Keywords

Citizenship, Democratic Regime, Citizenship Levels, Sub-district Municipality

Introduction

After the change from the absolute monarchy to the constitutional democratic monarchy in 1932, Thailand has experienced political conflicts and ended up with army coups most of the time. This led to the sudden collapse of the democratic system in the country. Despite the efforts of many active democrats who have fought for democracy restoration, called for the democratic constitution, organized the marches for their rights or gone on strikes in protest at the government’s policies, these is no such thing as an indication of the improvement in the country’s democracy. This is because the democratic system gets so deep that people, who believe in true democracy, have to learn and gain a more accurate perception of the true democracy. Thus, engaged citizens are a key element of high-quality democracy.

The Kingdom of Thailand has had the democratic government regime with the King as head of state since 1932. For the past 85 years, the Thai democracy has so far risen up and fallen down. Therefore, context and condition of the Thai democracy including election have its own blueprint and quite differ considerably from others. The Election commission of Thailand has a constitutional duty to conduct civic education and encourage political public participation which has been nowadays mobilized by a mechanism of quality citizens so called “Sub-district Democracy Development Center (SDDC)”.

Democratic citizenship is required on the road to democracy. According to citizenship in democratic regime and from what researcher learned about the concepts, citizenship is when a citizen realizes his or her rights and duties. However, very little is known about the realities of how different people understand themselves as citizens, and the ways in which this impacts on the different dimensions of their lives (Jones & Gaventa, 2004; Hussain, Hassan, Bakhsh & Abdullah, 2020). Cogan, Morris & Print (2013) defined "citizenship" as status or role within the community including participating in politics in national level. In addition, he or she shall be aware of rights and duties to take part in public activities (Wangkanond, 2011). Focusing on the development of good citizenship is imperative and necessary for Thai society (Thongchan & Chumchan, 2019). Thus, it is importance to develop Thai people in order to have knowledge, morality and ethics due to a democratic way. This encouraged researcher to carry out a study on good citizenship in democratic regime of the people in Koh Taew Sub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality, Songkhla Province, Thailand. Furthermore, researcher also analyzed factors affecting the citizenship levels of the people. Hopefully the research findings would be a helpful guide for whomever to learn more about good citizenship in democratic regime in the future.

Objectives

1. To evaluate the citizenship levels in democratic regime of people residing in Koh TaewSub-districtMunicipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality, Songkhla Province, Thailand.

2. To compare the citizenship levels in democratic regime of people residing in Koh TaewSub-districtMunicipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality, Songkhla Province, Thailand.

3. To analyze factors affecting the citizenship levels of people residing in Koh TaewSub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality, Songkhla Province, Thailand.

4. Scope of the Study

This research focused on the citizenship in democratic regime of people in Koh TaewSub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality,Songkhla Province, Thailand. The research scopes were the followings.

1. The population of the study was people with the ageof 18 and above in Koh TaewSub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality, Songkhla Province, Thailand.

2. The content of the study was the citizenship in democratic regimewhich consists of 1) Respect for the rules and laws, 2) Respect for the principles of equality,3) Respect for the rights of others, 4) Respect for the differences, 5)Social responsibility, and 6) self-reliance and self-responsibility

Hypothesis

H1: There are differences in citizenship levels in democratic regime of people residing in the different areas.

H2: There are differences in citizenship levels of people among individual factors as gender, age, occupation, income, and education level.

Research Methodology

This quantitative study was conducted with a survey research method. Researcher used questionnaires to collect data in order to achieve the aims of the study. Researcher learned concepts, theories, scopes and ideas of the study as well as variables in the study before creating the research instrument for data collection. Then, the instrument was proposed to experts to measure content validity and index of item-objective congruence. Appropriate adjustments were made according to the expert advice. The questionnaire had two parts as follows.

Part 1: The study required general information of respondents including genders, ages, occupations, incomes and education levels.

