While many people may be disappointed with the answer Thailand's Maria Poonlertlarp gave during the Q&A round of this year's Miss Universe contest on Monday, the question remains: Should we blame her for that answer?
Thai people were very upbeat about the possibility that Maria might take the crown after she managed to reach the last five in the competition.
The last time that a Thai woman won Miss Universe was 29 years ago when Porntip Simon (then Nakhirunkanok) took the title in 1988. If Maria had won the competition this year, she would have become the country's third Miss Universe. Apasra Hongsakula was the first Thai woman to win the pageant in 1965 and Porntip the second.
Soonruth Bunyamanee is deputy editor, Bangkok Post.
Maria, a 25-year-old Swedish-Thai beauty who stands 184cm tall, came closer to victory than any contestant from the kingdom since 1988. She had become a favourite in many leading opinion polls over the weekend, and Thais had taken to Twitter to send support using the hashtag #MissuniverseThailand2017.
Unfortunately, she failed to progress to the final three. Maria tearfully expressed her disappointment over the result and thanked the Thai supporters via a Facebook video.
Still, many Thai people, particularly social media users, have been widely debating the nature of her defeat. Many believe that her answer to the judges' question was the deciding factor that cost her the title.
Maria was asked: "What do you think has been the most important social movement of your generation, and why?"
She seemed to struggle with her reply: "I think the most important social movement, so far, is that we're having an ageing population. So the most important movement in our time is definitely the youth. So the youth is the future. The youth is something we have to invest in because they are the ones who are going to look after the Earth that we live in."
Some Thai observers, including people from media, pointed out that Maria's answer missed the point. They cast doubt on whether she understood the definition of "social movement".
No matter how she perceived the term, I personally think we should not blame her for that answer for several reasons.
First of all, it is not an easy question to answer within 30 seconds. To give an adequate reply requires a developed understanding of the terminology involved. "Social movement" is often used as an academic term and "social movement studies" is a particular study programme in the field of sociology.
Moreover, whether Maria understood the meaning of "social movement" or not, within the Thai context it's significance has become diluted.
In a general terms, a social movement is defined as an organised effort by a large group of people, or civic groups, to bring about social, political, economic or cultural change.
People who join a social movement share common objectives even though they may come from different backgrounds.
Such movements have been great forces for change in many countries.
Governments and law enforcers have the right to take action against activists who violate the law. But, generally speaking, people-centred governments lend an ear to the massed voices of their citizens and figure out how to work with activists to ease conflicts. This is because social movements usually focus on issues which have been traditionally ignored by the state or that arise from the governments' own policies.
But in Thailand nowadays, social movements tend to be received less than hospitably when it comes to the government and policy makers. Particularly those concerned with politics, as a number of pro-democracy movements have found out at the cost of the liberty of several of their leaders.
More recently, a civic movement by southern rubber farmers, who planned to come to Bangkok to inform the government of plunging rubber prices, was blocked by authorities. A number of their leaders were detained in military camps for "attitude adjustment".
On the sidelines at his mobile cabinet meeting in Songkhla, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha on Monday insisted that his government has been making efforts to help the rubber industry bounce back, and asked them to understand that it takes time for things to improve.
He also requested the farmers not to protest and kindly suggested that they might like to grow coconuts instead.
Meanwhile, a march by opponents of the planned construction of a coal-fired power plant in Thepha district of Songkhla province clashed with security officials who tried to block their way on Monday while they were en route to a cabinet meeting venue to submit their complaint to the prime minister.
Some 16 people, including four leaders of the 500-strong march were arrested, and three were injured.
Charges against the four leaders include: highway blockade causing traffic danger, physical assault against officials and the illegal possession of weapons (spiked flag poles).
The National Human Rights Commission issued a statement condemning the authorities' action. It said the activity of the group was constitutional and their march was peaceful until the authorities intervened. The commission called on the authorities to free the group's leaders, saying that the movement constituted freedom of expression and is protected by the constitution.
These local examples of social movements falling on deaf ears may partly explain why Thai citizens, such as Maria, are confused over the meaning and importance of collective civic mobilisation.
When citizens join hands to make a point to those in power, it appears that those hands are all too often hastily separated without a thought towards dialogue. So, is it really so hard to believe that Thais, like Maria, are becoming intellectually divorced from the concept itself?
I believe that Maria may well have shone if she'd been given a different question. But I'm glad she wasn't, as it has given us all a chance to reflect on the importance of social movements. It might even be interesting to ask our leaders what their answers to the same question might be.
- News report: Maria flunks Miss Universe 'social' test
