Believe it or not, the Thailand we know and love was not so long ago known by an entirely different name. For thousands of years the kingdom was called Siam - a name that, as it trips off the tongue, seems to both sum up traditional values, and conjure up romantic notions of an ancient kingdom long before modernity made its mark.
As the history books show, it was only changed for dubious, rather sinister reasons. In 1939, late Field Marshall Plaek Pibulsonggram, head of the governing fascist regime at the time, decided 'Thailand' would better reflect the country's ethnic makeup. In reality it was an attempt to cut ties with the past and forge a modern era under his autocratic leadership. And, ironically, Thailand wasn't as 'free' under his dictatorship as the meaning of the word 'thai' implies.
The key to national unity?
Now, historian Charnvit Kasetsiri has launched an online petition to have Siam renamed as the title of the country in the new constitution. At the centre of the campaign is a belief that the name Thailand is divisive and contrary to the cultural pluralism that exists here. This is, he suggests, because it hints at the primacy of ethnic Thais (which comprise around 80% of the population) over the more than 40 other ethnic groups who live here, and encounter prejudice regularly.
Commentator Sanitsuda Ekachai, writing in the Bangkok Post, sums up the argument nicely: "The word Thailand gives ownership only to the ethnic Thais while alienating other ethnic groups as outsiders," she said. "This is why we see the hill-tribes in the north and along our western borders as non-Thais, although their ancestors probably lived here long before ours. The same with ethnic Malay Muslims in the south".
Charnvit believes reverting back to the old name would better reflect the country's ethnic and cultural diversity, as well as boost national unity. It may even be a small step to fostering peace in the restive south. "The people in the south do not think they are Thai," he said. "They consider themselves Malay or Pattani people. If we want our country to be more inclusive, the name Siam is more appropriate".
But, isn't a name just a name? What does it matter whether the Kingdom is known as Thailand or Siam? And wouldn't a change cause international confusion?
Questions like these are characterizing the debate so far, with only a modest number of petitioners joining the rallying call (1,091 as of May 11). Perhaps this is because of the same deep-rooted Thai superiority complex the campaign is trying to highlight, or perhaps due to the more simple and innocuous fact that many Thai citizens were born long after the demise of Old Siam, and so are a lot more familiar with the word Thailand. |
