Some reflections on the circumstances prevalent in the late 1930s, when Siam became Thailand
Thursday January 10, 2008
BAREND JAN TERWIEL
Bangkok Post
Some countries change their names. For example, in 1935 the country hitherto ubiquitously known as Persia pronounced itself henceforth to be called Iran. A more recent case of a country announcing that it wished to be known under a new name was when, in 1989, Burma became Myanmar - a change that was not accepted by some countries such as the United States.
Such name changes are usually not made lightly; it doesn't bear thinking how many letterheads suddenly have to be altered when a country decides to change its name.
The reasons for making a change may be symbolic, wanting to underline a change of regime or the beginning of a new era. Often, however, the renaming of a country marks a quite complex ideological statement.
Why was the name Siam abandoned?
One argument often used is that the name Siam was imposed upon the Thais by foreigners; that the word ''Siam'' was not indigenous.
It is, indeed, a fact that the word Siam was used already centuries ago, not by the Thai people to indicate their own country, but by foreigners.
The situation whereby a country is called by one name by the people inhabiting it and by a quite different name by people not living there is by no means unusual, and generally, when no offence is meant with the foreign appellation, no offence is taken.
In Europe, for example, there are people who call their country Suomi, outsiders call it Finland. The Germans call their own country Deutschland, quite different from the word Germany, used by English-speaking people, or Allemagne in French. The French, in turn, have no problem when Germans use the term Frankreich. The people who call their country Espana do not object when strangers call it Spain.
In the same way, up to 1939 the Thais were not only used to the fact that outsiders called their country Siam, they were not in the least offended by this and themselves proudly used it when dealing with outsiders.
When people referred to their own country in the Siamese language, various combinations of words were used. The oldest expression describing the whole country was Mueang Thai, already accounted for in the 17th century by the French ambassador Simon de La Loubere.
Other commonly used names of the country in the Thai language were: Krung Thai, Prathet Thai, Krung Siam and Prathet Siam. The word ''krung'' must be seen as somewhat more formal than ''mueang,'' and the word ''prathet'' derived from Sanskrit being the superlative of the words for ''country.''
On bilingual coins, banknotes, stamps, seals and letterheads prior to 1939 we find usually in European characters simply the word Siam, while in Thai characters the word was spelled Sayam, or one of the five indigenous options mentioned above was used.
In formal state documents the name of the country could be couched in even more elaborate compounds, stringing together a whole series of honourable, pleasant-sounding words describing the wealth, extent and power of the realm.
King Mongkut (r. 1851-1868) is well known as being most sensitive towards the proper use of the Thai language. How pleased he was with the word Siam is clear by his frequent use of it. Thus he called the country that he ruled Prathet Siam. When he signed international agreements he wrote after his name Rex Siamensis (and not Rex Thai). He called the deity protecting the state: Phra Siam Thewathirat, or ''Lord Protector of Siam.'' In early issues of 19th century coins the country is at first called Krung Siam, then Siam Ratchananachak (the Realm of Siam) and finally Rat Siam (Siam State). On stamps the words Krung Siam proudly served for about 50 years until October 1939, when the law proposing the name change was signed by the regent and thus became effective.
What was the real reason for changing the name in 1939?
The Siamese government's announcement of a change in the country's name was published on the seventh anniversary of the overthrow of absolute monarchy, on June 24, 1939.
As for the official reason for making the change, the announcement blithely mentioned that the people preferred the word ''Thai'' to the word ''Siam.'' Like many official statements appearing at that time, this was pure government propaganda, not really reflecting the will of the people. The government of that time believed in a strong leadership, rather as educator of the people, guiding them in turbulent times, making decisions in what it believed to be their interests. No opinion poll had been consulted and the discussion of the matter just prior to it becoming law in October 1939 was by no means an endorsement.
As far as we can see from letters to the editor, at least some spokesmen for ''the people'' were by no means pleased with the new construct. Particularly the word ''Thailand'' caused critics to raise their voice.
In order to examine what really motivated the government to make the change of name, let us quickly note the situation prior to 1939.
