In recent weeks I have been doing plenty of reading on the 1932 overthrow of Thailand’s absolute monarchy. I am learning as I go. Long-time followers of New Mandala will know that I have an intermittent focus on various aspects of Thai coup culture but this is the first time I have ploughed through many of the sources relevant to 1932.
I have been paying particular attention to Thawatt Mokarapong‘s History of the Thai Revolution: A Study in Political Behaviour (Bangkok: Chalermnit, 1962). It is based on his Indiana University doctoral dissertation. Benedict Anderson calls it “[t]he fullest English-language account” of the events of 1932. I agree: it is packed with intriguing details.
I am especially taken with Thawatt’s lengthy descriptions of what happened on the morning of the coup itself.
He introduces the idea that “[e]veryone thought everybody else had joined the revolution; and none dared think of resistance” (Thawatt, 1962: 35).
I like this. It encapsulates the interlocking notions of denial, half-truth, feint and misinformation that provided the foundation for the successful coup recipe, especially after the mis-steps and mis-judgements of a previous generation of would-be coup-makers in 1912.
I can see how once the coup instigators picked up sufficient momentum the prospect of resistance faded to nothing; in general, there is a threshold that needs to be overcome but after that point it takes incredible will, and organisation, to adequately counter a coup. Naturally enough, in any counter-coup scenario, money, charisma and brute force need to play their roles.
Thawatt tells us that a key difference between 1912 and 1932 was that the senior leadership in 1932, all of whom were colonels, were “not only colourful personalities but had the prestige of outstanding educational backgrounds and high military positions” (Thawatt, 1962: 27).
He goes on to explain that Thailand’s1932 political changes were “hailed throughout the world as the most peaceful and bloodless of revolutions” (1962: 42). That is a generic assessment that has been echoed by commentators over the decades who have marveled at the relatively peaceful execution of the country’s many subsequent military interventions.
Inevitably there are questions from the vantage of 2012 — 80 years after the 1932 revolution — about what any future Thai coup might look like. What I take away from Thawatt is that the real art is to convince any wavering or loyalist forces that the coup-makers are already in control. This is not, I’m sure, ever as easy as it is made out to be.
But during the uncertain next phase of Thai politics I expect the lessons of the 1932 revolution are well worth studying in full.
******
As a footnote, Thawatt Mokarapong went on to a long career as a Thai educator and official, including stints as Governor of many provinces such as Uttaradit, Phang-nga and Chonburi. A full obituary (in Thai) is available here.
80 (I predict 82) years on it will be totally unlike the 1932 coup. Almost all watching the maelstrom streamed live will condemn it. The chaos! Bright red blood and yellow pus will flow down gutters. The people are already in control. They just need to convince those stopping them!
Anyone need an ojek? My views are free, and my wheels are cheap.
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
Without going into any detail, the situation in 1932 and today are more or less completely different. I don’t think that any conclusions from that time can be taken for today. Nevertheless the book of Thawat is very interesting and useful, not the least as it provides a slightly different interpretation of the periode prior to 1932 then most other so-called “histories”
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The date of Dr Thawatt’s study – the thesis was 1962, the Chalermnit edition 1972 – shows how little progress has been made in understanding 1932. Anderson’s endorsement of the book as the fullest English-language account could be re-stated today without qualification. Some work in Thai and English has shed light on the dynamics of the emerging public sphere, and new work underway on the 1930s will illuminate even more, yet weaknesses in the study of 1932 remain. Yes, the Bowaradej Rebellion was suppressed, but the coup group continued to be challenged at every turn. Why didn’t they wrap it up when they had their chances – after the bloodless coup in 1932, and again when the seventh king abdicated in 1935?
P. S. Okay, I give up. In the illustration, why are we looking at Thai books on labour, ethnic minorities etc. in Burma?
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Thanks Craig,
No deep meaning on the photo. Just a “file photo” of the bookshelf in a certain Hedley Bull office. Sorry for any confusion.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
Why did they not wrap it up is really the interesting question. I think that until Phibul became prime minister the senior faction combined with old royalists etc. was still too strong and entrenched, even after the B. rebellion. Afterwards, perhaps there was no more need for it. The new regime was quite well established and did not have to fear interferences from other groups.