Part 2: The study required samples to respond to questions in order to evaluate the citizenship levels in various aspects including self-reliance and self-responsibility, respect for the rights of others, respect for the differences, respect for the principles of equality, respect for the rules and laws, and social responsibility. The survey questionnaire had five rating scales including very high, high, medium, low and very low.

Goodness of Measurement

Researcher carried out literature reviews, defined relevant terms, and designed the questionnaire for data collection. The research instrument was then proposed to experts to assess the content validity. The index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) is also used as the basis for screening the item quality of questions in the questionnaire (Thawirat, 2007; Hussain, Nguyen, Nguyen & Nguyen, 2021).

After appropriate adjustments were made according to the expert advice, researcher conducted a pilot study using 30 copies of the adjusted questionnaire. Researcher employed Cronbach’s alpha method to measure the scale reliability. Theatrically, Cronbach’s alpha results shall be a number from 0 – 1 (Kaiyawan & Phalaphrom, 2010; Hussain & Hassan, 2020). The Cronbach’s alpha result from the aspect of respect for the rules and laws was at 0.781, considered a reliable item. The Cronbach’s alpha result from the aspect of respect for the principles of equality was at 0.834, considered a very reliable item. The Cronbach’s alpha result from the aspect of respect for the rights of others was at 0.763, considered a reliable item. The Cronbach’s alpha result from the aspect of respect for the differences was at 0.812, considered a very reliable item. The Cronbach’s alpha result from the aspect of social responsibility was at 0.802, considered a very reliable item. The Cronbach’s alpha result from the aspect of self-reliance and self-responsibility was at 0.752, considered a reliable item. According to Hair, et al., (2010), this questionnaire is acceptable.

Sampling Method

Non-probability sampling was used for the sampling method in this research. Among 732 samples, there were 377 samples from Koh TaewSub-district Municipality of Mueang District and 355 samples from Ban Han Sub-district Municipality of Bang Klam District. Regarding the purposive sampling, the respondents were people aged 18 and over.

Data Collection

Researcher collected data from 732 samples including 377 respondents from Koh TaewSub-district Municipality of Mueang District and 355 respondents from Ban Han Sub-district Municipality of BangKlam District. The information had been collected from April to July 2019. The information was analyzed to obtain the results according to the research methodology.

Data Analysis and Statistics

1. Researcher used descriptive statistics including frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation to analyze the citizenship level in various aspects. The aspects included respect for the rules and laws, respect for the principles of equality, respect for the rights of others, respect for the differences, social responsibility, and self-reliance and self-responsibility.

2. Researcher used independent sample t-test to compare the citizenship levels of the two groups of samples at the significance level of 0.05.

3. Researcher used independent sample t-test and One-way ANOVA to analyze factors affecting the citizenship level of the samples at the significance level of 0.05.

Results

The 377 respondents from Koh TaewSub-district Municipality included 138 men, amounting to 36.6%, and 239 women, amounting to 63.4%. Most of the respondents, 238 people, were single. There were 144 respondents between the ages of 41 and 50, representing 38.2%. Most of the respondents, 146 people, were business owners or individual traders, representing 38.7%. There were 122 respondents, amounting to 32.4%, received a monthly income between 10,001 – 20,000 baht. Besides, education levels of 180 respondents, accounting for 47.7%, were junior high school, senior high school or the equivalent. The 355 respondents from Ban Han Sub-district Municipality included 169 men, amounting to 47.6%, and 186 women, amounting to 52.4%. Most of the respondents, 224 people, were married. There were 141 respondents between the ages of 41 and 50, representing 39.7%. Most of the respondents, 138 people, were farmers, representing 38.9%. There were 114 respondents, amounting to 32.1%, received a monthly income between 10,001 – 20,000 baht. Besides, education levels of 158 respondents, accounting for 44.5%, were primary school.