Why did the Phibun government in 1939 announce that the people preferred the word ''Thai''?
In order to understand the measure, it is necessary to consider the situation two months prior to Germany's invasion of Poland and the outbreak of World War Two.
The Thai government was aware of the tense international situation, but saw the distinct possibility that a major armed conflict would result in a dramatic weakening of European powers.
Japan was engaged in a vicious war in China, and a dramatic weakening of the French and British positions in Southeast Asia would result in the possibility of a reordering of Asian borders.
Such a rearrangement, it was felt in government circles, could greatly benefit the Siamese nation for two reasons.
The first was the feeling that during the past 80 years much territory had been lost to the colonial powers. The second was the newly gained knowledge of vast numbers of close relatives living beyond the borders.
As for the first reason, during the period between 1867 and 1907, in a series of treaties with Britain and France, Siam had ceded traditional rights over vast territories, agreeing to withdraw its borders to those it holds at present.
Historians such as Thongchai Winichakul have pointed out that these outer regions had only been part of a sphere of influence that waxed or waned with the relative power of the central region, and that territory that was far away from the capital often usually was not ruled directly.
Nevertheless, in the 1920s and 1930s there was a growing feeling in Siam that the country had been served very badly in the confrontations with neighbouring colonial powers.
Particularly the French were singled out as having enriched their colonial empire at Siam's cost, beginning with the declaration of Cambodia to be a French protectorate in 1867, followed by the annexation of Laos in 1893, the loss of territories on the right bank of the Mekong River in 1904, and finally the loss of three provinces to Cambodia in 1907.
Similarly, the British had gained four provinces in the Malay Peninsula at Siam's cost. The painful loss of large territories was openly deplored and school maps were distributed showing the extent of territorial losses.
As for the second reason, reports of millions of people living in areas adjacent to Siam who spoke languages closely related to Thai had been given wide publicity. It had not escaped the Siamese government's notice that Italy had succeeded after World War One to take possession of parts of its ''irredenta''. Even more spectacular, in Germany a very effective propaganda had succeeded in movements to ''assist'' or ''liberate'' German-speaking minorities beyond German borders, of which the merging with Austria in March 1938 had resulted in a spectacular redrawing of the map of Europe.
Luang Vichit Vadhakarn, who headed the Department of Fine Arts, was the chief proponent of the change of name. Judith Stowe in her book Siam Becomes Thailand has described how Luang Vichit claimed that the Thais comprised not only the 13 million within the country, but also a further 23 million scattered through southern China, French Indo-China and British Burma. To unite them all and focus their loyalty, Luang Vichit asserted that the name of the country had to be changed.
Contemporary observers also pointed out that the change of name was not simply a rejection of a name that had been imposed by foreigners, it was at the same time a preparation for the Thai to assume a leading role among all Thai peoples.
The former British ambassador Sir Josiah Crosby also clearly identified the underlying reason why Phibun's government decided to change the word Siam to Thailand. Crosby stated: ''The fact that the official change of nomenclature should have been made in coincidence with the launching of the Pan-Thai movement may be interpreted not unfairly as the indication of a desire to familiarise outsiders with the claim of Siam to be regarded as the mother-country of all peoples of Thai race.''
Typical for the thinking of the 1930s and early '40s, it did not occur to the proponents of a larger united land of all Thai peoples to ask themselves whether or not the peoples speaking related languages were interested in joining such a new venture, nor whether they were willing to accept Bangkok's rule.
Nevertheless, a growing number of Thais could be forgiven for dreaming of a much larger country, one including northern Burma, parts of southern China, Laos, large parts of Indochina and major extensions on the Malay Peninsula.
The dream of more than doubling their territory, at first a murmur with the weakening of the colonial powers and China, became a distinct possibility, a scenario whereby a subtle, clever leadership should be quick to act when opportunity would present itself.
Premier Phibun was just the man for this difficult task, a master at playing off _ telling the British the Thais would remain neutral at all costs while at the same time secretly manoeuvring towards a pact with the Japanese.
