No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Tax Farming System in the Early Bangkok Period
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
Extract
When King Chulalongkorn surveyed his realm on his second coronation in 1873 to mark the termination of the five-year regency at his coming of age, he saw much that was in need of reform. The king's assessment was that the monarch was but a figurehead; the existing framework of government was actually run by the leading nobility, foremost of whom were the regent and his family who wielded power based on their long dominance over the key administrative posts and the economic benefits that accrued from their official positions. From Chulalongkorn's viewpoint, the regent's family, which reached the pinnacle of its power during the regency of Chuang Bunnag (1868–73), dominated the bureaucracy, in effect controlled the administration of the country, and enriched itself with great facility at the expense of the king and the country. Through the political patronage that they extended to the tax farmers, the officials had assumed control of the tax farming system, the most pervasive method of revenue collection that was employed in the kingdom since the Third Reign. The germ of King Chulalongkorn's historic reform of the administrative system, restructured along rational, functional lines, thus lay in his desire to regain control over the government and economy, which had been gradually slipping out of the Crown's grip since the reign of his father, King Mongkut. The king was determined not to allow the situation to persist where substantial revenue from the tax farms was being channelled into the coffers of the leading noble families and the tax farmers themselves, to the detriment of the state.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1983
References
1 Chulalongkorn, King, “praralchadamrat song thalaengphraboromratchalhibai kae kai kanpokkrong phaendin (Announcement and Explanation of the Reform of the Government and the Administration)”, reprinted in Phun than thang prawatsat sangkhom lae kanmuang (The Fundamentals of History, Society and Politics) (Bangkok: Thammasat University, 1973), pp. 121–70Google Scholar. Chulalongkorn, King, Prachum praratcha-owat (Collected Royal Advices) (Bangkok, 1966), pp. 20–21Google Scholar. In an oft-quoted letter to his son, Prince Wachirunnahit, dated 8 July 1893, the king reflected, “At the time [of the coronation] I was fifteen years and ten days old. 1 had no mother and my maternal relatives were mostly unreliable, or else they held no important official positions. My paternal relatives, the princes, were under the power of the Somdet Chaophraya [the Regent, Chuang Bunnag] and each one of them had to think of themselves first.”
12 Riggs, Fred W., Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity (Honolulu: East-West Centre Press, 1966), p. 11.Google Scholar
3 Asawai, Suntharee and Kamutphisamai, Archaraporn, Prawatsat Sangkhom thai B.E. 2435–2475 (Thai Social History, 1892–1932) (Bangkok: Thaikhadi Research Institute, Thammasat University, 1980), p. 92.Google ScholarFeeny, David, “Paddy, Princes and Productivity: Irrigation and Thai Agricultural Development, 1900–1940”, Explorations in Economic History 16 (04., 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Siffin, William J., The Thai Baureaucracy: Institutional Change and Development (Honolulu: East-West Centre Press, 1966), p. 52Google Scholar.
5 Anderson, Benedict, “Studies of the Thai State: The State of Thai Studies” in The Study of Thailand: Analysis of Knowledge, Approaches, and Prospects in Anthropology, Art History, Economics, History and Political Science, ed. Ayal, Eliezer B., (Ohio: Ohio University Centre for International Studies, Southeast Asia Program, 1978), pp. 198–201Google Scholar.
6 The debate about the historical roots of Thailand's undevelopment was initiated in 1950, with the publication of a Marxist analysis of Thai society and history by Aran Phrommachomphu (pseud.) entitled Thai Kung muang khun (Thailand: a semi-colony). Since then, and especially following the liberalization of Thai politics after October 1973, Thai Marxist analyses have grown more sophiscated, both in terms of theory, where refinements to the earlier, strictly unilinear societal progression like the Asiatic Mode of Production as well as Imperialism and the dependency theory have been explored, and in terms of supporting empirical knowledge presented. For example, see Samudavanija, Chai-anan, Sakdina kab phattanakan Sangkhom thai (Sakdina and the Development of Thai Society) (Bangkok, 1976)Google Scholar; Nartsupha, Chatthip and Prasartset, Suthy (eds.),. The Political Economy of Siam 1850–1910 (Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978)Google Scholar; Songchai na Yala (pseud.) Panha kanseuksa witthi kanphalit khong thai an neung ma ĉhak thrisadi kyng mimngkhun kung sakdina (Problems in studying the mode of production in Thailand arising from the “semi-feudal semi-colonial theory”), Setthasat kan muang (Journal of Political Economy) 1, 2 (03.-04. 1981): 1–99Google Scholar.
