Variables de calidad

Overseas Chinese in Thailand are an important example of the Siamese/Thai government’s success in assimilating people from other cultures, essentially making Chinese Thai (Suryadinata 2014, p.65). However, the history of the Chinese in Thailand is neither smooth nor peaceful. Chinese have been active in all areas of Siamese/Thai society since the thirteenth century. They have been free to reside and travel throughout the country. Nevertheless, at the same time they have had to face many difficult situations in Siamese/Thai society.

In the early Rattanakosin period, especially between 1844 and 1845, a good relationship developed between a group of Chinese businessmen and the Siamese court as the trade between Siam and China was expanding (Bualek 2008). Chinese merchants played an important role in Siam’s economic development. The Chinese migrants provided manpower in the agricultural, shipping and trading sectors (Bun and Kiong 1993). Chinese became taxation officers. In 1855, Chinese businessmen adapted themselves when Siam’s economic policy shifted to free trade with the British Empire due to the

Treaty of Friendship and Commerce between the British Empire and the Kingdom of Siam

(The Bowring Treaty) (Siriphisal 2010). Later on, Chinese in Siam became involved in

the political issues of mainland China when, with support from a group of overseas Chinese in Siam, Dr Sun Yat-sen28 visited Bangkok twice between 1903 and 1908 (Murashima 2013). The Siamese government was aware of the Chinese political movement and began to place legal controls on the migration of Chinese people to Siam (Barnett 1954).

The construction of ‘Chineseness’ and anti-Chinese sentiment became increasingly apparent in Siamese society from the time of King Chulalongkorn’s reign (King Rama V, 1868–1910) (Skinner 1957; Jiang 1966; Reynolds 1991). Many discriminatory government policies were introduced. For the first time the Chinese were required by law to pay the same capitation tax as other foreign residents in Siam (Barnett 1954). King

28 _{Dr Sun Yat-sen was known as a Chinese revolutionary. He was the first president of the}

Republic of China (ROC). He visited Bangkok to collect funds for his revolution in mainland China.

Vajiravudh (King Rama VI, 1910–1925), who felt uncomfortable with Chinese, composed several works29 _{to convey a negative view of Chinese people. He saw them as} ‘politically disloyal, expecting undue privileges, worshipping wealth as a god and being parasites on the [Siamese] economy’ (Baker and Phongpaichit 2014, p.115). However, the discriminatory policies did not reduce the number of Chinese arrivals in Siam. The economic boom in the 1920’s and natural disaster and civil strife in China encouraged a large number of Chinese arrivals in Siam between 1918 and 1931. The government showed no attempt to control the numbers of Chinese immigrants until 1947, when an annual quota of 10,000 Chinese was enforced (Thomson 1993).

In terms of education, Chinese schools were restricted as they were considered a source of political ideas that might harm Siamese society. As a result, the Private School Act B.E.

2479 (1936) was enforced to monitor and control private schools’ curricula and textbooks,

particularly those of Chinese schools. This Act required all private schools to teach the Siamese language, geography and history (Siriphisal 2010, p.86). It also restricted the teaching of Chinese to no more than two hours each week in Chinese primary schools and 18 hours in secondary schools (Barnett 1954; Coughlin 1976). This was the government’s attempt to transform descendants of Chinese immigrants into Siamese by forcing them to learn the Siamese language and think like Siamese people.

This policy promoted the development of social intercourse between the Chinese and the Siamese. According to Skinner (1957, p. 311), at the social level, Chinese showed many attributes of social integration and assimilation into Siamese society, because Siamese and Chinese shared some similarities in cultural background. Bun and Kiong (1993) also argue that the social transactions within and between ethnic Siamese and Chinese contributed to the assimilation process of the Chinese into Siamese society. In addition, the Siamese government was successful in integrating ethnic Chinese into Siamese society by law (Skinner 1957; Thomson 1993; Siriphisal 2010).

In terms of citizenship, the government has changed its policy several times. A liberal concept of rights was shown in the Nationality Act B.E. 2456 (1913), the first written Siamese nationality law (Coughlin 1976, p.170). This law, which restricted Siamese

29

citizenship based on jus sanguinis and naturalisation, remained the same as in customary law, but it ‘was the first time in Thai history that [Siamese] citizenship could be granted on the basis of the jus soli principle (i.e. by virtue of being born in Thailand)’ (Saisoonthorn 2006, p.42).

At that time,

[t]he citizenship law claimed as Siamese citizens all persons born in Siam; all persons born to a Siamese father regardless of birthplace; all persons born to Siamese mothers when the father was unknown, and all foreign women married to Siamese subjects (Loos 2006, p.134).

Therefore, Siamese citizenship was automatically granted to locally-born Chinese. Skinner argues that the Chinese businessmen identified themselves with the ruling and administrative elites in Siam (Skinner 1957; Bun and Kiong 1993). Importantly, the Phibunsongkhram government needed to stop political affiliation between Chinese in Thailand and mainland China for security reasons (Chantavanich 1997, p.243). In addition, inter-marriage between Chinese business men and local Thai women, or Chinese women in Thailand, was successful in increasing the number of second generation Thai Chinese children. Thai schools were compulsory. Consequently, the second generation Thai Chinese children became Thai citizens automatically as the Siamese government advocated a policy of giving citizenship to the immigrant Chinese by amending the Nationality Act 1913 ‘in conformity with the government’s liberal policy toward the Chinese so that all persons born in Thailand were automatically Thai citizens’ (Skinner 1957, p. 378).