It was in this situation, inspired by a mixture of nationalistic and irredentalist motivations that the name change of 1939 took place.
When Luang Vichit Vadhakarn proposed the idea of a name change for the country, this triggered a lively debate. It was by no means clear what should be chosen. In editorials and letters to the editor, some passionately wished to retain the old name.
Those who saw grounds for change were divided on whether to choose ''Mueang Thai'' or ''Prathet Thai.'' Phibun was at first inclined to choose the latter, but he was aware that most Europeans would not easily take to the new name.
Apparently, on June 23, merely one day prior to the formal announcement the Phibun government decided to choose a compromise and coined the word ''Thailand.''
Crosby's overall advice in 1945 regarding the country's name was that because of the heritage of chauvinism surrounding the change, it would be desirable that the words ''Siam'' and ''Siamese'' should again be employed.
Throughout the past 60 years, there have been a number of intellectuals who are in agreement with Crosby.
In recent times, as a result of dramatic political changes, many almost forgotten names have been resurrected. After almost a century of being Leningrad, the time-honoured St Petersburg was re-installed.
The name Siam never died out, it being irrevocably linked with Siamese twins and Siamese cats.
Should a Thai government ever wish to indicate the beginning of a new era, it could hardly find a more effective symbol than a re-investiture of the old name.
Professor Barend Jan Terwiel has taught Thai Studies at Hamburg University, Germany.
Thursday January 10, 2008
BAREND JAN TERWIEL
Bangkok Post
Some countries change their names. For example, in 1935 the country hitherto ubiquitously known as Persia pronounced itself henceforth to be called Iran. A more recent case of a country announcing that it wished to be known under a new name was when, in 1989, Burma became Myanmar - a change that was not accepted by some countries such as the United States.
Such name changes are usually not made lightly; it doesn't bear thinking how many letterheads suddenly have to be altered when a country decides to change its name.
The reasons for making a change may be symbolic, wanting to underline a change of regime or the beginning of a new era. Often, however, the renaming of a country marks a quite complex ideological statement.
Why was the name Siam abandoned?
One argument often used is that the name Siam was imposed upon the Thais by foreigners; that the word ''Siam'' was not indigenous.
It is, indeed, a fact that the word Siam was used already centuries ago, not by the Thai people to indicate their own country, but by foreigners.
The situation whereby a country is called by one name by the people inhabiting it and by a quite different name by people not living there is by no means unusual, and generally, when no offence is meant with the foreign appellation, no offence is taken.
In Europe, for example, there are people who call their country Suomi, outsiders call it Finland. The Germans call their own country Deutschland, quite different from the word Germany, used by English-speaking people, or Allemagne in French. The French, in turn, have no problem when Germans use the term Frankreich. The people who call their country Espana do not object when strangers call it Spain.
In the same way, up to 1939 the Thais were not only used to the fact that outsiders called their country Siam, they were not in the least offended by this and themselves proudly used it when dealing with outsiders.
When people referred to their own country in the Siamese language, various combinations of words were used. The oldest expression describing the whole country was Mueang Thai, already accounted for in the 17th century by the French ambassador Simon de La Loubere.
Other commonly used names of the country in the Thai language were: Krung Thai, Prathet Thai, Krung Siam and Prathet Siam. The word ''krung'' must be seen as somewhat more formal than ''mueang,'' and the word ''prathet'' derived from Sanskrit being the superlative of the words for ''country.''
On bilingual coins, banknotes, stamps, seals and letterheads prior to 1939 we find usually in European characters simply the word Siam, while in Thai characters the word was spelled Sayam, or one of the five indigenous options mentioned above was used.
In formal state documents the name of the country could be couched in even more elaborate compounds, stringing together a whole series of honourable, pleasant-sounding words describing the wealth, extent and power of the realm.