In my understanding of Phibul, he used Mussolline as an example, and M. kept the monarchy as an additional legitimation of rule. Even more, while the italian king was in Italy, the King of Siam was far away and could hardly been seen as a challenge. Finally they might have feared that a change towards a republic could have led to repercussions from the British.
For an understanding of the 1932 rebellion I find the book by Scot Barme highly interesting. It shows the lack of legitimacy the monarchy had during the time prior to 1932
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
And the thesis by Matthew Copeland.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Nich & Craig,
Wondering what you think of Batson’s treatment of 1932 compared with Makarapong’s work. I recall from Batson that the officers were involved were German trained and that the civilian actors were educated in France. Curiously no British or American involvement. Economics played an integral role.
Rama VII comes off well in Batson’s account.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
A few snippets of information for Mark Moran. I, too, once had a favourable view of Benjamin Batson’s book on RVII and the end of the absolute monarchy. However, if you dig a little bit you’ll discover it’s not as impressive as you may imagine. Indeed, for all the voluminous footnotes and references it is essentially, if I may use that word, a more sophisticated and better class hagiography than other works in this overdone genre of Thai histiography. As far as I can recall Batson based his study more or less exclusively on the Seventh Reign archives. When I was doing research in the National Library and Archives of Thailand for my MA and my PhD way back when I tracked down a number of references from the Batson book and noticed he was rather selective in what he used (in all likelihood a consequence of the Reign archives he was working with which included ‘clippings’ from the popular press). Had he actually waded through piles of dusty, bug infested, slowly disintegrating newspapers from the 20s and early 30s he may have discovered another Siam/Thailand altogether and some rather interesting public attitudes towards the princely/noble ruling elite of the day. Not all that different from some of the things being aired by people who are not that keen on yellow coloured shirts in more recent times.
Batson was apparently also on very friendly terms with RVII’s wife, Queen Ramphai, so, aside from any particular ideological leanings on his part, was very unlikely to have dumped any ordure on Prajadhipok.
Simple black and white scenarios are best left in the gawdawful realm of ‘lakhorn thii wii’ – while more shades of grey, or should that be more colours from across the spectrum, are needed to inform any worthwhile historical writing on Thailand.
And, for Ralph Kramden – yes, Matthew Copeland’s thesis is a fine work. But will it ever see the light of day in book form?
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
The reason why the US were not that relevant for the education of the upper echelon of the civil and military service (which included many princes) was quite simple: They were far less relevant in Siam (except the missionaries and their printing press as we all learn from the history books). Britain and France were the leading powers in the region and Germany (together with Russia what is often overlooked even though one prince married a Russian wife), were the leading European powers. Thus, it was crucial to have close ties to these powers, which – at that time – were the main “world-powers” (the time for the US started far later, even though they were then already the new colonizers of the Philippines).
Economic issues certainly played a very important role. One should not forget that 1932 is just the time, when the world economic crisis stroke Siam really hard. As Hobsbawm notes (age of extremes), suddenly those allied with the colonial powers and who expected to make their career with them (for Siam one can change this into the newly arrising young non-aristocratic elite) found their future options and careers were diminishing. The bureaucracy was shrinking and especially higher positions were reserved for the aristocrats. Thus, the non-aristocratic professionals had no chance in the competition over power and status.
An aspect that I would find very interesting, which is hardly discussed unfortunately (could be a topic for Scot Barme I guess), is the role of the bourgoisie. This was as well a newly arrising social class that was in economic competition with the aristocrats. Many of these had strong business interests.
