38 Wyatt, 1984: 253. 39 N A . S.T. 0701.29/4.
Pridi Phanomyong, Khwam pen ma khong chue 'prathet sayam kap ‘prathet thai', [The Origin of the Terms Siam and Thailand], Pramot Phu’ngsunthon, Bangkok, 1974 : 6.
also reported in the press. In Wichit's view the use of the term Siam to refer to the Thai nation was inappropriate since it bore no relation to the actual inhabitants of the territory. He explained this by making a number of assertions. First, he claimed that in the tenth century A.D the area in which the Thais now lived was under the control of the part-Indian Khom people who divided it into northern and southern administrative regions. The northern region, which had its centre in the vicinity of present day Sukhothai, was known as 'Mu'ang Sayam', while the southern region located around Lopburi was called 'Mu'ang Lavo". The Chinese, who had trade relations with the area knew the combined territory as 'Siem-lo', clearly a cognate for Siam.41
As for the Thais, it was claimed that they had left their 'original [home] in the north' to come and live in the region of 'Muang Sayam' where they existed in a subordinate relationship to the Khoms. In the mid-thirteenth century this situation changed when the Thais joined forces and overthrew the Khoms, demonstrating their independence by changing the name of the territory in which they lived from 'Mu'ang Sayam' to 'Sukhothai'. Subsequently the Thai kingdom came to be known first as Ayuthaya and then Ratanakosin, both names taken from the centre of state authority. In the nineteenth century the kingdom was formally called Siam as treaty relations were established with the foreign powers. The reason for this development Wichit argued, was simply that the Europeans followed the Chinese practice by calling the kingdom Siam, and in the negotiations that took place the monarch raised no objections to the country being known by this name.
Wichit also presented another reason for objecting to the use of the term Siam to refer to the Thai nation. He noted that a number of scholars believed that the word Siam meant 'black' or 'dark' [dam ], and claimed this to be a totally inappropriate term for the Thai since they were a yellow-skinned race.
Drawing figures from the map he had obtained from the French, Wichit estimated there were up to 60 million Thai people in the combined area of Southeast Asia and China, and pointed out that this made 'the Thai...among the big races of the world'. Citing the work of the American missionary W.C. Dodd, The Tai Race: Elder Brother o f the Chinese, Wichit further noted that all Thais, whether in the kingdom of Siam or in other countries,'considered themselves to be independent because they call
41 The term 'Siem-lo' [Xianluo] is still regularly used by the Chinese in Hong Kong to refer to Thailand.
themselves Thai’ which meant, 'slaves to none'.42 He then suggested that if the name of the country was changed from Siam to something which reflected the racial makeup of the inhabitants, the various Thai peoples in other countries would know of their common ancestry and a basis for a 'Greater Thai Kingdom' [Mafia anachak Thai ] could be established.43
Wichit's ideas about a name change for the country did not go unchallenged, however. Pridi for one did not give his full support to the chauvinistic irredentist movement and made his opposition to any change known to his colleagues.44 Outside
the cabinet there was also a degree of opposition to the idea expressed in the press. For example, one writer, reflecting wider opinion, argued:
I can hardly conceive of anything initiated by a Government more futile .. .Why should we rashly change the long-established and dear old name when our sacred Constitution, our beloved national songs, our treasured international treaties recently revised, and our beautiful old poetry and literature will be affected by this whimsical alteration? Let us hope that our members of the Assembly will be possessed of enough foresight and soundness to sense the fatuity of the proposed change. 45
In all likelihood, it seems that this type of criticism influenced the government's decision to re-name the country by means of State Conventions rather than by formal legal proclamation. The latter course of action would have required a potentially time- consuming and uncertain debate in the National Assembly with the result that the symbolic impact of changing the name of the country on the inaugural National Day would be missed. Some months after Phibun announced that Siam was to be known as Thailand, legislation was finally put before the House for consideration, and after some debate the name change passed into law.46
44 In November 1939, a Thai translation of Dodd's book was published and distributed by the Ministry of Defence. Great Britain, F.O. 371/23586, 27 November 1939.
43 B.T.W .M ., 29 May 1939. 44 Pridi, 1974: 7-8.
45 Bangkok Times, 31 May 1939. Also see 'Hermit' in B.T.W.M., 7 June 1939, and various issues of the Bangkok Times from early to mid-June 1939.