¹ For the pivotal role which this triad of Nation, Religion and King plays in Thai politics, see Ishii, Yoneo, Jōzabubukkyo no seijishakaigaku [Political Sociology in Theravada Buddhism] (Tokyo: Sōbunsha, 1975)Google Scholar; Keyes, Charles F., “Political Crisis and Militant Buddhism in Contemporary Thailand”, in Religion and Legitimation of Power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma, ed. Smith, Bardwell L. (Chambersburg PA: Anima Books, 1978), pp. 147–64Google Scholar; Reynolds, Frank E., “Legitimation and Rebellion: Thailand's Civic Religion and the Student Uprising of October, 1973”, in Religion and Legitimation, ed. Smith, B.L., pp. 134—46Google Scholar; Suksamran, Somboon, Buddhism and Politics in Thailand (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1982)Google Scholar and Yano, Toru, Tai Biruma gendai seijishi kenkyu [A Study of Modern Thai and Burmese Political History] (Kyoto: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1968)Google Scholar.

² On the traditional Thai Buddhist theory of kingship, Prince Dhani (1885–1974, who at the time of his death had been the President of the Privy Council for over 23 years) wrote, “A Siamese monarch succeeds to the Throne theoretically by election. The idea is of course recognizable as coming from the old Buddhist scriptures in the figure of King Mahasammata, the ‘Great Elect’”. See Nivat, Prince Dhani, “The Old Siamese Conception of the Monarchy”, Journal of the Siam Society 36, pt. 2 (1947): 100Google Scholar. He also stated that “The Thammasat describes its ideal of a monarch as a King of Righteousness, elected by the people (the Mahasammata)”. See ibid., 94. Dhani was a royal secretary during the reign of King Vajiravudh; his concept of Thai monarchy, which was thoroughly described in his article, seems to be essentially identical with that of King Vajiravudh. An older description of “the Great Elect” and “the king of Righteousness” is found in the Traiphumilokawinitchayakatha (Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, 1977)Google Scholar which was compiled by order of the king in 1802. Also see Wyatt, David K., “The ‘Subtle Revolution’ of King Rama I of Siam”, in Moral Order and the Question of Change: Essays on Southeast Asian Thought, ed. Wyatt, D.K. and Woodside, A. (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, 1982), p. 10Google Scholar.

³ See Vella, Walter F., Chaiyo!: King Vajiravudh and the Development of Thai Nationalism (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1978), p. ixGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Ibid., p. xvi.

⁵ See Wyatt, D.K., Thailand: A Short History (London and Bangkok: Thai Watana Panich and Yale University Press, 1984), p. 224Google Scholar.

⁶ Kullada also claimed that an “official nationalism” had already begun to emerge under King Chulalongkorn, basing her claim on the analysis of two school textbooks, Thammachariya and Phonlamuang Di. Kullada's conclusions, however, would lead her to believe that this “official nationalism” did not begin to emerge until the beginning of the 1900s, during the last phase of Chulalongkorn's reign, for the above two textbooks were not published until then. Moreover, she asserted that, “In 1893 when the officials and the people volunteered to fight against the French over the Paknam Incident they did it in the name of their gratitude to the king and the word nation was not mentioned at all.” See Kesboonchoo, Kullada, “Official Nationalism under King Chulalongkorn” (Paper presented at the International Conference on Thai Studies,Bangkok,22–24 Aug. 1984), p. 19Google Scholar. She fails to realize, however, that the incipient concept of the three-in-one loyalty to Nation, Religion and King can be traced back to the 1880s. Clearly this concept was used as a rallying point for the Thai people during the Paknam crisis in 1893 as we shall be discussing in this paper.

⁷ See Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso Editions, 1983), p. 95Google Scholar.

⁸ See Vajiravudh, King, Plukchai suapa [Instilling the Wild Tiger Spirit] (Bangkok, 1914/1915), pp. 56–57Google Scholar. Also see Keyes, C.F., “Towards a New Formulation of the Concept of Ethnic Group”, Ethnicity 3, no. 3 (1976): 204–205Google Scholar.