To Evaluate the Citizenship Levels in democratic regime of the People Residing in Koh Taew Sub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality, Songkhla Province, Thailand

The citizenship in democratic regime of the people in Koh Taew Sub-district Municipality was at high level in the overall picture with the Mean Value of 3.72 and Standard Deviation is 0.819. Most of the respondents had respect for the rules and laws with the Mean Value of 4.04 and Standard Deviation is 0.889 and social responsibility with the Mean Value of 3.84 and Standard Deviation is 0.867, respectively. Compared to other aspects, the respondents had least respect for the differences with the Mean Value of 3.34 and Standard Deviation is 759. The citizenship in democratic regime of the people in Ban Han Sub-district Municipality was also at high level in the overall picture with the Mean Value of 3.91 and Standard Deviation is 0.612. Most of the respondents had social responsibility with the Mean Value of 4.43 and Standard Deviation is 0.819, and respect for the differences with the Mean Value of 3.98 and Standard Deviation is 0.688. Compared to other aspects, the respondents had least respect for the principles of equality with the Mean Value of 3.36 and Standard Deviation is 0.545. By comparison, the citizenship level in democratic regime of people in Ban Han Sub-district Municipality was higher than the citizenship level of people in Koh Taew Sub-district Municipality (see Table 1).

Table 1 Citizenship Levels in Democratic Regime of The People
Citizenship Level in Democratic Regime	Koh Taew Sub-district Municipality		Ban Han Sub-district Municipality
	Mean Value	Standard Deviation	Mean Value	Standard Deviation
Respect for the Rules and Laws	4.04	0.889	3.96	0.554
Respect for the Principles of Equality	3.72	0.615	3.36	0.545
Respect for the Rights of Others	3.77	0.961	3.97	0.561
Respect for the Differences	3.34	0.759	3.98	0.688
Social Responsibility	3.84	0.867	4.43	0.745
Self-reliance and Self-responsibility	3.65	0.825	3.78	0.582
Total	3.72	0.819	3.91	0.612

To Compare the Citizenship Levels in democratic regime of the People Residing in Koh Taew Sub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality, Songkhla Province, Thailand

According to the comparison, the citizenship levels in democratic regime of people in Koh TaewSub-district Municipality and in Ban Han Sub-district Municipality were significantly different at the level of 0.01. In other words, people residing in the different areas achieved different levels of citizenship (see Table 2). Thus, the hypothesis H1 was accepted.

Table 2 Comparison of Citizenship Levels in Democratic Regime Between People in Koh
Sub-district	N	Mean Value	Standard Deviation	t	sig
Municipality
Koh Taew	377	3.72	0.819	2.686**	0
Ban Han	355	3.91	0.612
**significant at p<0.01

According to thecomparison in the citizenship levels in democratic regime between male and female, the results showed that there were significantly different at the level of 0.05. It implied that gender wasa factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime of people (see Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of Citizenship Levels Between Male and Female
Gender	N	Mean Value	Standard Deviation	t	sig
Male	308	4.0097	0.16212	-1.399*	0.05
Female	424	4.0277	0.18448
*significant at p< 0.05

To Analyze Factors Affecting the Citizenship Levels of People Residing in Koh Taew Sub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality, Songkhla Province, Thailand

According to the factors affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime of people in Koh TaewSub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality, the citizenship levels in democratic regime of people at different ages were significantly different at the level of 0.05. Using the Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) as a tool to analyze the results, researcher found that the citizenship levels in democratic regime of people between the ages of 18 and 27 were different from the people between the ages of 50 and 60 and the people over 61. In other words, age was a factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime.

In addition, the citizenship levels in democratic regime of the people having different occupations were significantly different at the level of 0.05. Using the LSD to analyze the results, researcher found that the citizenship levels in democratic regime of the respondents who were students were different from the respondents who were housewives, retirees, employees, government officials/state enterprise workers, and business owners/individual traders. In other words, occupation was another factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime.

Moreover, the citizenship levels in democratic regime of people having different amounts of monthly income were significantly different at the level of 0.05. Using the LSD to analyze the results, researcher found that the citizenship levels in democratic regime of the respondents who received monthly income less than 10,000 baht were different from the respondents who received monthly income of 20,001 - 30,000 baht, or over 30,001 baht. In other words, monthly income was another factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime.

