Pride and Prejudice in Phuket – and Our Law

Superficial goodness and actual goodness are far apart. If asked whether we are prejudicial or biased, our instinctive reaction will be to deny that at all or underplay the extent of it within us. However, pride and prejudice are serious matters and infect mini-communities, societies and our planet in different but striking measure.

As Phuket develops and different demographics of visitors arrive, it is possible to see various manifestations of the ugly nature of men and women. This nature is also intrinsically important in how we project that we wish to be governed and in matters of law – judged civilly and criminally. When we face a situation where prejudice or bias might impact us, we are prone to hypocritically insisting on perfection. We humans are the source of our own discontent and folly.

For example, the description of a race or nation can be made positively, negatively or neutrally. How many times in the last 12 months have you heard the word ‘Russian’ used in a deliberately negative manner, prejudicing the fact that people are not solely represented by their government and, even if their beliefs or perspective on history are different, respect is still perhaps due. At the same time, particularly in Thailand, the output of Russians’ efforts and business endeavours in the form of investment and spending are quietly welcomed. One of my son’s close friends has a Ukrainian mother and a Russian father all living together in Phuket. Would the prejudicial judgmental type be folly or rude enough to direct their opinions on ‘Russians’ to such a family?

In Thailand, the word ‘Farang’ may be compared to a blunt object or tool. It may be used to assist or understand a problem, but it can often be used to try and passively or actively attack through racism or downright nastiness. Simply say the word with different tones, out loud, and my point is proven. Prejudice can be wrapped up in a simple word and a woven narrative.

In matters relating to the police, particularly in Thailand, many are the beneficiaries of unusually generous degrees of tolerance from which they wouldn’t benefit in another country – and yet the tendency to judge differences as negatively as possible indicates the laziness of the average unfocussed human mind. In Thailand, it is possible to park a car near to a convenience store but on a main road, visit that store and maybe even have a bite to eat or a coffee, come back to the car and not be faced with a wheel clamp or a salary busting parking ticket. At the same time, petty criminals and even some major felon types also get away with manipulating an imperfect system. We have to take the rough with the smooth and consider how unattractive other forms of governance might be to the majority.

Many visitors to Thailand these days are quick to impose their judgmental, often unwelcome, neo-liberal views on elephants, animals in zoos and whether or not humans should eat meat (I deliberately refrain from opining on my stance in this regard).

Whilst some of these opinions are based on valid reasoned arguments and facts, there is a notable tendency of preference to impose these views on others who either don’t share them – yes, amazingly some people disagree with other’s opinions – or who are unable through circumstance to apply the luxury of such views to their daily lives.

Some can’t comprehend the proposition, whether right or wrong, that perhaps impoverished children should have access to live animals because they may never go on a glamping safari. Zoos can be rescue centres and double up as recreational centres too. The critics may often be the same people who walk straight past a soi dog without a second thought to maybe stopping and giving that dog some care and attention.

Some people are less likely to fall ill if they eat meat as part of a balanced diet. Thailand and Thai people, and residents of Thailand, don’t always need a ‘lesson’ from visitors in thought-police style. Keep your judgments for your memoirs and dinner tables – if your guests are willing (or are forced) to listen.

Amongst superficial do-gooders are the ostentatious Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR’) and Sustainability brigade, wielding their do-goodness like sabres of judgment, cutting through the inertia or alleged ignorance of ‘others’. If you didn’t do a beach clean up, you don’t love the sea. If you didn’t take photographs of yourself handing food to a homeless person, you probably never do that. If you didn’t attend that charity ball and purchase a discounted charter yacht trip you are a rapacious uncaring business person. Some do judge others by their own superficial standards in this regard. There is still room for superficial charity because, after all, the goodness is  still done and there are still beneficiaries. But, like Instagram, we don’t all need to be made aware of it at every opportunity.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was superficial praise heaped on the ‘unsung heroes’ – doctors, nurses, teachers and support staff – all risking infection to themselves and their families to deal with other people’s infections and educational needs, often working day through night to process their tasks more effectively. Yet, the media centric part of our world has already shifted its focus back to celebrities famous for achieving not very much other than fame, wearing clothes mostly unaffordable to the masses and disguising their own prejudice and bias with virtue signaling.

There is hope. The new generation may be taught or guided to reject ‘bling bling’ society, to scrutinise the true values of politicians versus their espousals and to reformulate how resources are allocated and taxed across societies. The new generation might just choose not to reward innovation with unfettered, obscenely unnecessary, share options under the false label of ‘capitalism’ and instead use a variety of capitalism that is more humane and works better for overall development instead of continually squeezing the ‘have-nots’.

The outcome of the new generations’ efforts will dictate how they are governed and what ‘justice’ they receive in courts of various jurisdictions. If societies develop norms of acceptability in civil life, these can be implemented into law and, when violated, they can be preserved and damages paid by the violators. In criminal matters, that which is criminal should be revisited regularly to assess the true worth of a law and whether denial of liberty or freedom is appropriate.

As part of the ‘Phuket society’, for better or for worse, visible, invisible or partly visible, what is ‘normal’ can filter into how we live together, what treatment we receive from others and the extent of propensity to judge or exert bias against others. If we are tolerant, understanding, appreciate that there are other views than those that some factions believe we must all be forced to follow – Israel v. Palestine, Russia v. Ukraine, China v. USA, China/Taiwan, socialism in South American countries, England v. Spain (in the Euros tournament only I mean) – these global conundrums are often met with ‘stock phrases’ and ‘judgements’ taken straight out of a glib ill thought-out ‘quote’ or snap analysis.

Listen to the alternative, allow expression without necessarily agreeing, and the rewards of such a culture may manifest themselves in the judgements we are made subject to in legal and enforcement systems. We can be brave, and next time someone makes a prejudiced, biased or racist remark, why not make an effort to politely enlighten that person on your view if it differs – and if time allows.

By Desmond Hughes, Senior Partner of Hughes Krupica

Hughes Krupica is a law firm which specialises in Real Estate; Construction; Hospitality; Corporate; Commercial; Tech; Dispute Resolution; and Litigation, operating from Phuket, servicing clients in relation to their business activities in Thailand and in other regions of Asia.