conflict in Thailand: Reform, Reaction, Revolution.^[5]

Assassinated early were ordinary members of the FFT. As the killings continued, top leaders such as Intha became targets. The killings were a clear warning to FFT leaders to cease their activities if they wished to remain alive. The murder campaign ultimately derailed FFT efforts. The organisation ceased growing and diminished as a political party. By 1976, the party was seldom heard of again. The FFT had a small group of important individuals who were experienced and familiar with the complexities of the Land Control Act. With their murders and others afraid for their lives, the FFT collapsed.^[1]

Thirty years on, various issues surrounding this period of political possibility, the imaginings of a different and fair future for the ordinary people of Thailand and the death of those dreams, remains unresolved and understudied. Thongchai Winichakul, a prominent Southeast Asian scholar, argues that the massacre that took place at Thammasat University and the assassinations of FFT farmers continue to be shrouded in silence and fear.^[12]

Related Research Articles

A tenant farmer is a person who resides on land owned by a landlord. Tenant farming is an agricultural production system in which landowners contribute their land and often a measure of operating capital and management, while tenant farmers contribute their labor along with at times varying amounts of capital and management. Depending on the contract, tenants can make payments to the owner either of a fixed portion of the product, in cash or in a combination. The rights the tenant has over the land, the form, and measures of payment vary across systems. In some systems, the tenant could be evicted at whim ; in others, the landowner and tenant sign a contract for a fixed number of years. In most developed countries today, at least some restrictions are placed on the rights of landlords to evict tenants under normal circumstances.

Sharecropping is a legal arrangement with regard to agricultural land in which a landowner allows a tenant to use the land in return for a share of the crops produced on that land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Isan</span>

The economy of Isan, Thailand's largest region, composed of 20 provinces in the northeast, is dominated by agriculture, although agricultural output is low and decreasing in importance while the trade and service sectors are growing. Much of the population is poor and badly educated. Many labourers have been driven by poverty to seek work in other parts of Thailand or abroad.

A leasehold estate is an ownership of a temporary right to hold land or property in which a lessee or a tenant holds rights of real property by some form of title from a lessor or landlord. Although a tenant does hold rights to real property, a leasehold estate is typically considered personal property.

Agriculture in the Empire of Japan was an important component of the pre-war Japanese economy. Although Japan had only 16% of its land area under cultivation before the Pacific War, over 45% of households made a living from farming. Japanese cultivated land was mostly dedicated to rice, which accounted for 15% of world rice production in 1937.

Agriculture in Thailand is highly competitive, diversified and specialized and its exports are very successful internationally. Rice is the country's most important crop, with some 60 percent of Thailand's 13 million farmers growing it on almost half of Thailand's cultivated land. Thailand is a major exporter in the world rice market. Rice exports in 2014 amounted to 1.3 percent of GDP. Agricultural production as a whole accounts for an estimated 9–10.5 percent of Thai GDP. Forty percent of the population work in agriculture-related jobs. The farmland they work was valued at US$2,945/rai in 2013. Most Thai farmers own fewer than eight ha (50 rai) of land.

Agriculture in South Korea is a sector of the economy of South Korea. Korean agriculture is the basic industry of the Korean economy, consisting of farming, animal husbandry, forestry and fishing. At the time of its founding, Korea was a typical agricultural country, with more than 80% of the population engaged in agricultural production. After land reform under the Lee Seung-man administration, economic revitalization under the Park Chung-hee military government and the wave of world trade liberalization that began in the 1980s, Korean agriculture has undergone dramatic changes. Through the Green Revolution, Korea became self-sufficient in rice, the staple food, in 1978, and in 1996, Korea became the first Asian country after Japan to mechanize its agriculture with fine-grained cultivation. The development of Korean agriculture has also led to the development of agriculture-related industries such as fertilizer, agricultural machinery and seed.

For millennia, agriculture has played an important role in the Chinese economy and society. By the time the People's Republic of China was established in 1949, virtually all arable land was under cultivation; irrigation and drainage systems constructed centuries earlier and intensive farming practices already produced relatively high yields. But little prime virgin land was available to support population growth and economic development. However, after a decline in production as a result of the Great Leap Forward (1958–60), agricultural reforms implemented in the 1980s increased yields and promised even greater future production from existing cultivated land.