King Mongkut (r. 1851-1868) is well known as being most sensitive towards the proper use of the Thai language. How pleased he was with the word Siam is clear by his frequent use of it. Thus he called the country that he ruled Prathet Siam. When he signed international agreements he wrote after his name Rex Siamensis (and not Rex Thai). He called the deity protecting the state: Phra Siam Thewathirat, or ''Lord Protector of Siam.'' In early issues of 19th century coins the country is at first called Krung Siam, then Siam Ratchananachak (the Realm of Siam) and finally Rat Siam (Siam State). On stamps the words Krung Siam proudly served for about 50 years until October 1939, when the law proposing the name change was signed by the regent and thus became effective.
What was the real reason for changing the name in 1939?
The Siamese government's announcement of a change in the country's name was published on the seventh anniversary of the overthrow of absolute monarchy, on June 24, 1939.
As for the official reason for making the change, the announcement blithely mentioned that the people preferred the word ''Thai'' to the word ''Siam.'' Like many official statements appearing at that time, this was pure government propaganda, not really reflecting the will of the people. The government of that time believed in a strong leadership, rather as educator of the people, guiding them in turbulent times, making decisions in what it believed to be their interests. No opinion poll had been consulted and the discussion of the matter just prior to it becoming law in October 1939 was by no means an endorsement.
As far as we can see from letters to the editor, at least some spokesmen for ''the people'' were by no means pleased with the new construct. Particularly the word ''Thailand'' caused critics to raise their voice.
In order to examine what really motivated the government to make the change of name, let us quickly note the situation prior to 1939.
Why did the Phibun government in 1939 announce that the people preferred the word ''Thai''?
In order to understand the measure, it is necessary to consider the situation two months prior to Germany's invasion of Poland and the outbreak of World War Two.
The Thai government was aware of the tense international situation, but saw the distinct possibility that a major armed conflict would result in a dramatic weakening of European powers.
Japan was engaged in a vicious war in China, and a dramatic weakening of the French and British positions in Southeast Asia would result in the possibility of a reordering of Asian borders.
Such a rearrangement, it was felt in government circles, could greatly benefit the Siamese nation for two reasons.
The first was the feeling that during the past 80 years much territory had been lost to the colonial powers. The second was the newly gained knowledge of vast numbers of close relatives living beyond the borders.
As for the first reason, during the period between 1867 and 1907, in a series of treaties with Britain and France, Siam had ceded traditional rights over vast territories, agreeing to withdraw its borders to those it holds at present.
Historians such as Thongchai Winichakul have pointed out that these outer regions had only been part of a sphere of influence that waxed or waned with the relative power of the central region, and that territory that was far away from the capital often usually was not ruled directly.
Nevertheless, in the 1920s and 1930s there was a growing feeling in Siam that the country had been served very badly in the confrontations with neighbouring colonial powers.
Particularly the French were singled out as having enriched their colonial empire at Siam's cost, beginning with the declaration of Cambodia to be a French protectorate in 1867, followed by the annexation of Laos in 1893, the loss of territories on the right bank of the Mekong River in 1904, and finally the loss of three provinces to Cambodia in 1907.
Similarly, the British had gained four provinces in the Malay Peninsula at Siam's cost. The painful loss of large territories was openly deplored and school maps were distributed showing the extent of territorial losses.
As for the second reason, reports of millions of people living in areas adjacent to Siam who spoke languages closely related to Thai had been given wide publicity. It had not escaped the Siamese government's notice that Italy had succeeded after World War One to take possession of parts of its ''irredenta''. Even more spectacular, in Germany a very effective propaganda had succeeded in movements to ''assist'' or ''liberate'' German-speaking minorities beyond German borders, of which the merging with Austria in March 1938 had resulted in a spectacular redrawing of the map of Europe.
Luang Vichit Vadhakarn, who headed the Department of Fine Arts, was the chief proponent of the change of name. Judith Stowe in her book Siam Becomes Thailand has described how Luang Vichit claimed that the Thais comprised not only the 13 million within the country, but also a further 23 million scattered through southern China, French Indo-China and British Burma. To unite them all and focus their loyalty, Luang Vichit asserted that the name of the country had to be changed.