7 Rabibhadana, Akin, The Organisation of Thai Society in the Early Bangkok Period, 1782–1873 (Ithaca: Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program, Data Paper No. 74, 1969)Google Scholar.
8 Rabhibhadana, Akin, “Clientship and Class Structure in the Early Bangkok Period”, in Change and Persistence in Thai Society, ed. Skinner, G. William and Kirsch, A. Thomas (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975), p. 102Google Scholar.
9 , Akin, The Organisation of Thai Society, pp. 36–39Google Scholar
10 Viraphol, Sarasin, Tribute and Profit: Sino-Siamese Trade, 1652–1853 (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Thadeus, and Flood, Chadin (trans), The Dynastic Chronides, Bangkok Era, The First Reign (Tokyo: The Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies, 1978), p. 303Google Scholar.
12 , Sarasin, Tribute and Profit, pp. 153–54Google Scholar.
13 Lysa, Hong, “The Evolution of the Thai Economy in the Early Bangkok Period and its Historiography” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney, 1981), pp. 88–92.Google Scholar
14 Phraya Anuman Rajadhon, Tamnan Sunlakhakon (The History of the Customs Department) (Bangkok, 1949), p. 7.Google Scholar
15 Rajanubhab, Prince Damrong, Latthi thamniam tang tang (Various principles and customs) (Bangkok, reprinted, 1972), p. 156.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., pp. 158–59.
17 Ibid., pp. 158–70.
18 Vella, Walter F., Siam Under Rama III, 1824–1851 (New York: J.J. Augustin Incorporated, 1957), p. 19Google Scholar.
19 Mongkut, a monk for 27 years before becoming king, seemed to feel the need to give elaborate explanations to his subjects to justify increases in taxes. These explanations, in the form of preambles contained in the writs of appointment issued to the tax farmers said that the king had conscientiously promoted Buddhism by repairing and building temples and looking after the welfare of the monks. He also promoted princes and officials to higher rank so that they would be of service to the kingdom, as well as had canals dug and fortresses erected. National Archieves, The Fourth Reign, Kalahom, ĉhunlasakarat 1216, vol. 7, pp. 54–65. Hereafter, NA, K RIV, C.S. (C.S. + 638 = AD.).
20 Mongkut, King, “The Establishment of the Kingdom”, translated by Smith, Samuel, in The Siam Repository (Bangkok, 1869), p. 67Google Scholar.
21 Skinner, G.William, Chinese Society in Thailand: An Analytical History (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957), p. 98Google Scholar.
22 Bunnag, Tej, The Provincial Administration of Siam, 1892–1915. The Ministry of the Interior under Prince Damrong Rajanubhab (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 19–21Google Scholar.
23 NA, K RIV, C.S. 1227, vol. 29, p. 27.
24 NA, K RIV, C.S. 1215, vol. 5.
25 National Library (hereafter NL) K R1V, C.S. 1221, no. 92.
26 NL, ĉhotmaihet (hereafter CMH) Rill, C.S. 1208, no. 13.
27 Mongkut, King, Prachum prakat ratchakan thi si (Collected Proclamations of the Fourth Reign), vol. 3 (Bangkok, reprinted 1960–61) pp. 248–49Google Scholar
28 Jit Phumisak, a Thai Marxist historian, considered Mongkut's proclamation rejecting the proposal for establishing that betel leaves tax as hypocrisy: the amount of money that the farm would have generated was small, but the king used this rejection as proof of his magnanimity and concern for his subjects. Phumisak, Jit, Chomna sakdina thai (The Face of Thai Feudalism) (Bangkok, reprinted 1979), p. 262Google Scholar.