Furthermore, the citizenship levels in democratic regime of the respondents having different education levels were significantly different at the level of 0.05. Using the LSD to analyze the results, researcher found that the citizenship levels in democratic regime of the respondents whose education levels were below primary school level or at primary school level were different from the respondents whose education levels were at junior high school/senior high school, equivalent to a bachelor’s degree, or above a bachelor’s degree. In other words, education level was another factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime (see Table 4). Thus, the hypothesis H2 was accepted.

Table 4 Factors Affecting The Citizenship Levels In Democratic Regime Of People In Koh Taewsub-District Municipality And Ban Han Sub-District Municipality
ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Age	Between Groups	0.691	4	0.173	5.021	.001*
	Within Groups	24.986	726	0.034
	Total	25.677	730
Occupation	Between Groups	0.897	8	0.112	3.27	.001*
	Within Groups	24.794	723	0.034
	Total	25.691	731
Income	Between Groups	0.539	5	0.108	3.112	.009*
	Within Groups	25.152	726	0.035
	Total	25.691	731
Education	Between Groups	13.135	4	3.284	190.14	.000*
	Within Groups	12.556	727	0.017
	Total	25.691	731
*significant at p< 0.05

Discussion

These followings were discussion items from the research on good citizenship in democratic regime of people in Koh Taew Sub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality.

According to the research finding, the citizenship in democratic regime of people in Koh TaewSub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality was at high level. This was in accordance with the study of Chanthawan (2015) on citizenship in democracy: case study of undergraduate students at Ramkhamhaeng University. The result revealed that the citizenship of undergraduate students at Ramkhamhaeng University was also at high level. This study isdifferent from (Thongchan & Chumchan, 2019; Funkhiaw, Nakwangsai & Buadee, 2019)’s study which found that the level of citizenship in democratic regime of the people for the youth and students was at the middle level. However, it was in contrast to the study of (Sukyai, 2008) on citizenship in democratic regime of Chiang Mai people. The study result showed that the citizenship in democratic regime of Chiang Mai people was at medium level. Different groups of samples and different times that the studies were carried out could possibly be the factors affecting the results.

By comparison, the citizenship level in democratic regime of people in Ban Han Sub-district Municipality was different from the citizenship level of the people in Koh TaewSub-districtMunicipality. The research finding was in accordance with the study of (Bureekul et al., 2012) on citizenship in Thailand. The result showed that people residing in different regions had different levels of citizenship. Therefore, living area could be a factor affecting the citizenship level of people.

According to the research finding, factors affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime of people in Koh Taew Sub-district Municipality and Ban Han Sub-district Municipality were age, occupation, income, and education level.

Gender- The research found that gender was a factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime of people. The result is in the line with (Wichiranon, 2013)’s study. However, the result of the study is different from (Sukyai, 2008; Parnichparinchai & Parnichparinchai, 2017)’s study that found male and female students were not different in affecting the citizenship of people.

Age -The research revealed that age was a factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime. The result was consistent with the study of (Chanthawan, 2015) on citizenship in democracy: case study of undergraduate students at Ramkhamhaeng University, indicating that age was a factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime. In other words, age could be a factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime.

Occupation -Researcher found that occupation was a factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime. The result was in contrast to the study of (Sukyai, 2008) on citizenship in democratic regime of Chiang Mai people, showing that occupation was not a factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime. The research results could possibly be varied since the two studies were carried out at different places and times.

Income –The research indicated that the citizenship levels in democratic regime of the people having different amounts of monthly income were different. The result was in accordance with the study of (Sukyai, 2008) on citizenship in democratic regime of Chiang Mai people, suggesting that monthly income was an important factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime. Therefore, the citizenship levels of people having different amounts of monthly income could be varied.

Education Level – Researcher found that education level was a factor affecting the citizenship levels in democratic regime. The result was consistent with the study of (Bureekul et al., 2012) on citizenship in Thailand, showing that education level affected the citizenship levels in democratic regime. Therefore, the citizenship levels of people having different education levels could also be different.