A note on the German educated military: Phibul was educated in England, but some more senior military leaders had their education in Germany. For good reason France was regarded as the place to study law, because the British common law was less advanced then french (and later German) law.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Batson’s study doesn’t pretend to be anything more than “a study of events leading to the June 1932 coup” with a focus on the king and his circle. The book is strong on economic conditions that set the stage for big change, a topic missing in Thawatt’s study, but it is weak on intellectual currents and political culture.
In 1992, on the 60th anniversary of 1932, three books were published in Thai – two by Nakharin Mektrairat, and one by Charnvit Kasetsiri. In a review of the books, Batson stated that Charnvit’s work was the more accessible, but that The 1932 Thai Coup by Nakharin (this is the early, not the newer and much different, Nakharin) was likely to set a standard for Thai-language scholarship on 1932 for some time to come. Although fair-minded in his comments, Batson didn’t really spell out the contribution made by this Thai-language study which he described as innovative and impressively broad in scope.
Barme and Copland, who shared research materials and especially the wicked political cartoons of the day when they were students together in Canberra, studied the new political culture and discovered nationalisms in the emerging public sphere completely different from the nationalism supposedly handed down from on high by the sixth Bangkok king. But on the English side of the language firewall, Nakharin’s contributions have gone unnoticed. He described new political language and thought leading up to 1932; even the meaning of “the people” (ratsadon) as separate from the aristocracy had changed. Similar themes were being sounded in the Red Shirt encampment in early 2010, which is why Thai historians return to 1932 again and again, as much in hope as in despair.
Batson’s review is in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 24.2 (Sept. 1993), 374-377.
Quality comment or not?
5 
2
Just a small clarification or two for the record. Matthew Copeland and I did not share research materials back in the early 90s. Matt kindly did show me some interesting political cartoons he came across while in the National Library of Thailand. During my later research I found a whole lot more. As far as I can recall our theses may have shared one or two of the same graphics – but that’s about all.
As for Nakkharin Mektrairat on ’32, I read both his MA and the longlish book he later published, and briefly referred to his work in mine ( the book version p.3) although not in any detail as that was outside the scope of my own study. So to say that he has gone ‘unnoticed’ is, strictly speaking, not entirely correct.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Well, I’ve taken a bit of time to review a few of the highlights of Batson’s treatment of Siam’s coup of 1932. I’m left with more questions than answers for sure.
Nich,
Perhaps Thawatt is giving too much credit to the men who carried out this coup when really the main protagonist here was the historical agency of the times with international economic and political factors looming over Prajadhipok and his close group of princely advisors. Mussolini, Fascism, Communism, the Great Depression, independence movements, fallen monarchies, a free press with discussions of parliaments and representative institutions—Batson shows how Prajahidpok was well aware that absolute monarchy was on the precipice. Despite Prajahidpok’s belief that Siam was not ready for democracy, he had tried to put forth a constitution as early as 1925 only for this proposal to be rejected by the princes. Even more interesting is that he wanted to grant a constitution on the 150th anniversary of the Chakri Dynasty on April 5th and again the princes opposed him. Later a prince admitted that Prajahidpok had said that there was going to be a coup d’etat and a military dictatorship if the constitution was not given.
I get the feeling from Batson that it was the whirlwind of economic and political factors in the world at the time that played a huge role in the success of the coup plotters.
Scot,
“Hagiography”? A bit strong don’t you think? I came across numerous instances of anti-establishment criticism in his book, for example several 1928 editorials from Thai students in England which attacked traditional Thai values and the teaching of Thai history. He also mentions those scholars Thai and Western who have questioned the traditional progressive interpretation of the “Chakri Reformation” including among others, Benedict Anderson, who, as Batson points out, argued that the “Chakri centralization served dynastic rather than national interests.”
He also uses source material, editorials from newspapers that are critical of the status quo at the time. That his sources and point of view are mainly from a Royalist perspective is a strength, not a weakness in understanding this time in Thai history as long as there are other works from other point of views available as a counter weight.
HRK,
The US was not a “main world power” by 1932?
According to Batson most of the elite of Siam were educated in England and this is possibly why the students from France were the ones behind the coup. The US and France were considered too radically republican.
