[Tlc] T-Siam/Thailand name

[justinm at ucr.edu]

Forwarded from Dr. Charnvit Kasetsiri.
Thanks,
justin

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/18965/siam-to-thailand

 
Bangkok Post : Siam to Thailand - A historian's view


Tuesday June 23, 2009, 8:18 AM GMT +07:00

Opinion » Opinion

HISTORY
Siam to Thailand - A historian's view

    By: CHARNVIT KASETSIRI 
    Published: 23/06/2009 at 12:00 AM 
    Newspaper section: News

The name of this country was changed from Siam to Thailand during the tenure of the first Phibulsongkhram government (1938-44). During this period, which coincided with World War Two, the country was dominated by an energetic and aggressive brand of nationalism which influenced both domestic and foreign policies.
Phibul was supported by men like Luang Wichit Wathakarn (who was instrumental in bringing in the name change), Luang Promyothi (who commanded the Thai army which invaded French Indochina in 1940), Luang Saranupraphan (who composed the nationalistic lyrics for the national anthem which is still in use) and Sang Phatthanothai (who was responsible for a nationalist radio talk show called Nai Mun lae Nai Khong).
Phibul and his clique have since been regarded by many as a military dictatorship and have been linked with the Nazi and fascist movements. During this period Thailand moved into areas in mainland Southeast Asia which had previously been divided up between the French and British empires. In the early 1940s Thailand wrested the Cambodian provinces of Siem Riep, Battambang and Champasak from French Indochina, occupied part of the Shan States (Keng Tung), and took over four states in northern Malaya (Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu) from the British.
The perception that Phibul had fascist sympathies also derives partly from the fact that he signed a cooperation pact with the Japanese and declared war on the United States and Great Britain.
On June 24, 1939, in a swift and dramatic political move, Maj Gen Luang Phibulsongkhram, aged 42, who had been appointed prime minister only six months before, declared that the name of the country was to change from Siam (Prathet Syam) to Thailand (Prathet Thai). The premier announced that: "The use of the name of the country has been both Thai and Siam, whereas, since the Thai people are inclined to call the country Thai, the government therefore deems it to be a ratthaniyom [cultural mandate of the state] that the name of the country should be in accordance with the name of race and the niyom [inclination] of the Thai people."
On the same day the government announced that June 24, the date of the coup in 1932 which ended absolute monarchy, would henceforth be Wan Chart (National Day). It was the first time that a public holiday was not related to religious or dynastic celebrations. A foundation stone was also laid on Ratchadamnoen Avenue for the highly symbolic Democracy Monument.
The night before, Phibul had delivered a 50-minute speech on nationwide radio, the main topic of which was "Love for the Nation." He said he felt it necessary to introduce what he called prapehni niyom pracham chart or "national traditions" and that his government would periodically proclaim "cultural mandates" to guide the country and the behaviour of the people. He was convinced that these mandates would make Thai people more araya (civilised).
Up to this point the government had been rather keen in soliciting support from, and the participation of, the general public, especially educated people living in Bangkok and surrounding urban areas. The name change was discussed and approved by the Cabinet sometime in late May 1939.
In early June, the Ministry of Defence launched an effort to sound out public opinion on the issue with Phibul putting forward five kham chakchuan (persuasive words/arguments) in support of the move. They were:
The name "Siam" does not accord with the name of the race which is "Thai".
The name Siam contradicts the nationality of the Thai people.
Siam was a province of the Khom (Khmer) who once ruled the Thai nation and when Phra Ruang gained freedom, the name "Siam" was dropped.
The word "Siam" is used in the written not the spoken language.
The Thai nation is great and it is only appropriate to give our country a name which accords with the prestige of the Thai race.
What prompted the decision to rename the country in the first place? And why has the name Thailand persisted to the present day?
By the beginning of the 20th century, the Western approach to the study of antiquity had become fashionable among the Thai elite. Their contacts with and frequent visits to Western colonies in Southeast Asia plus their first-hand knowledge of European civilisations put them in touch with learned gentlemen's clubs like the Royal Asiatic Society and l'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme Orient as well as various museums, libraries and academic journals.