29 NA, K RIV, C.S. 1216, vol. 7, pp. 54–65.
30 Mongkut, King, Collected Proclamations, vol. 3, pp. 229–30Google Scholar.
31 NA, K RIV, C.S. 1227, vol. 29, pp. 87–89.
32 NL, CMH RIV, C.S. 1222, no. 152.
33 NA, K RIV, C.S. 1214, vol. 3.
34 NL, CMH RIV, C.S. 1218, no. 186.
35 NA, K RIV, C.S. 1216, vol. 7, pp. 8–22.
36 Rajanubhap, Damrong, Tamnan Myang Ranong (A history of Ranong), in Prachum pongsawadan lent 29 (Collected Chronicles volume 29), pp. 223–47.Google Scholar
37 Ibid., pp. 244–45.
38 Ibid., pp. 254–56.
39 Ibid., NL, CMH RIII, C.S. 1207, no. 257
40 NL, CMH RIII, C.S. 1207, no. 145.
41 Ibid.
42 NL, CMH RIV, C.S. 1221, no. 34.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 NA, CMH RIV, C.S. 1222, vol. 19, pp. 66–71.
48 Phraya Anuman Rajadhon, Customs Department, p. 35.
49 Ibid.
50 NA, K RIV, C.S. 1227, vol. 29, p. 27.
51 NA, K RIV, C.S. 1222, vol. 19, pp. 67–71.
52 Rajanubhab, Damrong, Praratchapongsawadan krung rattanakosin ratchakan thi ha (The Royal Chronicles of the Bangkok Dynasty, the 5th Reign) (Bangkok, reprinted 1950), p. 75Google Scholar.
53 Constance M. Wilson, “State and Society in the Reign of Mongkut, 1851–1865: Thailand on the Eve of Modernization” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1970), pp. 635–36Google Scholar.
54 NL. CMH RIII, C.S. 1208, no. 51.
55 NA, K RIV, C.S. 1221, vol. 17. pp. 38–42.
56 NL, CHM RIV, C.S. 1218, no. 113.
57 NL, CMH RIV, C.S. 1219, no. 107.
58 Namely, taxes on opium, pigs and poultry, salt-water fish, prawns and crabs, scomber fish, wood, beeswax, mats and cane goods, vegetables, earthenware steamers for glutinous rice, pails and buckets, kilns, dug-out boats, oars and paddles for dug-out boats, the Chinese lottery tax, and a tax on entertainment collected from theatrical troupes. However, annual government revenue in the Fourth Reign was estimated at 26,964,000 baht, only marginally higher than the 25,000,000 baht in the Third Reign. Rajanubhab, Damrong, Latthi thamniam tang tang. pp. 171,175. The Bowring Treaty also prohibited the setting up of tax farms on each stage of the sales transactions from the producer to the exporterGoogle Scholar.
59 Article 8 of the Treaty stated that “Articles of export, from the time of production to the date of shipment, shall pay one impost only, whether this be levied under the name of inland tax, transit duty, or duty on exportation”. Bowring, John, The Kingdom and People of Siam, vol. 2 (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, reprinted, 1977), p. 220Google Scholar.
60 NA, K R1V, C.S. 1230/1231, vol. 37, pp. 101–104.
61 NA, K RIV, C.S. 1230/1231, vol. 37, pp. 144–47.
62 “Article 44. Financial Laws.” (Translation) Siam Repository, Apr. 1874, p. 183.
63 For example, instead of pledging to make payments after he had begun to operate a farm for three, four, or six months or even a year, the tax farmer now had to deposit three months' payment in advance to the Treasury on being awarded the farm and to make the rest of the payments in monthly instalments. Ibid., p. 184.
64 Praphaphan, Yada, “Rabob ĉhaophasi naiakqn samai krungthepyuk ton (The tax farming system in the Early Bangkok period)” (M.A. thesis, Chulalongkorn University, 1976), pp. 142–58Google Scholar.
65 Sakkriangkrai, Sirilok, “Ton kamnoed khong chon chan nai thun naiprathet thai [B.E. 2398–2453] (The origins of the capitalist class in Thailand, 1855–1910)” (M.A. thesis, Chulalongkorn University, 1979)Google Scholar.
66 Cited in Brown, Ian G., “The Ministry of Finance and the early development of modern financial administration” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1975), p. 159Google Scholar.