BANGKOK, THAILAND – A leading Thai journalist argued that nationalist school indoctrination helped silence civil society over the 2025 border war with Cambodia and continues to shape public attitudes toward the conflict.
Civil society’s silence questioned
Prominent social activist Chainarong Setthachua drew attention with a Facebook post in which he challenged the lack of public debate about the fighting along the Cambodian frontier.
“Why is Thai civil society silent, why are NGOs and social activists silent about the border war? Or do they actually agree with the war?”
said Chainarong Setthachua, social activist.
Critical commentator Pravit Rojanaphruk responded with a pointed analysis targeting what he described as entrenched nationalist thinking.
“The extreme nationalism that has been drilled into you at school 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 get out of this narrow-minded and nationalistic way of thinking.”
said Pravit Rojanaphruk, journalist.
History class as a tool of propaganda
In a detailed commentary, Rojanaphruk argued that the Thai education system presented a one-sided national story in which Thailand always appeared as the central hero. Students were taught to see Myanmar as an aggressor, while various Malay and Lao city-states were depicted as rebellious entities that had to be suppressed, including the destruction of Vientiane.
He wrote that this narrative formed part of a broader pattern of school indoctrination that left little space for critical reflection on Thailand’s regional role. According to his analysis, such teaching fostered an unquestioning belief in the country’s moral righteousness in past and present conflicts.
Demonisation of the Khmer
Rojanaphruk highlighted what he described as a particularly insidious portrayal of the Khmer people of Cambodia. Thai students, he said, had long been exposed to a systematic characterisation of Cambodians as “sneaky and unreliable,” stereotypes that had been passed down through generations and continued to influence perceptions of the neighbouring state.
He argued that these images were not confined to textbooks but permeated public consciousness, shaping how many Thais interpreted the 2025 border war. This continuity, he suggested, helped explain why civil society showed little resistance to the conflict narrative.
Siam’s forgotten imperial role
The journalist also revisited the regional history of Siam, the precursor state to modern Thailand. In the historical version widely taught in Thai schools, Western powers Britain and France were said to have stripped away territories once under Siamese control, areas that now form parts of Laos, northern Malaysia, southern Myanmar and Cambodia.
“In short, Siam was once a regional imperial power that behaved like the big boss in the neighbourhood until it came under pressure from Britain and France.”
said Pravit Rojanaphruk, journalist.
He linked this framing to a sense of historical grievance that, in his view, still informed Thailand’s posture toward Cambodia and other neighbours, reinforcing the belief that the country remained a rightful protagonist in regional disputes.
Old traumas in a new war
Rojanaphruk explained that many Thais still saw themselves as the main and righteous party in regional conflicts, while the Khmer continued to be regarded as “sneaky and unreliable,” just as they were portrayed during the era of Khmer ruler Phraya Lawek more than four centuries ago. The current war with Cambodia in 2025, he argued, was not an isolated event but reactivated school-taught memories.
Those memories ranged from Thailand’s loss of authority over Cambodia to France in 1867 to the 1962 ruling by the International Court of Justice on the disputed Preah Vihear temple. He wrote that these episodes formed a chain of historical traumas regularly invoked in nationalist discourse.
Backlash against mediation efforts
Rojanaphruk sharply criticised the prevailing stance toward international attempts to mediate in the 2025 conflict. He said Thai ultranationalists believed that US President Donald Trump should not interfere, reflecting a broader rejection of outside involvement.
He noted that Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, in his role as current ASEAN chair, faced strong criticism after he announced a ceasefire on Facebook on 13 December 2025. That reaction, he suggested, underscored how nationalist narratives limited the political space for regional diplomacy.
“War for votes” and electoral calculus
According to the commentary, Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul pointedly ignored Anwar’s ceasefire call. Rojanaphruk interpreted this as a calculated election strategy designed to boost the premier’s popularity at home.
He argued that Anutin was rapidly gaining support 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. In this reading, the border war doubled as a domestic “war for votes.”
The Phraya Lawek myth revisited
Rojanaphruk wrote that the current battle resembled a historical replay shaped by collective Thai memories stretching back to the Phraya Lawek era. The royal chronicle of Ayutthaya claimed that the siege of Lovek and Phraya Lawek’s execution took place in 1593, 432 years ago.
He contrasted this with findings from academic sources and Cambodian and Spanish chronicles, which indicated that Phraya Lawek in fact escaped before the city fell in 1594. This discrepancy, he argued, exposed deliberate distortions in nationalist storytelling.
When myth collides with historical evidence
In Thai schoolbooks, Phraya Lawek had long been depicted as a “rebellious and treacherous Khmer king.”
“This battle resembles a repetition,”
said Pravit Rojanaphruk, journalist, referring to how the official narrative drew on centuries-old myths.
By pointing to documentary evidence that contradicted the chronicle account, he sought to show how myth had been elevated above verifiable fact in the service of a heroic national story. The correction of the Phraya Lawek episode, he suggested, was emblematic of a wider need to scrutinise school-taught history.
Indoctrination and the cost of silence
Rojanaphruk concluded that the quiet response of Thai civil society to the Cambodia war was a symptom of long-standing nationalist indoctrination. In his assessment, historical facts had been bent to sustain a glorified image of the nation, making it harder for the public to question current policies.
He warned that this dynamic helped prepare the ground for recurring conflicts with Cambodia and other neighbours. Until the education system confronted its own role in shaping perceptions of war and the Khmer, he implied, the silence around such confrontations was likely to persist.