⁹ See Fine Arts Dept. Thailand, comp., Prachum prakat ratchakan thi 4 Pho. So. 2394–2404 [Collected Proclamations of the Fourth Reign, 2394 B.E.-2404 B.E.] (Bangkok, 1968), p. 145Google Scholar.

¹⁰ See Pallegoix, Jean Baptiste, Dictionarium Linguae Thai sive Siamensis interpretation latina, gallica et anglica illustratum (Paris: Imperatoris impressum, 1854), p. 883Google Scholar.

¹¹ Banmuang and phaendin can be literally translated into Chinese as guojia and tianxia, respectively, because guo means city and jia means house or village, and tianxia indicates the flat land under the heaven. Both guojia (or kokka in Japanese) and tianxia (or tenka in Japanese) mean the state in Chinese (and Japanese). Moreover it is thought that tianxia should be the public body. This fact shows not only the close relationship between Thai and Chinese (or Japanese) language in this regard, but also the similarity of the traditional political thought.

¹² see Praditmanutham, Luang [Banomyong, Pridi] and Sarasaspraphan, Phra, Kotmai pokkhrong [Public Law] (Bangkok, 1933), pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

¹³ For instance, Section 2 in The Model of the Oath of Councillors of State in 1874, see Yati, Luang Ratana, Kotmai Thai ku phrarachabanyat lae prakat nai ratchakan thi 5 [Collected Thai Laws and Proclamations of the Fifth Reign] (Bangkok, 1893), pp. 165–68Google Scholar; and King Chulalongkorn's speeches in 1877 and 1878, see Chulalongkorn, King, Phrarachadamrat nai phrabat somdet phrachulachom klao chao yuhua [Speeches of King Chulalongkorn] (Bangkok, 1915), pp. 13 and 23Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See footnote 11 in this regard.

¹⁵ Thianwan (1841–1915), a commoner, is another well-known nationalist. Although he is of the same generation as King Chulalongkorn and the above-mentioned aristocrats, his idea of nation was published a decade later than theirs. Thianwan's idea of nation is found in his journal Tulawiphakphochanakit, which was published from 1900 to 1906. See Samudavanija, Chai-anan, Chiwit lae ngan khong Thianwan lae K.S.R. Kulap [Lives and Works of Thianwan and K.S.R. Kulap] (Bangkok: Thiranan, 1979), pp. 138 and 141Google Scholar.

¹⁶ See Prisdang, Prince, Prawatyo nai phan-ek phiset phrawarawongtho praongchao Prisdang lem 1 [A Short Autobiography Vol. 1] (Bangkok, 1930), pp. 45–50Google Scholar.

¹⁷ See Fine Arts Dept. Thailand, comp., Chaonai lae kharachakan krapbangkhomthun khwamhen chat kanplianplaeng rachakanphaendin Ro. So. 103 [The Presentation of Opinions on Governmental Reform Submitted to King Chulalongkorn from the Royal Princes and the King's Servants in 1885] (Bangkok, 1967), pp. 21–25Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Ibid., pp. 53–60.

¹⁹ This speech was first published by King Prajadhipok in 1927. D.K. Wyatt provides the date of this speech. See Wyatt, D.K., The Politics of Reform in Thailand (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), pp. 91–92Google Scholar.

²⁰ King Prajadhipok said: “It was not an evolution but a revolution. Moreover, it was a very rare revolution in the world because it was bloodless. Even the Japanese revolution had its bloody Satsuma Rebellion.” See Chulalongkorn, King, Phrarachadamrat nai phrabat somdet phrachulachom klao chao yuhua song thalaeng phraboroma rachathibai kaekhai kanpokkhrong phaendin [King Chulalongkorn's Speech Explaining Governmental Reform] (Bangkok, 1927), introductory pages, pp. 2–3Google Scholar.