Contemporary observers also pointed out that the change of name was not simply a rejection of a name that had been imposed by foreigners, it was at the same time a preparation for the Thai to assume a leading role among all Thai peoples.
The former British ambassador Sir Josiah Crosby also clearly identified the underlying reason why Phibun's government decided to change the word Siam to Thailand. Crosby stated: ''The fact that the official change of nomenclature should have been made in coincidence with the launching of the Pan-Thai movement may be interpreted not unfairly as the indication of a desire to familiarise outsiders with the claim of Siam to be regarded as the mother-country of all peoples of Thai race.''
Typical for the thinking of the 1930s and early '40s, it did not occur to the proponents of a larger united land of all Thai peoples to ask themselves whether or not the peoples speaking related languages were interested in joining such a new venture, nor whether they were willing to accept Bangkok's rule.
Nevertheless, a growing number of Thais could be forgiven for dreaming of a much larger country, one including northern Burma, parts of southern China, Laos, large parts of Indochina and major extensions on the Malay Peninsula.
The dream of more than doubling their territory, at first a murmur with the weakening of the colonial powers and China, became a distinct possibility, a scenario whereby a subtle, clever leadership should be quick to act when opportunity would present itself.
Premier Phibun was just the man for this difficult task, a master at playing off _ telling the British the Thais would remain neutral at all costs while at the same time secretly manoeuvring towards a pact with the Japanese.
It was in this situation, inspired by a mixture of nationalistic and irredentalist motivations that the name change of 1939 took place.
When Luang Vichit Vadhakarn proposed the idea of a name change for the country, this triggered a lively debate. It was by no means clear what should be chosen. In editorials and letters to the editor, some passionately wished to retain the old name.
Those who saw grounds for change were divided on whether to choose ''Mueang Thai'' or ''Prathet Thai.'' Phibun was at first inclined to choose the latter, but he was aware that most Europeans would not easily take to the new name.
Apparently, on June 23, merely one day prior to the formal announcement the Phibun government decided to choose a compromise and coined the word ''Thailand.''
Crosby's overall advice in 1945 regarding the country's name was that because of the heritage of chauvinism surrounding the change, it would be desirable that the words ''Siam'' and ''Siamese'' should again be employed.
Throughout the past 60 years, there have been a number of intellectuals who are in agreement with Crosby.
In recent times, as a result of dramatic political changes, many almost forgotten names have been resurrected. After almost a century of being Leningrad, the time-honoured St Petersburg was re-installed.
The name Siam never died out, it being irrevocably linked with Siamese twins and Siamese cats.
Should a Thai government ever wish to indicate the beginning of a new era, it could hardly find a more effective symbol than a re-investiture of the old name.
Professor Barend Jan Terwiel has taught Thai Studies at Hamburg University, Germany.
13 comments:
It never ceases to amaze me that Thailand never makes any references to their khmer ancestories. Why don't they ask a cambodian person what the word Siam means.
we always called it Siem Arch kri
This prof. is no differenct from the CPP Michael Vickery.
Instead of Siam or Thailand, the Thais should call their country Deviland or Eviland.
what makes you so sure that we gave the name Siam to the Thais? And if we had, what make you think it was anything but good? Were you there over a thousand years ago?
Look at Angkor depictions... you see anything in there mentioning Siamese "beast" "slaves" or black people? which is the synonym some Khmer have argued..No..you don't, in fact you see the opposite, Siamese mercenaries smiling in the background fighting for Khmer empire.
What cause the break up? That also can only be speculated. But if the name had been given by Khmer to mean a such derogatory feeling, why would the Siamese people gladly embrace it?
Man, stick your hand in your head, and stuff your mouth with your fingers before you talk and incite more misunderstandings.
These things are not only bad to our neighbors, but will in the long run, cause give our language to be unnecessary attacks. Then we will be tell to change our language because it offend people, why people can call us by their native tongue!
just like how Pol Pot politicized the term Youn over thirty years ago and now everyone foreigner and a few Khmer kid think Youn mean savage, worms, slug, slime etc, they even have a show on BBC to attack MP Sam Rainsy on his use of this Khmer pronunciation of the Viet people, Viet=Yueh=Yuen=Yun. Youn people at time of Khmer and Champa empire had their nation mainly based around the Yunnan area. So you can see also where this is going.