Agriculture continued to be the mainstay of the economy of Haiti in the late 1980s; it employed approximately 66 percent of the labor force and accounted for about 35 percent of GDP and for 24 percent of exports in 1987. The role of agriculture in the economy has declined severely since the 1950s, when the sector employed 80 percent of the labor force, represented 50 percent of GDP, and contributed 90 percent of exports. Many factors have contributed to this decline. Some of the major ones included the continuing fragmentation of landholdings, low levels of agricultural technology, migration out of rural areas, insecure land tenure, a lack of capital investment, high commodity taxes, the low productivity of undernourished animals, plant diseases, and inadequate infrastructure. Neither the government nor the private sector invested much in rural ventures; in FY 1989 only 5 percent of the national budget went to the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development. As Haiti entered the 1990s, however, the main challenge to agriculture was not economic, but ecological. Extreme deforestation, soil erosion, droughts, flooding, and the ravages of other natural disasters had all led to a critical environmental situation.

Agriculture in the United Kingdom uses 71% of the country's land area, employs 1% of its workforce and contributes 0.5% of its gross value added. The UK currently produces about 60% of its domestic food consumption.

The problem of land reform in Ethiopia has hampered that country's economic development throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries. Attempts to modernize land ownership by giving title either to the peasants who till the soil, or to large-scale farming programs, have been tried under imperial rulers like Emperor Haile Selassie, and under Marxist regimes like the Derg, with mixed results. The present Constitution of Ethiopia, which was put into force January 1995, vests land ownership exclusively "in the State and in the peoples of Ethiopia." The relevant section continues, "Land is a common property of the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia and shall not be subject to sale or to other means of exchange." Despite these different approaches to land reform, Ethiopia still faces issues of sustainable food self-sufficiency.

Rice production in Thailand represents a significant portion of the Thai economy and labor force. In 2017, the value of all Thai rice traded was 174.5 billion baht, about 12.9% of all farm production. Of the 40% of Thais who work in agriculture, 16 million of them are rice farmers by one estimate.

Agriculture in Panama is an important sector of the Panamanian economy. Major agricultural products include bananas, cocoa beans, coffee, coconuts, timber, beef, chicken, shrimp, corn, potatoes, rice, soybeans, and sugar cane.

People's Agenda is a policy under the Democrat party that implements the concept of “policy for the people by the people”, which is consistent with the idea that “People must come first”. Thailand's Prime Minister announced that People's Agenda rested on three pillars: restoring investor's confidence, new investments to improve national competitiveness, and investments in people.

Yingluck Shinawatra, nicknamed Pou, is a Thai businesswoman, politician and a member of the Pheu Thai Party who became the Prime Minister of Thailand following the 2011 election. Yingluck was Thailand's first female prime minister and its youngest in over 60 years. She was removed from office on 7 May 2014 by a Constitutional Court decision.

The Agricultural Holdings Act 1995 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which applies to England and Wales. It is in force. The Act reformed and substantially deregulated the law relating to agricultural tenancies, and has had the dual effects of increasing the amount of land available to rent in the agricultural sector, and increasing the average rent per acre charged.

Agrarian reform and land reform have been a recurring theme of enormous consequence in world history. They are often highly political and have been achieved in many countries.

The Doi Kham Company was founded in 1994 by the Crown Property Bureau at the request of King Bhumibol Adulyadej to set up a business to buy products from royal projects and farmers at fair prices and sell quality products to the Thai population.

Land reform in Vietnam began in the political turmoil following World War II in which a civil war pitted the communist Viet Minh against the French colonists and their supporters. At that time a large percentage of agricultural land was owned by large landowners and the majority of the rural population of Vietnam owned only small plots of land or was landless. The early success of the land reform program of the Viet Minh, gave the communists a strong base of support among the 80 percent of the Vietnamese people who lived in rural areas. The support of the communists by a large number of rural dwellers was an important factor in determining the outcome of the Vietnam War.

