BANGKOK, THAILAND – A leading Thai journalist argued that nationalist school history helped explain civil society’s silence over the 2025 border war with Cambodia.
Activist’s question exposes civil society silence
Prominent social activist Chainarong Setthachua triggered debate with a Facebook post asking why civil society had remained quiet about the border conflict.
“Why is Thai civil society silent, why are NGOs and social activists silent about the border war? Or do they in fact agree with the war?”
said Chainarong, social activist.
Critical commentator Pravit Rojanaphruk responded with a pointed assessment of that silence.
“The extreme nationalism that has been instilled in schools since childhood – the fact that you were able to free yourself from it makes you an exception. You should ask yourself how you managed to break out of this narrow-minded and nationalistic way of thinking.”
said Pravit Rojanaphruk, journalist.
History class as a tool of nationalist propaganda
In a detailed commentary, Pravit described what he saw as a systemic problem in the Thai education system. He said pupils were taught a one-sided national history in which Thailand always appeared as the protagonist, with Myanmar portrayed as the aggressor and various Malay and Lao city-states depicted as rebellious entities that had to be subdued, including the destruction of Vientiane.
According to his analysis, this narrative elevated Thai actions while minimizing the perspectives of neighboring societies. Over generations, he argued, such framing had hardened public perceptions and left little room for empathy toward states now in conflict with Thailand.
Demonisation of Khmer and imperial Siam
Pravit highlighted what he called a particularly pernicious element of this schooling: the systematic portrayal of the Khmer as “treacherous and unreliable.” These stereotypes, he wrote, had been passed down across generations and continued to shape Thai perceptions of Cambodia.
He linked this to a broader amnesia about Siam’s own past as a regional power. In the version of history taught in schools, it was Western powers Britain and France that detached territories under Siamese control – areas that today form Laos, Malaysia’s northern states, southern Myanmar and Cambodia.
“In short, Siam was once a regional imperial power that behaved like a dominant bully in the neighborhood until it came under pressure from Britain and France.”
said Pravit Rojanaphruk, journalist.
Old traumas and the 2025 Cambodia war
Pravit argued that these historical narratives continued to shape present-day politics, reinforcing the belief among many Thais that the country was both protagonist and righteous party. In this mindset, the Khmer were still regarded as “treacherous and unreliable,” just as they had been in stories about the Khmer ruler Phraya Lawek more than four centuries ago.
He wrote that the 2025 war with Cambodia was not an isolated event but reactivated school-taught memories, from Thailand’s loss of authority over Cambodia to France in 1867 to the 1962 International Court of Justice ruling on the disputed Preah Vihear temple. These episodes, he suggested, were recalled through a lens that emphasized Thai victimhood and virtue.
Foreign mediation rejected and war politics at home
Pravit sharply criticized current attitudes toward international mediation efforts. He said Thai ultranationalists felt that US President Donald Trump should not interfere, and that Malaysian Prime Minister and current ASEAN chair Anwar Ibrahim had come under strong attack after he announced a ceasefire on Facebook on 13 December 2025.
Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul demonstratively ignored that call for peace, according to the commentary. Pravit interpreted this as a calculated election strategy, arguing the premier was rapidly gaining popularity by presenting himself as a leader who could say “no” to Trump, at least as long as the US president was preoccupied with other global crises such as China–Taiwan, Venezuela, Russia–Ukraine and Israel–Palestine.
Phraya Lawek myth challenged by historical records
Pravit also focused on the long shadow of the Phraya Lawek story in Thai collective memory.
“This battle resembles a repetition,”
said Pravit Rojanaphruk, journalist.
“shaped by collective Thai memories that go back to the Phraya Lawek era.”
said Pravit Rojanaphruk, journalist.
He noted that the royal chronicle of Ayutthaya claimed the siege of Lovek and Phraya Lawek’s execution took place in 1593, 432 years ago. However, he wrote that while Thai schoolbooks depicted Phraya Lawek as a “rebellious and traitorous Khmer king,” academic sources and Cambodian and Spanish chronicles indicated he had in fact escaped before the city fell in 1594.
Indoctrination and the muted voice of civil society
In his conclusion, Pravit described the silence of Thai civil society as a symptom of systematic nationalist indoctrination. He argued that this process distorted historical facts in favor of a heroic national narrative and thus laid the groundwork for current conflicts.
For him, the debate triggered by Chainarong’s questions showed how deeply such narratives had penetrated public consciousness. Challenging them, he suggested, would require confronting long-standing myths at the heart of Thai education and politics.