Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:27:07.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extraterritoriality in Bangkok in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn, 1868–1910: The Cacophonies of Semi-Colonial Cosmopolitanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2011

Hong Lysa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The uniqueness of Siam in being the only independent Southeast Asian country in the age of nineteenth-century colonialism is a mantra that persists largely to this day. It held that it was the calibre of the Siamese monarchs in particular King Chulalongkorn (1868–1910), the fifth reign of the present regnant dynasty, which saved the country from succumbing to the powerful and predatory west. By continuing his father King Mongkut's (1851–1868) foresight in adopting an open door policy by signing the Bowring Treaty (1855) and reforming the country's administration in conformity to their model of government, the king gained the recognition by the Europeans of Siam as a civilised country. As a tribute to the king's greatness, in particular for his benevolent rule and pivotal reforms, the ‘colloquial, affectionate, yet awesome’ title ‘Lord of Life’ (chao chiwit) was used by his subjects especially around this period, according to the royal family historian writing in 1960 who was a grandson of King Chulalongkorn. In 2003, another direct descendant of the king wrote that it was no less the ‘Lord of Life, Lord of the Realm, the fountain and embodiment of moral and spiritual power itself who recognised that survival in the face of colonialism necessitated engagement in diplomacy and internal reforms. By dint of such enlightened measures, the Siamese polity was transformed and strengthened. in political history, the emphasis has been on the efficiency and good governance made possible by the modernising administrative system.

Type
Articles
Information
Itinerario , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , July 2003 , pp. 125 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Research Institute for History, Leiden University 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

* The author wishes to thank Wipudh Sobhavong, Sirilak and Kriangkrai Samphatehalit, Varuni Osatharom, and Kanittha Wongpanit, Director of the National Archives of Thailand, for facilitating her research in Bangkok in 2002.

1 The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia is representative in introducing its discussion on the section on Siam in the context of the establishment of colonial regimes in the region with precisely this point Tarling, Nicholas ed., The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia 2 (Cambridge 1992) 46.Google Scholar

2 Chakrabongse, Prince Chula, Lords of Life: The Paternal Monarchy of Bangkok, 1782–1932 (New York 1960) 16.Google Scholar

3 MRParibatra, Sukhumbhand, ‘some Reflections on the Thai Monarchy’, Southeast Asian Affairs 2003 (Singapore 2003) 294–296Google Scholar. This article is written in a highly ritualistic and stylised form, which is probably the only acceptable way to comment publicly on the issue of the succession to the throne in Thailand today.

4 Nartsupha, Chatthip and Prasartset, Suthy, The Political Economy of Siam, 1851–1910 (Bangkok 1978) 5, 17–31.Google Scholar

5 The other powers which concluded similarly treaties were Portugal, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, Austria-Hungary, Spain, and Russia.

6 John Bowring, The Kingdom and People of Siam 2 (Kuala Lumpur 1977)216. [first published 1857]

7 Ibid., 230.

8 Ibid., 234.

9 Briggs, Lawrence P., ‘The Treaty of March 28, 1907 between France and Siam and the Return of Battambang and Angkor to Cambodia’, The Far Eastern Quarterly 5/4 (1946) 449CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cited in Vikrom Koompirochana, 'Siam and British Foreign Policy 1855–1938: The Acquisition and the Relinquishment of British Extraterritorial Rights’ (PhD thesis, Michigan State University 1972) 164.

10 Elder, Chris ed., China's Treaty Ports: Half Love and Half Hate (Hong Kong 1999) xxii–xxiii.Google Scholar

11 See Hoare, J.E., Japan's Treaty Ports and Foreign Settlements: The Uninvited Guests, 1858–1899 (Kent 1994).Google Scholar

12 Bowring, The Kingdom and People of Siam, 238.

13 Koompirochana, ‘Siam in British Foreign Policy’, 116.

14 This matter was only resolved in the Agreement of 1899 which provided that all persons of Asiatic descent and their children but not grandchildren, and with the exception of natives of Upper Burma or the British Shan states who came to reside in Siam before 1 January 1886 were to be recognised as British subjects. It appeared that the British Foreign Office finally decided to restrict the numbers of protected subjects for fear that the British consulate would be unable to verify satisfactorily the claims to right of registration, and handle the legal cases that it would have to hear if extraterritoriality were granted liberally. Koompirochana, ‘Siam in British Foreign Policy’, 109–124.

