THAILAND: AN INDEPENDENT STATE?

Thailand (formerly Siam) is unique among Southeast Asian states because it was able to avoid being directly colonized by a Western power. This is a source of great national pride for the Thai people. What made Thailand better equipped to resist Western imperialist ambitions? Thailand was able to escape direct colonization because of the wise statesmanship of its kings and the regional balance of power between the French and British. However, despite avoiding direct colonization, Thailand was still affected by colonial influences and has been classified as a semi-colonial state by many scholars.

Compromises on the Road to Modernization

Prior to 1932, Siam was ruled by an absolute monarchy, and the king was able to make decisions without parliamentary interference.[1] King Mongkut recognized that he could not defeat the West militarily, so “he decided to bend before the tempest… without bluster or equivocation.”^[2] He compromised where he had to in order to ensure national survival, and took specific steps towards modernizing Siam so it could be considered civilized and maintain its independence.^[3] The royal point of view was that “Siam must be made into a modern state, but gradually and by Siamese, not forcibly by Europeans. While western ideas and methods must be taken over, the old values which lay in Siamese culture must not be destroyed. Siam must maintain its integrity as a nation and must never cease to be Siamese.”[4]

The Siamese king made compromises with the West in three critical areas: extraterritoriality agreements, unequal trade agreements, and relinquishing territory to both Britain and France. The extraterritoriality agreements meant that foreign nationals accused of crimes were not subject to Siamese law, but instead would be judged by Western embassy officials.[5] These agreements had unexpected results for Siam, because they were held to include Burmese and Vietnamese natives that were being ruled by Britain and France as well as European and American nationals and thus compromised Siamese sovereignty. After 1855, a large number of migrant workers from such countries came to Siam and enjoyed consular protection from Siamese officials. [6] In one infamous case, a Siamese policeman was ordered off a Western owned tram by its driver when he tried to arrest a Siamese woman for theft because he did not have consular approval for such an arrest on Western property. The driver, who was later charged with obstructing police in the execution of their duty, was ultimately judged by his consulate, not by the law of Siam.[7]

The king of Siam also accepted unequal trade agreements with various Western countries that implemented a three percent tariff and allowed unfettered Western access to the Siamese market.[8] This proved to be a critical decision for Siam’s survival as a nation, because the British government ultimately did not care about political control in Thailand so long as British economic interests were served.[9]

The Siamese monarch also capitulated to both the British and French in territorial matters by relinquishing territory. In 1893, during the Paknam crisis, the French were granted their demand (backed up by gunboats in range of Bangkok) of specific tributary territories to the east of Thailand then ruled by the Thai king.[10] In 1909, the British were granted control of the four Malay states in the north.[11] It is important to note, however, that both these capitulations involved territory that would best be considered Thai colonies, not parts of the Thai national homeland itself.

Having thus ensured the survival of Siam through these critical compromises with the West, the king sought to modernize the Siamese state, so that one day it could renegotiate with the West on a more equal footing. King Mongkut began the modernization process by ensuring a western education for his children, by bringing Mrs. Leonowens from Singapore to Siam as their teacher.[12] Mongkut’s son, Chulalongkorn, traveled to India to study British colonial administration there and adapt their methods to his own rule in Siam. [13]

Chulalongkorn greatly expanded the Siamese bureaucracy, in keeping with what he learned in India. He added foreign affairs, interior, justice, finance, public education, agriculture, commerce, war and marine ministries to his newly formed Cabinet Council. A truly independent judiciary (a metric used worldwide to measure governments) was established, along with modern codes of law. The king retained veto power on executions.[14] He also invested deeply in infrastructure projects, adding rail lines, irrigation systems, public education and a small air force used for civil aviation purposes.[15] At the beginning of this modernization process, Siam did not have the necessary human capital to manage these projects, so Chulalongkorn hired many foreigners as administrators to get things started.[16]

The modernization of the state changed the way the West looked at Siam. Now considered more “civilized,” Siam was able to renegotiate and abolish the unfair trade treaties and extraterritoriality agreements that had previously compromised its sovereignty and thus returned greater autonomy and control to their nation-state.[17]

Eldon James explained the effect of these modernization projects thus:

Siam had secured its recognition as a modern state. It had met the west and had not been submerged. A new state had developed in place of the medieval one of King Mongkut’s time. And yet, notwithstanding the assimilation of western progress, Siam remains Siamese. The best of her own ancient culture is intact.[18]

Thailand: A Semi-colony?

Marxist and post-Marxist scholars used the term semi-colonialism to define Siam’s relationship with the West.[19] The term was first applied to Thailand by the leader of the Thai Communist party when he wrote Thailand: A Semicolony. This work was not widely read until the period of 1973-1976, when Thailand was more open and free for a short time. Most of the semicolonial talk during this period was based on Marxist rhetoric, not true research.[20] Semicolonial scholars counter that opposition to applying the idea of semicolonialism to Thailand comes from a strong monarchy with an interest in maintaining its own view of history, and that the “myth” of Thailand’s continued independence is pushed by the Thai political elite.[21] Nevertheless, the Marxist and post-Marxist writings raise some important questions.

Hong Lysa explained that “according to the conventional Thai view, the Siamese monarchs succeeded in keeping colonialism at bay by dint of their diplomatic skills and modernizing efforts, and actually strengthened the kingdom by forging a new relationship with their subjects based on the notion of nationhood.”[22] This conventional understanding of Thai history fails to address three specific points: that the economic exploitation of Siam by the West gave them the profits of colonialism without the costs of having to impose direct political rule, that royal rule in Siam amounted to internal colonialism, and that Siam survived as an independent nation-state in part because of the regional balance of power between France and Britain.