Prajahidpok’s insight I found very interesting in particular his belief that the Thai people were still motivated by self-interest or factional-interest rather than civic spirit, that many nations “play at having parliaments,” and that the Chinese would control parliament with their money.
Also interesting that the American advisor Raymond Stevens, after having spent a mere four years in Siam, said that absolute monarchy would be the best form of government for some time to come.
I’d like to get a hold of Copeland’s and Barme’s works on the coup. PDF anywhere online?
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
HRK & Mark Moran, I am currently reading Sorasak Ngamcachonkulkid’s book “Free Thai” about the Seri Thai movement in which he gives a detailed analysis of the elite groups on either side of the 1932 coup. He confirms that Great Britain was the favoured destination for royal & noble education but many also went to the US (Increasing numbers going there after 1932). Although France was generally avoided by the royals and upper nobles, there were exceptions such as Rama VII himself who spent 3 years between 1921-24 in France at their military academy. On the People’s Party side 20 Promoters had studied abroad, 8 in France, 5 in Germany; but only 4 in Britain where the upper elite dominated (And zero in the US). So there was somewhat of a educational/experiential split between the upper elite in Britain and those lesser elites in France/Germany who would later instigate the coup.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
The book “Thai Politics 1932 – 1957″, edited by Thak Chaloemtiarana (Social Science Association 1978) provides some documents and a bit of analysis.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
A belated response to this exchange. First, on the question of Thawatt Mokarapong’s history, while it serves as a starting point in the literature, I am not so sure that it can be characterized as the “fullest” account of events in English. It depends on what one means by “full”; Judith Stowe’s 1991 narrative, Siam Becomes Thailand: A Story of Intrigue constitutes a more detailed documentary record. Federico Ferrara’s 2012 JSEAS article, the Legend of King Prajadhipok, although short, is arguably “fuller” in the sense of providing a more compelling interpretative framework. A number of reasonably comprehensive English-language accounts have also been published between these two dates, albeit as sections of broader works ( see, for example, Nattapoll Chaiching’s, “The Monarchy and the Royalist Movement in Thai Politics 1932-1957”, in Ivarsson and Isager’s 2010 Saying the Unsayable. )
This said, I still prefer Nakharin Mektrairat – for replacing the “small group of conspirators” story with a narrative of a broader revolutionary movement, for treating the 1932-33 period as an organic whole, and for providing the best assessments of related historiography. His articles and books are all written in Thai but worth the trouble.
With respect to Craig’s query on the promoters’ failure to “wrap things up”, my understanding is that this was never really an option, at least not after it was agreed that Prajadhipok would act as the kingdom’s first constitutional monarch. In staying on, he lent legitimacy to a government that might otherwise have faced potentially lethal opposition, at home and abroad. In 1932, the state bureaucracy was largely a function of royal patronage and elements loyal to the old order not only refused to follow People’s Part directives but also immediately began organizing for a counter-coup. At the same time Bangkok was awash with rumors of an imminent foreign intervention to restore absolutism, a possibility that several members of the Seventh Reign court were actively encouraging.
In remaining on the throne, Prajadhipok gained some major concessions from the promoters, concessions that significantly narrowed the scope of what they could subsequently do. Henceforth, the monarchy was to be respected, not disparaged as it had been in the 24 June communiqué. Royal wealth was to be left intact, possibly subject to taxation but most certainly not confiscated. Princely ranks were not to be tampered with, leaving the prestige of the extended family intact. And finally, Pridi’s draft constitution was reclassified (by Prajadhipok) as temporary, setting the stage for a post-24 June debate over the powers of the king.
