The current conflict in the Deep South of Thailand (DST) is reflected in centuries-long clashes between the Thai-Buddhist state and Malay-Muslim minority. Since the official annexation/colonisation of the sultanate of Patani in DST following the Anglo-Thai treaty in 1909, the Thai state has been accused of oppressing and assimilating Malay-Muslim identity for the sake of ‘national security’, and counter-insurgent movements have emerged (McCargo, 2008). Open debates over the root causes of the ongoing conflict and competing historical narratives of Patani are sensitive and normally avoided, and this approach has extended into schools (Pherali, 2021).

Engaging in discussion of controversial issues in school is seen in many countries as part of creating an open classroom climate and democratic society. The literature reveals teachers’ varied willingness to include such discussions in class, their motivations, and diverse pedagogical strategies (Hanna, 2017). However, less is known about teaching controversial issues in ‘fragile’ democracies (Boontinand, 2021) with sociopolitical conflict-affected regions such as Thailand, where discussing such topics in school can have a serious impact on career security (such as dismissal, blocking of promotion, forced relocation) and life (for example imprisonment, forced disappearance).

We are both engaged in education research that explores teaching controversy in different regions in Thailand. We speak from a position of relative ethno-national and socioeconomic privilege in our individual home societies (Thailand and Northern Ireland), and with that privilege comes the power and, we believe, the responsibility to represent those who are fearful of speaking out against injustice. We seek to support teachers who wish to be active agents of resistance and change, while respecting their choice whether or not to openly challenge the status quo due to the risks involved.

This blog post focuses on research completed by Chawin Pongpajon in DST, including interviews with 34 Thai Buddhist and Malay-Muslim secondary school teachers across different school types (secular, Islamic, public and private). Participants were STEM, languages, social studies, sports, arts and home economics, and Islamic education teachers.

Strategies of avoidance

Teacher-led discussion of controversial national/political issues was entirely absent in this study. We found that teachers employ various pedagogical ‘strategies of avoidance’, three of which are described below.

First, some teachers chose not to introduce issues about the ongoing conflict and Patani history in class at all. These teachers reported that they felt students already knew the news from the media. For example, a Science teacher shared: ‘We [the teacher and students] never talk about the conflict or the incidents, although they may have received the news from other sources.’ Similarly, an Islamic religious teacher said: ‘I do not mention the issues [the conflict and Patani history] in my classes. I am afraid of it.’

Second, other teachers chose to ignore curriculum content that might trigger controversy. One Social Studies teacher removed the war scenes from teaching Thai history as she did not want to rouse students’ curiosity. She said: ‘When I teach history, I remove the war scenes from the content as I do not want students to remember or think about conflict and violence.’ Others drew only on examples outside Thailand.

Third, some teachers refocused the controversial aspect of particular issues to make it merely informative and factual. Rather than critically unpacking security incidents in the region, information or facts were shared to serve as a security warning. One Science teacher said: ‘If there are incidents in the area, I will talk only about how to stay safe, not the causes or things beyond that.’

Understanding and moving beyond avoidance

‘Instead of teaching students to critically engage in controversial issues about the conflict and contested Patani history, teachers tend to employ what we conceptualise as “strategies of avoidance” to deal with controversial content.’

Instead of teaching students to critically engage in controversial issues about the conflict and contested Patani history, teachers tend to employ what we conceptualise as ‘strategies of avoidance’ to deal with controversial content. Such teaching practices have been influenced by fearful environments and cultures of silence driven by the state and the insurgent movements, teachers’ perceptions and understanding of the conflict, liberal approaches to peace and multicultural education, and a lack of teacher professional development on teaching controversial issues. Despite these challenges, if teaching practices are carefully contextualised, we argue that the teaching of controversial issues can be harnessed as a critical pedagogical approach towards building peace (through) education in the Deep South of Thailand.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the British Association for International and Comparative Education for a fieldwork grant that helped part-fund this research, and to the University of Manchester SEED Internationalisation Stimulation fund for supporting the setting up of this research partnership.