Similar institutions were also set up in the country during this period: the Siam Society in 1904; Bangkok Library (Hor Samut Samrab Phra Nakhon) in 1905; and the Royal Research Society (Samakhom Suebsuan Khong Boran Nai Prathet Sayam) in 1907 - its name was later changed to Borankhadi Samosorn. These were mechanisms to search for and learn about anything Thai in the construction of official nationalism. Such studies of antiquity seemed to have had a most profound political and psychological impact on the Thai elite as well as on the lower echelon of the educated urban population.
By the 1920s (and continuing on through the 1930s), the construction of Thailand's collective past in close connection with race became even more intensified, especially after the 1932 "revolution" or coup. This was due partly to King Vajiravudh's campaign to promote "official nationalism," partly to the growing number of educated people among the middle and bureaucratic classes, and partly to the influence of texts written by Western colonialists and missionaries. We shall see that the rise of a new educated middle class put more emphasis on the race issue; in fact race was to become almost the central theme in their view of Thai nation, nationalism and linear history.
Here we see the history of the Thai nation as a long march from China into the "golden land" of the present. On this long march to freedom, Thais established centres of population in central China (the kingdoms of Mung, Lung, Pa, Ai-lao, etc), then in Nan Chao in the southwestern province of Yunnan and, after Nan Chao was destroyed by Kublai Khan, in Sukhothai, Ayutthaya and then Thonburi/Bangkok.
Here also we see a proliferation of articles and books on Thailand's racial past. Probably the three most influential books written in this historiographical vein were Lak Thai (Thai Pillars) by Sanga Kanchanakkhaphan (better known as Khun Wichitmatra); Prawatisat Sakon (Universal History) by Luang Wichit Wathakarn; and Reuang Khong Chart Thai (The Story of the Thai Nation) by Phraya Anuman.
King Vajiravudh's successor, King Prajadhipok (King Rama VII), gave an award to Lak Thai in 1928 and the book immediately became very popular. A second print run of 1,000 copies was made the following year. Lak Thai is a linear history about the march south made by the Thai race. The author frankly states that the book is intended, primarily, to encourage Thais to love their nation, have faith in the Buddhist religion and be loyal to their king. Of these three "pillars," Sanga was most interested in the first. He ends the book by emphasising how important it is for rao Thai ("we, the Thai") to love our nation.
As for the voluminous Prawatisat Sakon, this is more like what we might today call "world history"; that is, it focuses on major civilisations, West and East. It is interesting that its author, Luang Wichit, the most influential nationalist ideologue of his day, managed to "prove" that the Thai race was one of the greatest in the world.
To illustrate my point further, it is worth remarking that books in this vein were very much encouraged and had a wide circulation during the 1930s. New texts of this sort appeared regularly; they were often sponsored by government agencies and distributed free-of-charge at cremations or during Buddhist kathin (merit-making) ceremonies.
Praphaisiri's Wikhroh Reuang Muang Thai Doem (Analysis of the Ancient Country of the Thai), published in 1935, is a good example of a book produced and distributed in this way. Another is a text, also published in 1935, which was written for use by students at military academies: Naew Sorn Prawatisat (Guidelines for Teaching History) by Major Phra Wisetphotchanakit (Thongdi).
In addition to books by members of the upper and middle classes, we again see work written by Westerners during this period not only initiating the linear racial idea but also helping to perpetuate and consolidate it to a certain degree. Of all the Western writings from this time, William C Dodd's The Tai Race - Elder Brothers of the Chinese (1923) was probably the most influential work published since Parker's Nan Chao, the Thais and Kublai Khan.
Dr Dodd was an American missionary who lived and worked in Chiang Rai for more than 30 years. Between 1886 and 1918, he travelled widely, mostly on horseback, to the Shan States, Yunnan and southeastern China. In various accounts (later complied, edited and published in book form by his wife) he described meetings with all kinds of Tai-speaking people (notice the distinction between Tai and Thai), literate and illiterate, Buddhist and animist.
His book immediately became popular among educated, middle-class Bangkok Thais. It was translated into Thai and initially published in serial form. The book itself went through at least three editions during this period (1935, 1939 and 1940).
Dr Dodd's first-hand field experiences made the linear racial idea exceptionally real and convincing to Thais. Needless to say, the idea eventually made its way into the highly centralised Ministry of Education, influenced the absolute monarchy and post-absolute (constitutional) monarchy, and was finally and firmly included in all school textbooks. Thai students learned to memorise the strange-sounding names of Nan Chao kings, monarchs of whom their ancestors during the Ayutthaya and early Bangkok periods had probably never even heard.
