Mediation in Thailand

This afternoon I had a meeting with Supanat of the Office for Peace and Governance at the King Prajihidok Institute (KPI). KPI is an independent organization and government consultancy and was originally one of my potential placements in Thailand. While it did not work out, I still wanted to meet with someone from the institute to get a better sense of their work and understand their role in peace-building and mediation.
Supanat and I chatted for several hours, on topics ranging from his role as an advisor on reconciliation to the government after the 2006 military coup, to the development of peer mediation programs in Thai high schools. Supanat also gave several examples of the various types of multi-party disputes he has mediated. For instance, a dispute emerged when a mining company established itself uphill from a large temple. As the mining concession developed, many local people got jobs working at the mine. However, dust clouded the area, which disturbed the monks’ activities and meditation, and there were several instances of rocks falling and damaging the temple roof. KPI came in set up a community mediation process, in which all stakeholders were invited to participate, and after many months, a solution was finally reached.

Thinking back to November to my time in Croatia, where I assisted on a 2-week USAID-sponsored mediation training program for judges, it was interesting to compare how mediation practices have been adapted to different countries cultures and legal systems. Supanat also mentioned that they use the same basic texts of the trade, such as Getting to Yes (a sacred text at Insight). I was momentarily impressed at how these concepts and practices have seemingly transcended national and cultural boundaries. However, as my appreciation for the differences between Western and Asian culture have grown during my time here, I pushed back at bit and asked Supanat if he really thought that the approaches outlined in those books were actually relevant and appropriate in Thailand. He answered that the basic principles certainly crossed over, but clarified that many practices had in fact been modified to be more culturally appropriate. For instance, he mentioned that emotions are rarely discussed overtly and that mediators are usually middle-aged or older and serve almost as arbitrators who have the authority to decide the outcome of a case. He also explained that mediation was increasingly popular not only at a community level, but also in the criminal court system as a process of restorative justice. Considering how counter-productive the penal system often is in the United States, I thought this was a particularly innovative and valuable application of mediation.