I suppose next time you will also say the word Chen we have for Chinese means bad also in the future.... What can we can we invent up and change... how about Chen means, crooks and pirates of the sea or cheaters of business deals? Yeah that makes a lot of sense doesn't it?
You probably don't even know where we get the word Chen. Our word Chen derived from the word Chin, of the Chin dynasty of China.
See from time to time, we see the Khmer nomenclature for people of different culture, directly represents the culture at the time.
I am one Khmer that will not go along with the band wagon of people who wish to destroy the Khmer language by adding derogatory meanings to word accepted for centuries as mere Proper Nouns where no offence to it is linked.
Fuck the stupid UN-Untac, so they may some time can not use this bad word! UN shit, UN Cheat, UN modern slave maker!
I use the word Youn for the Vietnamese so what the stupid UN doing to do , This stupid organization can not chang my way! Shit UN! May word "United Nation, UN" die with communist!
Say what you want boy, be a free man!
To 9:56PM!
Talk all you want boy! The Thaicong and the Vietcong will never give up their fucken dirty politic to kill and to destroy Khmer people and nation for as long as they continue to exist! The evident for the past 30 years or even 100 years back said it all! The fucken Thaicong are opportunist when dealing with their smaller and much weaker neighbors such as Cambodia and Laos and under the Japanese occupation of Cambodia in 1940 and the Thaicong were able to annex Siem Riep and Battambong! The Thaicong supported Khmer Serei to destabilize Cambodian economy and social order in 1960 and don't forget that the Thaicong allowed the B-52s to fly from their military base to do carpet bombing over Cambodia in the 1960!
It is nice to know that you claimed that the Thaicong did help fight for Khmer empire because it is the only way to prove to Khmer empire as the newcomer that they are worthy enough to live in Khmer empire! Who would have thought that once these Thaicong gained their place in Khmer empire and they began to betray Khmer empire by bring more of their population to displace Khmer population! Now there are over 62 million Thaicong living in former Khmer empire comparing to 14 million Khmer populations!
Even today, the Thaicong leaders to continue to wage war of attrition to annex Cambodian land and to harass, to deport, and to kill Khmer people without mercy and they like to accuse those Khmer people as beggars, criminals, drug dealers, traffickers... along Cambodian borders! In the eye of Thaicong population the heinous crime committed on Khmer people by the Thaicong leaders are consider the noble act which help promote the cycle of hatred on Khmer people that will never end!
To whom 9:56pm,Khmer empire always do good to all travelers in that time,But sad thing that had happened to my ancestor.
I believe God will protect my people and my country,Heaven and hell will watching the evil heart and God watching all the kindness heart always: I love my people and my country.
We certainly don't argue or complain when the Khmer empire expands her territory encompasing her neighbors. As long as we are the strongest on the block, who's care?
But now we are the weakest of the neighborhood. Shouldn't that be our fault rather than the Thais or Vietnamese? Our weakness give them opportunities to do whatever the heck they want to gain the advantages whether in lands or money. If you were one of them, would you complain?
Just look at our present CPP government. Any mentions of Vietnamese bad intentions would certaintly guarantee a very enlightening reply in the form of jailtime at best or meet the Angkar at worst. It's a very sensitive matter and you should not rock the boat.
The reason CPP is afraid to speak out is because it is not representing an independent nation but rather a land within the "Indochina Federation" whose all governance rules comes from Hanoi.
Siam is given by the Khmer during the Angkor to this group of people which were once the rebels and thieves in the region.
You know too much history you make me feel so dumb!
To 2:42AM
Khmer empire was already existed in the Southeast Asian mainland and what other territories did you said that Khmer empire expand into?
All that I see is the Thaicong and the Vietcong were forced to move from China during the Mongol invasion and of course the Mongol invasion is another factor that causes the weakening of Khmer empire as well!
Post a Comment