Initially, ideas about race, original homeland and successive kingdoms were probably worked out in a fairly "unconscious" manner. But slowly the emphasis shifted away from palaces and kings. And by this stage, Thais, especially those who had had a modern education, thought of themselves as Thai, as living within the borders of territory called Muang Thai - the country of the Thai.
Here, again, we can see that a new society with a more horizontal rather than hierarchical structure was taking shape. Although race is a very general, abstract concept with which it is intellectually difficult to identify, it could easily be associated with another vague idea, that of "the people."
Following the distinction between dynastic realm and "imagined communities," it is probably a basis for the transformation from dynasty to nation-state. Phibul's concept of Thailand fit better because it was modern, indigenous, popular and national, while Siam was regarded as old-fashioned, foreign, hierarchical, and monarchic.
Seventy years have passed since the country's name change (in 1939) and many things have happened during the intervening period. With the end of World War Two in August 1945, Phibul (prime minister from December 1938 to August 1944) and some of his leading supporters were charged with war crimes. They were subsequently acquitted.
During this brief, post-war period (1945-48), the name "Siam" was reintroduced. It was used, however, only in English and other foreign languages, while in Thai, "Prathet Thai" or "Thailand" persisted. Liberal and royalist prime ministers like Khuang Aphaiwong (1944), Thawee Bunyaket (1945) and Pridi Banomyong (1946) did not attempt to change the Thai name for the Kingdom back to Siam. As mentioned earlier, Pridi's version of the 1946 charter, which he himself counter-signed, was entitled "Constitution of the Thai Kingdom" (Ratchanachak Thai); no mention was made in the document to "Sayam" or "Siam."
In 1948, Phibul staged a comeback and became prime minister for another nine years. The Thai-language name for the country continued to be "Prathet Thai;" in English "Thailand" again supplanted "Siam." During the drafting of the conservative/royalist Constitution of 1949, the Siam/Thailand question was debated and a vote called.
Those in favour of "Thailand" won a narrow victory and the name was in use throughout the Cold War period. In 1957 Phibul was overthrown by a military coup group led by his own defence minister, Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat. For almost two years the country was ruled by caretaker premiers (Pote Sarasin and Thanom Kittikachorn) until Sarit took the reins of power himself in February 1959. Thus began the long dictatorial military regime of Sarit-Thanom (in 1963 Thanom Kittikachorn succeeded Sarit as prime minister; he remained in power until 1973) and the long process of drafting a new military/bureaucratic-inspired constitution (1958-68).
During this process, the Thailand-versus-Siam question resurfaced and was discussed at length by the Constitution Drafting Assembly. The assembly met to debate the issue on three separate occasions (June 22, July 6 and July 20, 1961) during which sessions well-known members of the elite including Luang Wichit Wathakarn, Field Marshal Phin Choonhavan and MR Kukrit Pramoj expressed their views at length. The final vote was 134 for "Thailand" and only five in favour of "Siam."
One would have thought that such an overwhelming vote in favour of Thailand would have been enough to lay Siam to rest forever. But the 1960s saw another attempt to bring back Siam as the name of the country. The lead was taken by a group of intellectuals headed by Sulak Sivaraksa, editor of the respected journal Sangkhomsat Parithat, and a few other academics.
Their efforts came to nothing despite a partial resurgence during that decade of the influence of the monarchy. The present King, Rama IX, has since managed to restore the power and prestige of the monarchy to an unprecedented extent. But it is obvious that His Majesty is King of Thailand, not of Siam.
Interestingly enough, after the student uprising of 1973 that overthrew Thanom's military regime, the Siam-versus-Thailand question was again reconsidered by the Constitution Drafting Committee of 1975. However, this time around the issue received very little attention.
In the latter part of the 1980s, when Thailand's bubble economy was at its peak, Carabao, a popular young folk-rock band, released what is still one of their best-known hit songs, Made in Thailand.
"Thailand" would now seem to be firmly established as the name of the country, though who can state with any surety that the question of nomenclature will never be raised again?
And one wonders whether Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva could spare one second for the thought of Siam or Thailand in the middle of this mess of yellow and red politics?

    * Retired historian Charnvit Kasetsiri is former rector of Thammasat University.
______________
Dr. Justin McDaniel
Dept. of Religious Studies
3046 INTN
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
951-827-4530
justinm at ucr.edu