Limitations and Recommendations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, this study focuses on the respondents from two municipalities with limited time. It is necessary to evaluate other municipalities' citizenship levels in democratic regime. Secondly, the data of this study were collected by questionnaires from the respondents by survey online without meeting the respondentsdirectly. Finally, the respondents in the survey online were asked to transfer their opinions about the issues given in the questionnaire into numbers using the Likert Scale. The answers of the respondents might be influenced by their biased perceptions. Therefore, future research might use some qualitative instruments such as interviews or focused groups to gather data from the respondents.

Conclusion

A democratic country is mostly formed by democratic citizenship of population. At present, cultivating democratic citizenship has widely been mentioned as an active support for genuine democracy in Thailand. According to the research findings, the citizenship levels of the people residing in the two municipalities were at high level. It is a good signal of democratic development in Thailand. Hopefully, the research would be beneficial for promoting good citizenship in democratic regime in society so that Thailand will have true democracy in the near future.

References

1. Bureekul, T., Saengmahamad, R., Merieau, E., & Volpe, M. (2012). Citizenship in Thailand. The 13th Academic Conference of King Prajadhipok's Institute on Citizenship and the Future of Thai Democracy, 289-316, Bangkok: King Prajadhipok's Institute.
2. Chanthawan, N. (2015). Citizenship in democracy: Case study of undergraduate students at Ramkhamhaeng University, Main Campus. Academic Journal of Phranaknon Rajabhat University, 104-113, Bangkok: Phranaknon Rajabhat University.
3. Cogan, J., Morris, P., & Print, M. (2013). Civic education in the Asia-Pacific region: Case studies across six societies. New York: Routledge Falmer.
4. Funkhiaw, A., Nakwangsai, K., & Buadee, N. (2019). The model development of creating citizenship consciousness for the youth in 5 border areas districts in Tak Province. Research and Development Journal Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, 11(1).
5. Hair, J.F., Andersson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Inc.
6. Hussain, S., & Hassan, A.A.G. (2020). The reflection of exchange rate exposure and working capital management on manufacturing firms of pakistan. Talent Development & Excellence, 12(2).
7. Hussain, S., Hassan, A.A.G., Bakhsh, A., & Abdullah, M. (2020). The impact of cash holding, and exchange rate volatility on the firm’s financial performance of all manufacturing sector in Pakistan.
8. Hussain, S., Nguyen, Q.M., Nguyen, H.T., & Nguyen, T.T. (2021). Macroeconomic factors, working capital management, and firm performance—A static and dynamic panel analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-14.
9. Jones, E., & Gaventa, J. (2004). Concepts of citizenship: A review. IDS Development Bibliography 19, Brighton: IDS.
10. Kaiyawan, Y., &Phalaphrom, K. (2010). Basic of research. Bangkok: Center for library resources and educational media.
11. Khamsrichan,W. (2001). Civil consciousness in Thai social context. Ph.D. Thesis (Population Study). Bangkok: Graduate College, Mahidol University.
12. Parnichparinchai, T., & Parnichparinchai, J. (2017). Citizenship of undergraduate students in Naresuan University. The Golden Teak: Humanity and Social Science Journal (GTHJ), 23(1), 1-13.
13. Sukyai, L. (2008). Citizenship in democratic regime of Chiang Mai’speople: Acomparative study between people in Mueang District and Doi Saket District. Independent Study in Political Sciences, Graduate School, Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai University.
14. Thawirat, P. (2007). Research methodology for the behavioral and social sciences (7th edition). Bangkok: Educational and Psychological Test Bureau, Srinakharinwirot University.
15. Thongchan, S., & Chumchan, S. (2019). Quality and democratic citizenship of students of Rajabhat MahaSarakham University. MahaSarakham: Rajabhat MahaSarakham University.
16. Wangkanond, R. (2011). Citizen consciousness. Bangkok: Cabinet and Royal Gazette Publishing Office.
17. Wichiranon, S. (2013). Characteristics of good citizens of students of Rajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon. Bangkok : Rajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon