The foreign factor

Tomorrow is Constitution Day, when Thailand marks the day in December

1932 on which its first constitution was promulgated. Nantiya Tangwisutijit and

Subhatra Bhumiprabhas report on research on the extent of external influences on

the change to the country’s system of governance from absolute to constitutional

monarchy in that year.

THE MODERN history of Thailand is marked by two major waves of political change, the

first during the reign of Rama V (King Chulalongkorn) 1868-1910, and the second during the reign

of the second during the reign of his son Rama VII (King Prajadhipok) 1925-1935.

While the first wave of change over a period of time under Rama V was deemed the

inevitable result of outside pressure at the height of Western colonisation of surrounding

countries, the 1932 revolution is usually described as a matter of internal politics.

In June 1932, a group of intellectuals and bureaucrats calling themselves Khanna Rat (the

People's Party) overthrew the absolute monarchy in a bloodless coup, leading the country into

the realm of a political democracy.

However, a group of political scientists at Thammasat University argue that the focus on

internal factors that brought about the changes in 1932 largely ignores the immense roles of the

international community.

Thailand (known as Siam up until 1939) under King Rama VII had a large ex-patriot

community of diplomats, economic consultants and other professionals, just as in the reign of

his father.

The Thammasat University group found a rare memoir of Japanese Ambassador

Yasukishi Yatabe, who witnessed the turbulent political changes in the country. The memoir,

they say, indicates Japan's involvement in the 1932 revolution.

Yatabe, who arrived in Thailand four years before the revolution and stayed for another

four years afterwards, recorded that a member of the People's Party paid him a visit to ask for

military assistance immediately after the party seized power from the monarch on Junr 24,

1932.

"[The role of] Japan in Thailand at that time was probably like that of the United States

today. [That is,] anybody who wanted to stage a coup had to seek its consent," said Sombat

Chanthornvong, the head of the research project entitled "The World and The Reign of Rama

VII: A Global and Critical Perspective", sponsored by the King Prajadhipok Insititude.

Both King Prajadhipok and Pridi Bhanomyong, head of the People's Party, paid separate

visits to Japan during their years in power. The king went to Japan three times during his reign.

Sombat said that studies about the social and political changes during the reign of Rama

VII, as well as about the monarch himself, have mainly emphasised local views while under-

analysing the influence and perspective of the international community.

It is hoped that this new research will fill a gap, as well as widen the analysis about this

important chapter in Thai political history.

The first seven months of the three-year project have been spent scouring old

documents from both domestic and international sources with special emphasis on the roles of

the superpowers in the region at that time - Britain, the US and Japan - in their relationships

with Thailand, as well as the interplay between themselves.

So far, most of the documents found are from British and Japanese sources.

Some of the documents, such as Yatabe's memoir, are in the process of being translated

into Thai.

Dr Nakarin Mektrairat, who is Sombat's deputy on the research project, said the memoir,

entitled "My Eight-year Experience in Siam", had just been discovered and therefore had never

been used in any research before.

Although conclusions are still far down the road, Sombat said that at some levels they

could draw parallels between international politics then and now.

"Just like today, foreign diplomats and officials then were here to look after the

interests of their countries in Thailand," he said. "Most Western countries were interested in

trade benefits while Japan also had a military agenda."

They also kept their eyes on each another.

For example, Cecil Dormer, the British minister in Bangkok in the early 1930s, described

relations between Thailand and Japan before 1933, as being "devoid of any special feature of

interest".

But in October 1933, the British administration subdivision at Victoria Point in Burma,

submitted the first official report that "raised the alarm over Japanese designs and infiltration in

Thailand".

According to that report, Japan had approached the Thai government seeking permission

to land troops and attack India from Thailand. Dormer's source was the secretary to the

governor of Ranong, a province in the Kra Isthmus in southern Thailand.

On this, Dormer commented in December 1933 that, "I'm not in a position to say

whether a Japanese [invasion of Thailand] for the purpose of attacking India, or Malaya is likely

to form part of their military plans, or at what stage...it would be attempted. But assuming that

it were considered a feasible operation, i should have thought it unlikely that Japan would have

approached the Thai government and taken them so early in the day into their confidence."

The British minister added that the Japanese were making enquires about landing

grounds and flying conditions in Thailand, and that a number of Japanese who visited Thailand

recently were reported to be army officers.

"Therefore, from 1933 onwards, in view of the new Japanese interest in Thailand the

British kept a close watch on Japanese activities in the Kingdom," wrote Dormer.

Prior to these developments, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy by the People's

Party was certainly a monumental political event that foreign diplomats paid particular

attention to.

At dawn on June 24, 1932, a group of young, Western - educated lawyers, military

officers and bureaucrats declared victory in the name of the People's Party in a bloodless

revolution that turned Thailand into a constitutional democracy.

Nakarin said Yatabe had a close relationship with the royal family but at the same time

had sympathy with the People's Party, as he had anticipated that relations between Thailand

and Japan would benefit from this political change.

Yatabe wrote in his memoir that he was so curious about the King's condition after he

was overthrown that he went to the train station where the monarch was to disembark upon

returning to Bangkok from his summer palace at Hua Hin for the first time since the revolution.

Meanwhile, in the British Documents on Foreign Affairs, Dormer wrote to his superior, Sir

John Simon, on August 3, 1932, that "...The King is virtually a prisoner, but as far as one can tell

the people as a whole are still loyal. His Majesty is too powerful an asset to the government for

them to run any risks of his being captured and placed at the head of a rival group.

"I am told the fact that the King is still there us enough for the people in the provinces.

And that they are indifferent to whatever other changes might have taken place."

In another letter to Simon, written on August 20, Dormer added: "According to

information given to me by a high official of the [royal] court, who is in close attendance upon

the King, the leading members of the executive committee go two or three times a week to the

royal villa to consult His Majesty. And he says that their relations are perfectly amicable. "The

King is visited daily by Prince Svasti, the Queen's father, and Prince Parachatra; and other

members of the royal family and of the court come and go freely.

"He has only been outside the villa once, when he was on the river in his speed-boat. I

am told that he [the King] doesn't wish to receive or meet foreigners because he feels he has

'lost face'."

Upon conclusion of the research in 2005, Sombat hopes to find many more pieces of

the jigsaw to widen the perspective and analysis of Thailand during the years of major political

change.

"I hope Thais will open their hearts to the new findings," he said. "The progress of our

society largely relies on relentless efforts to seek new knowledge and we hope to be a part of

this important process," said Sombat.

---

The Nation

December 9, 2003