15 Ibid., 208.

16 Reported in The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 8 September 1898.

17 Ibid.

18 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 20 December 1898.

19 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 15 August 1898.

20 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 1 December 1904.

21 National Archives of Thailand (NA), Nakhonban (N) [Ministry of Local Government] 43.6/11, Upathut farangset nam kham roi khong M. Berlandier sing ha wa phontrauien tup ti thi […] Bangrak (the French consul presents the testimony of M. Berlandier, alleging police assault) 26 September, 2 October 1903.

22 NA F (documents relating to France and Britain) 30.3/2, Phontrawen wiwat kab lukchang hang Low Ban Seng sing pen khon nai bangkab farangset (quarrel between the employees of Low Ban Seng Co, under French protection, and the police) 27 December 1898.

23 The Bangkok Times 17 July 1889.

24 The Bangkok Times 6 July 1889.

25 NA Fifth Reign, T (Foreign Affairs) 22/30, number 306/9536, Kromluang Thewawong thun kromakhun Sommot ratchalekhanukan (Prince Devawong to Prince Sommot, Royal Secretariat) 9 December 1902. Cited in thesis, 368.

26 NA Fifth Reign, T 5.1/7 no. 181/13654, Laiphrahat kommameun Naret krabthun krommakhun Sommot (letter from Prince Naret to Prince Sommot) 12 October 1897, cited in: Ibid., 369–370.

27 The Bangkok Times Weekly 16 September 1908.

28 The Bangkok Times Weekly 17 September 1908.

29 Koompirochana, ‘Siam in British Foreign Policy’, 156.

30 Ibid., 151.

31 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 22 February 1890.

32 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 4 June 1890.

33 Ibid.

34 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 27 December 1898.

35 NA Y (Justice) 13/35, Khadikhwam reung Nai Ked Nai Thet tham amnat khu kanchok rasadon (case of Nai Ked and Nai Thet bullying the people and threatening to beat them up) April 1897.

36 NA R, Prarachhatalekha rachakan thi ha lem neung (royal correspondence, the Fifth Reign, Vol. 1) 11 February 1896.

37 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 29 December 1900.

38 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 21 November 1901.

39 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 23 November 1901.

40 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 2 July 1902.

41 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 11 April 1901.

42 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 25 July 1908.

43 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 12 May 1904.

44 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 13 May 1904.

45 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 8 January 1906.

46 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 22 February 1909.

47 Young, Ernest, The Kingdom of the Yellow Robe, Being Sketches of the Domestic and Religious Rites and Ceremonies of the Siamese (Kuala Lumpur 1982) 225–226Google Scholar. [first published 1898]

48 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 3 September 1904. In 1902, the British consular court was superseded by His Britannic Majesty's Court for Siam, administered by judges with legal qualifications.

49 The Bangkok Times Weekly Mail 22 February 1904.

50 The Bangkok Times Weekly 22 February 1905. The chewing of betel was permitted in the Siamese courts, even for litigants, advocates, and judges. There was less formality about a Siamese court than a British court, averred WAR Wood, Land of Smiles (Bangkok 1935) 57.

51 The Bangkok Times Weekly 4 April 1904.

52 The Bangkok Times Weekly 3 June 1904. In case where a Shan was accused of theft from a Burman, an interpreter was found who could speak Burman, Shan, and Siamese. The Bangkok Times Weekly 14 May 1904. The police too had problems with translators. A list of firearms written in Siamese translated into English and presented to the court was done by a trainee head constable who had learned English at the Assumption College. He told the court that any words he did not understand he would ask Chief Inspector Day. The inspector did not speak Siamese. 5 April 1904.

53 The Bangkok Times Weekly 22, 23 May 1905. The only rival of this case is that of the Poh Yome Road triple murders. Four watchmen were given the capital punishment for battering three policemen to death on a public street in what The Bangkok Times called ‘the outcome of a serious feud among some Indians of the Sikh race’. The Bangkok Times Weekly 13 August 1907.

54 The Bangkok Times Weekly 23 May 1905.

55 The Bangkok Times Weekly 28 March 1905.

56 The Bangkok Times Weekly 17 June 1905.

57 The Bangkok Times Weekly 30 December 1905.

58 The Bangkok Times Weekly 17 June 1905.

59 The Bangkok Times Weekly 29 December 1905.

60 The Bangkok Times Weekly 7 August 1908.