action the men were acting in accordance with what was then deemed to be an appropriate form of behaviour for dealing with a superior. As one contemporary observer noted:
The men had felt proud that Thais are fully united. The
phuyai shows consideration toward the phunoi ,whilst the
phunoi is respectful of the phuyai .This is appropriate for prospering nations and shows that there is no disadvantage in being born a m e m b e r of the Thai nation...[I]n truth the Yomarat has his hands already full. The workers should not have depended so entirely upon him. However, their plight has led them to momentarily forget their status...but they could no longer restrain themselves [SR, 16/1/1923].
In acting the way they did the men were simply following the procedures which the system of absolutism made available to them. The key issue for the men was whether or not the Minister would, in fact, be able ensure the success of their actions. Initially, the situation appeared to be hopeful. Once he had been approached the Minister made it clear that he would in fact take up the men's case, declaring that he would help them to 'the best of his ability'. Yet as the strike wore on it became increasingly clear the Minister's actions were not in the men's best interest. By allowing police to ride on the trams, through the relaxation of the law which governed the licencing of drivers and his general lack of taking any effective action against the company, the overall impact of the Ministers actions were directed at the attempt to ensure that the SEC was in a position to resume its tram services. In taking these actions the Minister clearly put the interests of the company ahead of those of the tramwaymen.
Prior to the 1923 strike the opinions which workers may have held with regard to Thailand's political future remain obscure. Yet during the course of the strike it is possible to discern evidence of the development of a political consciousness among the tramwaymen. By approaching the Minister the men were in effect putting the ideology of absolutism to the test. During the course of the strike, however, a contradiction arose between the Minister's statement that he would, in accordance with traditional practice, provide assistance to the men and the steps which he actually took, actions which were clearly inimical to the men's interests. This contradicdon between the theory and practice of absolutism was not lost on either the men or their spokesmen. The Kammakon launched a scathing attack on the actions of the Minister, accusing him of simply 'abandoning the striking workers', of ignoring the plight of the poor and of generally putting the interests of the SEC and those who held shares in the company ahead of the men. While the attack was lodged in highly personal terms it was not only the ability of an individual which was being brought into quesnon. The entire system of government which the individual represented was also being
questioned. At this point we will leave this discussion of the wider political ramifications of the strike and turn to a consideration of another aspect of the struggle: that of the call for organisation among workers.
3.3 J Organised Labour
If there is one point upon which previous writers have agreed it is the date of the establishment of the first legally recognised labour organisation in Thailand. Indeed the year 1897, when it is claimed that a group of tramway workers registered their association in accordance with the law, has formed the starting point for all subsequent analyses of the development of a labour movement in Thailand [Mabry, 1979:38; Chaiana, 1982:79; Thanet, 1982:20; Morel and Chai-anan, 1981:182; Sangsit, 1986:59; Damri and Carun,1986:25 and Zeponsekul,1987:39]. Apart from being inaccurate this view also clouds the fact that it was to take a further 35 years of struggle after 1897 before workers were able to win the legal right to establish their own organisation.^ One of the significant aspects of the 1923 strike is that it affords us an insight into a very important moment in the history of this fight by workers to establish their own organisation.
In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels [1986:42-43] outlined some of the main stages in the process of working class formation:
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by workpeople of a factory, then by operatives of one trade, in one locality...But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows...the workers begin to form combinations.
^ Bizarre as it may seem, the confusion which surrounds the establishment o f the first legally recognised labour organisation stems from from a simple misreading of Virginia Thompson's 1947 study. In this study [p.239], T h o m p s o n stales correctly that the first legal labour association was established in 1932. She notes, however, that the history of the Tramway Association dates back to 1897 and here she is obviously referring to the report carried in the B a n g k o k T i m e s W e e k l y Mail 125/12/1933] which I cited on p a g e 4 0 above. It is clear, h o w e v e r , that w h i l e the tramwaymen may h a v e attempted to establish s o m e form of organisation at this time this organisation must have been short lived. On the basis of the e v i d e n c e provided by the 1923 su-ike it is clear that there was no formal organisation among e m p l o y e e s within the SEC. Indeed, one of the main problems which workers faced during the su-ike, lay in precisely building up an organised and united front against the company. In addition, it should be noted that a check of the relevent archival documents s h o w s clearly that no labour organisation had attempted to register in accordance with the law in 1897 [See, N A R. 5 N. 20/28]. The confusion which surrounds this entire issue is symptomatic o f the scant attention which writers have generally paid to the empirical evidence in uacing the development of the labour movement in Thailand.