On the matter of Batson, his book served as an early “target” of mine when I was working on my MA thesis, a study of the 1932-33 period. The last of a peculiar genre – the English-language Thai reign history – it so effectively represented Prajadhipok’s perspective as to render the whole 24 June 32 affair inexplicable. Structurally, it also lent support to the fallacious notion that R7’s political role all but ended in June of 1932. Finally, it tended to showcase the king’s democratic reform efforts without, to my mind, drawing some of the more obvious conclusions. Here was a ruler who openly questioned whether the Siamese people would ever be ready for self-rule, who justified his tentative reform initiatives by suggesting that only thereby could the court preclude more radical/substantive changes, and who failed during the course of his first six and a half years on the throne to make any significant changes anyway. Batson rightly blames this lack of headway on the more conservative members of R7’s court yet he fails to take note its immediate consequence. Deeply frustrated, Prajadhipok initially sought to regain control of his government through constitutional means. His draft plan called for the elimination of the Supreme Council of Princes in favor of a parliamentary-like body that derived virtually all its powers from the king. And when this effort too was blocked, the king went one step further – approaching his cousin and former Minister of War, Bowaradej about the possibility of forcing a constitution on his own government. A part of the historical record, this parallel coup plan added to the general confusion surrounding the events of 24 June 1932. It also provides a starting point for any discussion of the Bowaradej Rebellion of October 1933.
Regarding Craig’s comments and Scot’s clarifications (?) on the business of our ‘sharing’ research, I recall all kinds of productive collaboration: discussion, critical reading of each other’s stuff, exchange of useful primary and secondary source materials, etc. It seems to me that the process was of benefit to us both. I can only say with certainty that it helped me.
And on a final note, with support from (of all places) Mahidol University I am currently revising my MA and PhD dissertations for publication ( although I am not sure where yet … suggestions?). In the meantime, if somebody would like an unrevised copy of my PhD thesis (Mark Moran?) I do have a PDF and will try to house it for download at academia.edu today.
Quality comment or not?
15 
0
Matt, We need your “book”.
IMO, since the mid or late 1980s, the studies of Thai political history since 1932 has been very exciting. It has gone far beyond Thawatt’s and Batson’s. Copeland’s PhD, which is widely read among Thai historians of mod political history, contributes to this excitement. But for the most part, scholarship by Thais in Thai language is breathtaking, in terms of quantity, new questions, data/findings, ideas and interpretations, and for the “expose” of the role of the monarchy in politics. Nakarin’s works (regardless of his politics today)and Charnvit’s “rehab” of Pridi Phanomyong in the mid-1980s marked (led to?)the beginning of this historiographical shift. Since the 2006 coup, the surge intensifies.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
Thongchai,
Perhaps, you could provide us with a reading list of 10-20 Thai-language works on the subject? Would be much appreciated.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Matt, just to endorse Thongchai’s comment. Please publish it. Many of us have used your data, but the work as a whole is much more powerful than a few excerpts. There’s no need to “improve” it for publication.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Thongchai, Chris – thanks for the encouragement.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
I’d like to add just a little to the comments by Matt and Scot above. For a time, there was quite an ANU group there, with myself, Scott Bamber and Andrew Brown also working in and around the National Library when Scot and Matt were there. I trust my memory isn’t faulty, for this was 26 or 27 years ago. I do recall plenty of sharing of insights gained from the different reading each of us was doing and it was a most productive time.
Soon after that period of intensive research and fine collegiality, I compiled a set of notes that was about labour, industry and rural conditions in Thailand from about 1850 to 1942. It isn’t comprehensive. There are sections on the period around 1932 that I think retain some interest.
For anyone who wants them, the 44 pages of notes are at: http://kevinhewison.wordpress.com/1980-89/, in essentially the same form as when I compiled them in 1986. The title to look for is “Forgotten Facts: Industrial Development, Labour, and Rural Life in Thailand, 1850-1942.”
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
It would be nice to have the articles etc. on academia.edu.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Very useful notes (and web pages) indeed. Thanks for making them available.
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
Copeland’s work can be found here:
http://mahidol.academia.edu/MatthewCopeland
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0I4yyxCfUltdGFobF9nRTRRZG8/edit?pli=1
Appreciate all the input and sources from everyone. Would love to have English translations of these Thai sources.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0