Agricultural Protectionism in Japan refers to the protection of farmers and the agricultural sector in Japan from international competition. The country has limited land to use for farming and until recent years, has been a protectionist country regarding agriculture. Farming in Japan has experienced economic inefficiency but has not dissuaded some Japanese from choosing to become either full or part-time farmers. In 2012 around 4% of the total work force in Japan was categorized as "agricultural workers", which was much higher than the United States (2.6%), England (1.5%) and Germany (2.8%). In order to support farming the Japanese government issued farmers massive grants. Due to increasing technology farming has increased in efficiency to where large rice fields can be harvested in about three days.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 Haberkorn, Tyrell (2011). Revolution Interrupted: Farmers, Students, Law, and Violence in Northern Thailand. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. p. 3.
↑ Zimmerman, Robert F. (1978). "Reflections on the collapse of Democracy in Thailand". Singapore Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 58.
↑ Phumisak, Jit (1974). Collected Works (Ruam Botkawi lae nganwichan silpawannakhadi) (in Thai). Thailand: Chiang Mai University Student Front. p. 8.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Luther, Hans U. (December 1978). "Peasants and State in Contemporary Thailand". International Journal of Politics. 8 (4): 1–120. JSTOR 27868875.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Morell, David (1981). Political Conflict in Thailand: Reform, Reaction, Revolution. Germany: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Publishers Inc. pp. 205–233.
↑ "Yearbook". Far Eastern Economic Review: 306. 1976.
↑ Suntravanich, Chalong (1975). "Thailand's Peasant Situation". Journal of Thai Students in Australia (3).
1 2 International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). "Rice in Thailand" . Retrieved 20 Oct 2012.
1 2 3 Phongpaichit, Pasuk; Baker, Christopher John (1995). Thailand, Economy and Politics. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9789835600661 . Retrieved 2018-11-20.
↑ Zimmerman, Carl; Andrews, James (1931). "Siam: Rural Economic Survey". Bangkok Times Press (1930–1931).
↑ Thisyamondol, Pantum; Virach Arromdi; Millard F. Long (1965). Agricultural Credit in Thailand. Bangkok: Kasetsart University. p. 31.
↑ Winichakul, Thongchai (2002). Tanabe, Shigeharu; Keyes, Charles F. (eds.). "Remembering/Silencing the Traumatic Past: The Ambivalent Memories of the October 1976 Massacre in Bangkok". Cultural Crisis and Social Memory: Modernity and Identity in Thailand and Laos. Honolulu: University of Hawaií Press: 243–286.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[Haberkorn-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Haberkorn, Tyrell (2011). Revolution Interrupted: Farmers, Students, Law, and Violence in Northern Thailand. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. p. 3.

[Zimmerman2-2] Zimmerman, Robert F. (1978). "Reflections on the collapse of Democracy in Thailand". Singapore Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 58.

[3] Phumisak, Jit (1974). Collected Works (Ruam Botkawi lae nganwichan silpawannakhadi) (in Thai). Thailand: Chiang Mai University Student Front. p. 8.

[Luther-4] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Luther, Hans U. (December 1978). "Peasants and State in Contemporary Thailand". International Journal of Politics. 8 (4): 1–120. JSTOR 27868875.

[Morell-5] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Morell, David (1981). Political Conflict in Thailand: Reform, Reaction, Revolution. Germany: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Publishers Inc. pp. 205–233.

[6] "Yearbook". Far Eastern Economic Review: 306. 1976.

[7] Suntravanich, Chalong (1975). "Thailand's Peasant Situation". Journal of Thai Students in Australia (3).

[IRRI-8] 1 2 International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). "Rice in Thailand" . Retrieved 20 Oct 2012.

[Phongpaichit-9] 1 2 3 Phongpaichit, Pasuk; Baker, Christopher John (1995). Thailand, Economy and Politics. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9789835600661 . Retrieved 2018-11-20.

[10] Zimmerman, Carl; Andrews, James (1931). "Siam: Rural Economic Survey". Bangkok Times Press (1930–1931).

[Pantum-11] Thisyamondol, Pantum; Virach Arromdi; Millard F. Long (1965). Agricultural Credit in Thailand. Bangkok: Kasetsart University. p. 31.

[12] Winichakul, Thongchai (2002). Tanabe, Shigeharu; Keyes, Charles F. (eds.). "Remembering/Silencing the Traumatic Past: The Ambivalent Memories of the October 1976 Massacre in Bangkok". Cultural Crisis and Social Memory: Modernity and Identity in Thailand and Laos. Honolulu: University of Hawaií Press: 243–286.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]