²¹ His English ability was mentioned by a contemporary observer, Sir Henry Norman, who commented: “I had had the honour of being received by him [King Chulalongkorn]…. the King is a student, not only of the affairs of his own country, but also of the politics and literature of Great Britain, and to a smaller extent, of Europe as well. He reads English with ease, and spoke it at least as well as the Tsarevich during all their conversations, which were carried on in that language.” See SirNorman, Henry, The People and Politics of the Far East (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895), p. 435Google Scholar.

²² See Chulalongkorn, King, Phrarachadamrat nai phrabat somdet phrachulachom klao chao yuhua song thalaeng phraboroma rachathibai…, pp. 62–63Google Scholar.

²³ He was born in 1849 and was a younger brother of the powerful Somdet Chaophraya Brom Maha Si Suriyawong. At age 15 he went to England to study and returned home at 19. He served as King Chulalongkorn's important private secretary during the early years of the reign because he was one of the few Thai officials at the time who could understand English and investigate foreign matters. He served as an acting minister of foreign affairs in 1888, Minister of Agriculture in 1890 and Minister of Public Instruction from 1892 to 1902. See Damrong, Prince, 42 phraprawat bukkhon samkhan [Biographies of Forty-Two Important Persons] (Bangkok: Bannakan, 1967), pp. 328–47Google Scholar.

²⁴ See Phatsakorawong, Phraya, “Ruang Suan [On Farming]”, Vajirayan Viset 4 (1889): 452–54Google Scholar.

²⁵ The Buddhist elective theory of kingship was not a mere theory in Siam. Until the succession to the throne of King Chulalongkorn, it had been the formal, though perfunctory, custom that candidates for the throne were approved by an assembly of royal princes, higher monks and high officials. Prince Wan said in a lecture at Chulalongkorn University on 15 July 1932 that until the reign of King Chulalongkorn, there had always been the phrase: Anekajananikara Samosara Sammata (meaning: “be elected by the gathering of people”) in the full name of the king. See Waithayakon, Prince Wan, Ratthathamanun [Constitution] (Bangkok, 1932), pp. 8–11Google Scholar. Also King Prajadhipok made a mention of traditional Siamese elected kingship in his letter titled “Problems of Siam”. See Batson, Benjamin A., The End of the Absolute Monarchy in Siam (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 285–87Google Scholar. This elective theory of kingship still has a great influence on the present monarch, King Bhumibol. He said: “As a matter of fact, His Majesty the King ascended to the throne through his election by the people. If the people should come not to want him, they themselves could decide to request His Majesty to abdicate the throne.” See Kraivixien, Tanin, Phramahakasat Thai nai rabop prachathipatai [Thai Monarchy within the Democratic System] (Bangkok: Ministry of Education, 1977), p. 39Google Scholar. It is also interesting to note that a chamberlain of the present king, M.R. Thongnoi Thongyai, has expressed his firm belief in the elective theory of kingship. See Kasemsan, Supraphada, et al. , Chat Chitralada — supracha Thai [From Chitralada Palace to the Thai People] (Bangkok, 1983), p. 13Google Scholar.

²⁶ The king as a sustainer and protector was also compared to a father. The king was regarded as the father of the family, i.e., Chat Thai. Even at present, the King and Queen are pleased to be called “Father” and “Mother” by their subjects. See Kasemsan, Supraphada, et al. , Chak Chitralada, pp. 6 and 8Google Scholar.