While they do admit that Thailand was not directly and formally colonized by the Western powers, semicolonial scholars point to the extraterritoriality agreements, cession of territory, and unfair trade treaties as examples of how Siam was exploited economically and robbed of its sovereignty in a fashion similar to actual colonies.[23] Hong Lysa supports this view when she said succinctly that the Thai economy was controlled by the West.[24] One could argue that leaving Thailand politically independent was actually a better deal for the Western powers, because it enabled them to reap the rewards and profits of a colony without incurring the costs and risks of direct colonial administration; in other words, the West outsourced colonialism to the royal government of Siam.

If we examine the policies of the monarchs of Siam, we can see what might be called “internal colonialism.” Siam’s absolute monarchy, while maintaining its own political autonomy from the west, “established itself as the hegemonic power in political, economic, and ideological terms” in internal affairs.[25] Bangkok imposed its will and exploited the Northern, Northeastern, and predominantly Muslim southern regions of Thailand; “to remain free from western domination the Siamese populace was enslaved to that monarchy in new ways.”[26] Some saw “monarchs as feudal exploiters rather than national saviors,”[27] and argue that Thailand was colonized by its own king. Siam had its own territorial ambitions, and the territory it ultimately ceded to Britain and France were areas where Thailand had ruled non-Thai peoples as informal colonies. Collaboration with the West was what allowed the king of Siam to remain in power.[28]

Ultimately, the absolute monarchy was overthrown by a military coup inside Thailand. This coup occurred in 1932 in response to concerns of nepotism by the king in his appointments, excessive corruption, unemployment, and general economic hardships of the people. The coup leaders went so far as to say:

People! Let it be known that our country belongs to the people and not to the king as was deceived. Our forefathers had rescued the freedom of the country from the hands of the enemy. The royalty only took advantage and gathered millions for themselves.

From the coup, we see that despite the relative success in dealing with the foreign imperialist powers, the king could not contain the unrest among his own people. It is important to note, however, that the military leaders who led the coup continued to push the “myth” of independence for their own political purposes and did not criticize the king’s dealings with the West directly.[29] The king has continued to play an important role in politics to this day but no longer is an absolute ruler.

The regional balance of power between France and Britain also reduced the incentive for either of these powers to directly colonize Thailand. Both of these powers wanted to have a buffer zone between their colonial possessions to reduce tensions, and Siam fit the bill nicely.[30] This idea of Siam as a buffer zone was made into a formal agreement between Great Britain and France by the Franco British Declaration of 1896.[31]

Conclusion

Claims of Thai uniqueness as the only country in Southeast Asia to avoid colonization must be tempered by the realization that the wave of colonialism still affected their country in dramatic ways. Recognizing the common influences between Thailand and its colonized neighbors also helps to explain why Thailand suffers from many of the same problems, including a long tradition of military intervention in politics, interventionist policies of the International Monetary Fund, and ethnic tensions that spill over into violence.

No one can reasonably expect a third world country like Siam to have defeated the West. The fact that the Thai state survived at all as an independent entity is testament to the wise statesmanship of their kings, even if such independence was somewhat mitigated by foreign influences. Ultimately, it is only the people of Thailand themselves who can judge whether they are better off having traded direct colonialism for royal oppression within their own country.

---

[1] Eldon R. James, “Siam in the Modern World,” Foreign Affairs 9 (1931): 659.

[2] Ibid, 660.

[3] Hong Lysa, “Invisible Semicolony: the Postcolonial Condition and Royal National History in Thailand,” Postcolonial Studies 11 (2008): 317 & 324.

[4] Eldon R. James, “Siam in the Modern World,” Foreign Affairs 9 (1931): 660.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Hong Lysa, “Invisible Semicolony: the Postcolonial Condition and Royal National History in Thailand,” Postcolonial Studies 11 (2008): 318.

[7] Ibid.

[8]Eldon R. James, “Siam in the Modern World,” Foreign Affairs 9 (1931): 660.

[9] Hong Lysa, “Invisible Semicolony: the Postcolonial Condition and Royal National History in Thailand,” Postcolonial Studies 11 (2008): 319.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid, 322.

[12] Eldon R. James, “Siam in the Modern World,” Foreign Affairs 9 (1931): 660.

[13] Ibid, 661.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid, 662.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid, 664.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Peter A. Jackson, “Autonomy and subordination in Thai history: the case for semicolonial analysis.” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 8 (2007): 329.

[20] Hong Lysa, “Invisible Semicolony: the Postcolonial Condition and Royal National History in Thailand,” Postcolonial Studies 11 (2008): 316.

[21] Ibid, 319.

[22] Ibid, 315.

[23] Peter A. Jackson, “Autonomy and subordination in Thai history: the case for semicolonial analysis.” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 8 (2007): 335.

[24] Hong Lysa, “Invisible Semicolony: the Postcolonial Condition and Royal National History in Thailand,” Postcolonial Studies 11 (2008): 316.

[25]Peter A. Jackson, “Autonomy and subordination in Thai history: the case for semicolonial analysis.” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 8 (2007): 341.

[26] Ibid, 342.

[27] Hong Lysa, “Invisible Semicolony: the Postcolonial Condition and Royal National History in Thailand,” Postcolonial Studies 11 (2008): 316.

[28] Ibid, 321.

[29] Ibid, 322.

[30] Eldon R. James, “Siam in the Modern World,” Foreign Affairs 9 (1931): 657.

[31] Hong Lysa, “Invisible Semicolony: the Postcolonial Condition and Royal National History in Thailand,” Postcolonial Studies 11 (2008): 321.