Since my last visit to Mae Sai, a spruced up sign has been erected to mark the northern-most point of the country.
The Thai reads: “The Northernmost point of Siam(ese Territory)”. This is an interesting way of expressing a geographic claim in modern day “Thailand”. Of course, other things around here still use Siam – but this is a particularly prominent spot where tens of thousands of people get their picture taken.
Does anybody out there in the blogosphere have any ideas about why Siam is retained in this particular context. Is it just because it sounds/looks better? Has echoes of a glorious Siamese past? Fits on the sign?
Any ideas?
6 responses so far ↓
1 Tum // Aug 16, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Well, I think it is one of many ways Siamese claim of their political territory and nationalism ideology as we can also see a sign post at the most southern of Siam at Betong district in Yala province. If we study Siamese history carefuly, the name ‘Thailand’ came after political reform in 1900s and Siamese came after the Tai empire in 12th AD. Therefore, this is a way od showing our pride to amalgamate the otherness within Thai geopolitic.
2 Nicholas Farrelly // Aug 17, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Thanks Tum,
I am sure that it does have something to do with the claims and ideologies that you mention. But, to play devil\’s advocate, why doesn\’t it say, in Thai, \”The northernmost point of Thailand\”?
I know that we still have \”Siam Square\” and \”Siam Discovery\” among other similiarly \”Siamese\” contemporary place names. But in this specific context the Thai says \”Siam\” and the English says \”Thailand\”. Is this incongruous? Is there a good explanation for this kind of usage? Particularly at such a high profile site?
I am also intrigued by the idea of \”amalgamating the otherness within the Thai geopolitic\”? Is a sign that says \”Siam\” a good way of doing that?
Any more ideas?
NSF
3 Tum // Aug 17, 2006 at 8:21 pm
I suppose that in Thai notion of thier nation, saying ‘Siam’ in Thai provides a sense of Thai-nees rather than saying ‘Thailand’. My initial assumptions are because the term ‘Thai’ and Thailand’ were termed by the other and not the words we called ourselves. Another assumption is it may be a way to indicate that this territoty has long belonged to Siam before our country was named ‘Thailand’ as before the Anglo-Franco treaties and before we had survey technology in this region. We had a blured national boundary at that period. Therefore, I think in this particular context, naming ‘Siam’ is make more sense. Again, it makes sense to say Thailand in English because some farangs (foreigners) don’t recognize ‘Siam’ but the Thai do.
In modern Thai now, the notion of Siam has had less significant to the new generation since we have Thai national anthem. I think place names like Siam square and Siam discovery are not related to nationalism but the northernmost, southernmost and the highest point at Doi Inthanon, Chiangmai are.
Is there any other similar cases in other country? Whatabout the sign at the other side of Myanmar? They also have many names… Pegu, Burma, Myanmar.
Tum
4 Nicholas Farrelly // Aug 18, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Thanks again, P’ Tum,
I may be mistaken – or may have never paid enough attention – but there is no “sign” to mark this Burmese border in a similar way. The only Burmese signs, and they are unequivocal in force and intent, remind everybody that this territory (the southern Shan State) is part of the “Union of Myanmar” (Myanma Pedonzu). The Burmese have other important national borders to mark – and many internal ones, too – where all possible effort goes in to ensuring that the national territory is not whittled away by insurgency and “destructive elements”. Plus, for the Burmese, the border at Tachilek – Mae Sai is less territorially significant. It cannot be claimed as the (eastern, southern, etc) “most” anything.
I enjoyed your explanation of possible reasons for retaining such refurbished “Siamese” signage. We both know that some people have never been happy with the 20th century change of name from Siam to Thailand. Some even consider the new name a kind of Tai colonial fantasy. Are you saying that this “Siamese” sign marks a different kind of nostalgia? Is it a yearning for the good ol’ days of “trans-border” Siam? Does this encompass the Southern Shan State? Is that the kind of politics of ethno-nationalism that the sign declares?
Other countries and places do, as you say, have more than one commonly used name. At least in English, using “Burma” or using “Myanmar” is largely a question of aesthetics, allegiance and (historical?) politics.
Could we conclude that this Thai/Siamese sign follows that same pattern?
NSF
5 New Mandala » Thailand? Siam? Who cares? // Apr 6, 2007 at 4:19 pm
[...] and origins of the word “Siam” can consult the TLC archive for April 2007. (An early New Mandala post may also be of [...]
6 (Mrs) Robbie Walsh // Nov 7, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I have visited Thailand for the second time and asked many english speaking Thai’s why Siam was changed to Thailand. They do not really know, except it happened early 1900’s. After reading all of the above I still do not understand?? Please explain? I love the place and would like to know more about it. Thank You
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.