²⁷ Ratana Yati was born in 1862 and was the son of one of the king's royal pages. He studied English at the Phrarachawang Nantha-uthayan School which had been established by the king. For three years he was the best student at the school, which in 1882 earned him a King's scholarship to study law in England. He entered Middle Temple in London and in 1888 passed the qualifying examination for Barrister-at-Law. He was the first Thai student to do so. In 1893 he became the first director of the Public Procurator's Department; in 1897 he was appointed president of Criminal Court. He died in 1901. See Anuson nai ngan phrarachathan pleng sop Khunluangphraya Kraisi [To the Memory of Khunluangphraya Kraisi] (Bangkok, 1983)Google Scholar. During his short life he published a large number of journals and books, such as the first book by a Thai on European history, Phrarachaphongsawadan angkrit doi phisadan [A Detailed History of England], published in 1893; a series, Kotmai Thai ku phrarachabanyat lae prakat nai ratchakan thi 5 [Collected Thai Laws and Proclamations of the Fifth Reign], which also came out in 1893; and the first Thai journal of judicial precedents: Thammasat-samai, issued from 1897 to 1900.

²⁸ “Ruang frangses kap Thai [France and the Thais]”, Thammasat-winitchai 2 (1893): 30–34Google Scholar. For a detailed historical description on the Franco-Siamese crisis in 1893, see Battye, Noel A., “The Military, Government and Society in Siam, 1868–1910: Politics and Military Reform During the Reign of King Chulalongkorn” (Ph. D. diss., Cornell University, 1974), pp. 311–70Google Scholar.

²⁹ See Chulalongkorn, King, Phrarachadamrat nai phrabat somdet phrachulachom klao chao yuhua [Speeches of King Chulalongkorn] (Bangkok, 1915), p. 113Google Scholar.

³⁰ Ibid., p. 192.

³¹ See Chulalongkorn, King, Phraboromarachowat lae phraboromarachathibai ruang samakkhi [The Royal Discourse on Unity] (Bangkok, 1946), pp. 1–22Google Scholar.

³² Walter F. Vella placed too much emphasis on the Westernized character of King Vajiravudh's ideas. He seems to have overlooked the king's continuity with his predecessors. See Vella, W.F., Chaiyo!, pp. xv–xvi and 33Google Scholar.

³³ A contemporary observer, Lord Northcliffe, wrote: “The King was brought up in England, speaks and writes French and English perfectly, and is a rather remarkable monarch.” See Northcliffe, Alfred Viscount, My Journey Round the World (London: Jhon Lane The Bodley Head Ltd., 1924), p. 207Google Scholar.

³⁴ Prince Chakrabongse, the King's full younger brother, likewise said in 1913 that the king was equally a Thai citizen (phonlamuang). See “The Duties to Our Nation” in Chakrabongse, Prince, Krasae phradamrat lae khamchichaeng [Speeches and Explanatory Remarks] (Bangkok, 1920), p. 4Google Scholar.

³⁵ See Vajiravudh [Asvabahu], King, Muang Thai chong Men thet [Wake up, Siam!] (Bangkok: Nangsuphim Thai, 1914), p. 72Google Scholar.

³⁶ see Vajiravudh's article entitled “The True Meaning of a Nation” in Vajiravudh [Asvabahu], King, Khwamhen 10 ruang khong Asvabahu [Ten Views of Asvabahu] (Bangkok, 1915/1916), pp. 33–52Google Scholar.

³⁷ In order to discover the political ideas of the Chinese nationalists, some of whom were arrested during the strike in June 1910, the Siamese government had one of its officials, Tan Sutchai (who later acquired the title of Pra Chenchinakson) translate a very popular Chinese nationalist pamphlet, Ge Ming Jun (meaning “Revolutionary Army” in Chinese) by Zou Rong, into Thai. It had originally been published in Shanghai in 1903, and in its Thai version it was titled Ruang Kek Meng (Bangkok, 1910/1911)Google Scholar.

³⁸ See Vajiravudh, King, Chotmaihet raiwan nai phrabat somdet phra mongkut klao chao yuhua [The Royal Diary of King Vajiravudh] (Bangkok, 1974), p. 34Google Scholar.