In fact, the jus soli principle to determine the citizenship of persons born in its territory existed in Siam since the Sukhothai Period (1238–1438). In addition, the huge number of Chinese immigrants encouraged integration between the Chinese and the Siamese (Thomson 1993, p.403). The Siamese government used several means to assimilate those who were already in the country and to prepare for future arrivals. The most significant step was the granting of citizenship to Chinese descendants on the basis of the jus soli

principle as well as setting a naturalisation policy, in accordance with the Naturalisation

Act Ror Sor 130 (1911), which became effective in 1913, to encourage identification with

Chinese migrant could apply for naturalisation, if he could show ‘good character’ and had enough financial support (Skinner 1957, p.250; McCargo 2011, p.838).

However, the Chinese migrants had a very hard time after the 1932 Siamese Revolution when the constitutional government replaced the absolute monarchy. After the establishment of a constitutional regime in 1932 by the Revolutionary People’s Party, the government sought to achieve a common identity among various ethnic groups. In doing so, Siam was not unique. As Reynolds (1991) explains, the boundaries of the nation-state do not coincide with the extent of a single ethnic population or one speech group. Territory and people are the first two components listed in the constructed national identity, but there is a tension between ethnicity and territory. The government therefore tried to manage this problem by favouring ethnic Siamese in order ‘to exclude or subordinate other ethnic groups’ (Reynolds 1991, p.18).

The Phibunsongkhram governments (1938–1944 and 1948–1957) gave preferential treatment to ethnic Thai as against ethnic Chinese. The government changed the nation’s name from ‘Siam’ to ‘Thailand’ in 1939 to make it clearer that the country belonged to the Thais with their culture, citizenship and territory (Batson 1974; Terwiel 2002; Reynolds 1991; Laungaramsri 2014). The government sought to encourage a pan-Thai movement that included the Thai of Thailand, the Thai peoples of Laos and the Shan States of northern Myanmar in a single Thai state (‘Proceedings of the National Assembly, 26 August B.E 2482’ 1939; Winichakul 1994; Nallu 2012). Meanwhile many ethnic minorities felt uneasy within the modern Thai state, especially the most numerous and possibly most influential, the ethnic Chinese (Batson 1974; Connors 2004). After the communist victory in China in 1949, anti-communist policies were carried out by the Thai authorities (Chinvanno 1992; Thomson 1993; Baker and Phongpaichit 2014). The Thai government sought to limit Chinese influence and power in political activities. This limitation is evident in citizenship policy that restricted the children of aliens and their descendants. Legal changes between 1953 and 1956 meant that those who were born to two Chinese parents, or to an alien father, were non-Thai.

However, under the Naturalisation Act Ror Sor 130 (1911), which was later replaced by

the Nationality Act B.E. 2456 (1913),children born in Siam to alien parents were granted

legally or illegally, or the alien parents had the right to reside in the Kingdom temporarily or permanently’ (Saisoonthorn 2006, p.42).

In the early 1960s, however, China and Thailand agreed to recognize Thai citizenship for ethnic Chinese born in Thailand. Many of them had already registered as Thai citizens in the aftermath of the communist takeover in China in 1949. ...The policy has been successful. Many ethnic Chinese who are Thai citizens identify themselves as Thai (Thomson 1993, pp.403–404).

Besides the Naturalisation Act Ror Sor 130 (1911) that allowed these migrants to be naturalised as Thai nationals, if they could satisfy the legal requirements, the Nationality

Act B.E. 2456 (1913) also granted citizenship to children born in Thailand. These laws

can be seen as successful tools to unite people of different ethnicities and backgrounds. By allowing aliens and children of aliens born in Thailand to obtain Thai citizenship, it was thought that ethnic conflict would be less, while a higher level of assimilation would be achieved (Saisoonthorn 2006). In the Chinese case, it has been found that a majority of the descendants of Chinese immigrants in each generation merges into Thai society and becomes indistinguishable, especially the fourth and later generations who identify themselves as completely Thai;30 this is called ‘Thai-isation’ (karn klai pen Thai) (Skinner 1957; McCargo 2011). The policy towards overseas Chinese is an important example of the success of the Siamese/Thai governments in assimilating aliens into Thai society.

Even though many people claimed Siamese/Thai citizenship under the Nationality Act

B.E. 2456 (1913), there were still millions of stateless persons arising from the main

elements of statelessness in Thailand. The first element is the complexity of Thai nationality law. The second element is stateless people arising from the borderline that was drawn across the groups of Indigenous people. The failure of Thailand’s civil registration survey in 1965 is the third element. The fourth element is the lack of understanding of nationality laws among officials. Political change and unsettled citizenship policy 1965 is the fifth element. Lastly, the failure to obtain a birth certificate makes these stateless people unable to prove their birth and apply for Thai citizenship.

30

Being Chinese in Thailand is viewed negatively. Although young Sino-Thais identify themselves as Thai, the anti-Chinese bias still exists (Tejapira 2009; McCargo 2011).

4.3.Complexity of Thai Nationality Law and Law