³⁹ See Vajiravudh [Asvabahu], King, A Siam Miscellany (Bangkok: Siam Observer, n.d.), pp. 23–25Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ See Vajiravudh [Asvabahu], King, “Uttarakuru: An Asiatic Wonderland”, Siam Observer, 12 09 1913Google Scholar.

⁴¹ See idem, A Siam Miscellany, p. 3.

⁴² King Vajiravudh admitted he was an avowed conservative in “Uttarakuru: An Asiatic Wonderland”.

⁴³ King Vajiravudh's criticism of the Chinese can be found as early as 1905 and did not begin with the Chinese strike in Bangkok in 1910 as is widely held.

⁴⁴ See Vajiravudh, King, Phrarachadamrat nai phrabat somdet phra mongkut klao chao yuhua [Speeches of King Vajiravudh] (Bangkok, 1929), pp. 4–5Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ See idem., Plukchai suapa, p. 3.

⁴⁶ Interestingly, textbooks such as Thammachariya, which were used before the 1932 revolution to instill the state ideology, continued to be used after 1932.

⁴⁷ See Plukchai suapa, pp. 46–55.

⁴⁸ Although King Vajiravudh was a monarch who was not elected in any sense of the word, he stressed the elected nature of Thai kingship. This paradoxical fact can be explained by the historical circumstances of his reign. At that time the Thai monarchy was becoming more absolute and, consequently there was greater need to legitimize the king's power by referring to the tradition of elected kingship.

⁴⁹ See Plukchai suapa, pp. 60–61.

⁵⁰ Ibid., p. 69.

⁵¹ See Vajiravudh, King, Kamnotkan sadaeng tamnan suapa [Programme of the Pageant of Wild Tiger Traditions] (Bangkok, 1912)Google Scholar.

⁵² An article in the Siam Observer classified the military officers who planned the rebellion into three groups. The largest of these groups was composed of members who were largely of Chinese origin and whose level of education was higher than those in the other two groups. They planned to change Siam into a republic with Prince Ratchaburi as the first president. The other two groups upheld the idea of constitutional monarchy, one planning to install Prince Nakhonsawan as the new king, the other Prince Phitsanulok (Chakrabongse). See “Ruang nai thahan khit kankamrerp [Military Officers Planned to Rise in Rebellion]”, Siam Observer (Thai edition), 8 03 1912Google Scholar.

⁵³ See Numnonda, Thamsook, Yangterk runraek: kabot Ro. So. 130 [The First Young Turks: The 1912 Plot of Treason] (Bangkok: Ruangsan, 1979), pp. 17–34Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ King Vajiravudh showed his deep distrust of the Thai urban population. See Vajiravudh, King, Chotmaihet raiwan, pp. 149 and 156Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ King Vajiravudh used the pseudonym of Asvabahu until around Nov. 1916 when he wrote political articles. See Vajiravudh [Asvabahu], King, “A Fine Idea, But”, Siam Observer, 25 11 1916Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ See A Siam Miscellany, pp. 35–36.

⁵⁷ Ibid., pp. 21–22.

⁵⁸ King Vajiravudh viewed all revolutionaries in terms of being believers in utopian Mattrayism, regardless of whether they were Siamese, Chinese, Indians, Turks or Russians. See Chotmaihet raiwan, pp. 63–98. His views on Russian revolutionaries were expressed under the pseudonym Ramachiti in a work entitled Kan chalachon nai Russia [The Russian Revolution] (Bangkok, n.d.). His fear of Mattrayism was not groundless, for Buddhist millennialism developed in the Siam-Indochina border areas during the early 20th-century. See Keyes, C. F., “Millennialism, Theravada Buddhism, and Thai Society”, Journal of Asian Studies 36, no. 2 (1977): 291–302Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ See Vajiravudh [Asvabahu], King, “Latthi au yang [The Cult of Imitation]”, Nangsuphim Siam, 9–10 04 1915Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Idem, “Khlon tit lo [Clogs on Our Wheels]”, Nangsuphim Siam, 29 April-12 May 1915.