Siamese revolution of 1932

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Siamese revolution of 1932
Part of the
Interwar Period
People gathering around a man standing on what is possibly a podium, reading a declaration, all of them wearing army- or related uniforms
Scene of a declaration of Siam as a democratic nation on 24 June 1932
Date24 June 1932 (91 years ago)
Location
Result

Coup successful

Belligerents
People's Party (Khana Ratsadon) Monarchy of Siam
Supreme Council of State
Commanders and leaders
  • Prajadhipok
  • Paribatra Sukhumbandhu
  • Damrong Rajanubhab
  • The Siamese revolution of 1932 or Siamese coup d'état of 1932 (

    National Assembly
    . Dissatisfaction caused by the economic crisis, the lack of a competent government, and the rise of Western-educated commoners fueled the revolution.

    King

    June amid infighting within the government over Pridi Banomyong's socialist economic plan and a rebellion of the royalists
    .

    Background

    Absolute monarchy

    Since 1782, the Kingdom of Siam had been ruled by the Chakri dynasty. After 1868, King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) reformed a medieval kingdom into a centralizing state of absolute monarchy. The monarchy started to make royal and nobility hierarchy, the Sakdina, to be the most critical aspect of Siam political system.[1] Towards 1880, Chulalongkorn asked of Europe an initiation into modern culture and showed a decided preference for England's Anglo-Saxons culture.[2] In 1910s, King Vajiravudh (Rama VI) sought to legitimise absolutism through Thai nationalism, using Western approach,[3] by appointing more able commoners to the government.[4] A commoner involvement disappointed the aristocracy and nobility.[5] Rama VI carried out unpopular policies that lowered the influence of the royal family.[6]

    Mismanagement of Rama VI

    During the reign of

    King Rama VI, the government's fiscal health was eroded. Lavish spending on the court, inability to control the corruption of the King's inner circle, and his creation of the Wild Tiger Corps to promote modern-style nationalism were widely deemed as wasteful.[5] By 1920, fiscal mismanagement and the global economic downturn took the state budget into deficit.[7] In 1925, the most senior princes decided to demand large cuts in expenditures, especially the royal household.[7] This represented a bold challenge to the authority of the absolute monarch and reflected the severity of the fiscal malaise in Siam.[7]
    The critique was thus that Rama VI was not a competent absolute monarch, and that he squandered the massive political capital.

    In 1912, a

    ancien régime and replace it with a Westernised constitutional system and to replace Rama VI with a prince more sympathetic to their beliefs.[8] The revolt failed and the participants were imprisoned. In reaction, Vajiravudh abandoned his attempts at constitutional reform and continued with his absolutist rule, with the minor exception of appointing some able commoners to his privy council and government.[9]

    Rise of the Western-educated "commoner" elites

    Western education became popular in the reign of Rama V.

    Phibun Songkram who was from a peasant background. Many of the brightest Siamese students, both commoners and the nobility, were sent abroad to study in Europe. These include Pridi Banomyong, who was of Sino-Thai descent, and Prayoon Pamornmontri, the half-German son of a junior Thai official at the Siamese legation in Berlin and later a page to the crown prince who would become Rama VI.[12] They were to become prominent members of the "promoters". These Western-educated commoner elites were exposed not just to the latest scientific and technical knowledge in Europe, but also to the ideals of Western democracy, nationalism, and communism.[13]

    Prelude

    The "Promoters"

    Pridi Banomyong, leader of the civilian faction
    Major Plaek Phibunsongkhram, leader of the young army faction

    In February 1927, in a hotel on the

    Khana Ratsadon
    (คณะราษฎร) (or the People's Party).

    When the Promoters eventually returned to Siam by the end of the 1920s, they quietly expanded their lists of contacts and party membership, mostly using a personal relationship.

    Luang title and became Luang Phibunsongkhram, to try to gather supporters within the army.[17] A young naval captain, Luang Sinthusongkhramchai, was doing the same for the navy.[14]
    The number of party members increased, and, by the end of 1931, it reached 102 members, separated into two branches consisting of civilians and the military.

    Four Musketeers

    Phraya Songsuradej, Lieutenant Colonel Phra Phrasasphithayayut, Colonel Phraya Phahonphonphayuhasena
    and Colonel Phraya Ritthiakhaney, the revolutionary four musketeers.

    Phraya Phahol Pholpayuhasena. An affable man and popular within the army, he immediately joined the party and gave it his support. The second senior officer was Colonel Phraya Songsuradet, considered one of the best minds of his generation and the Director of Education at the Military Academy. Both had studied abroad and were eager for change.[14] Songsuradet instantly became the party's tactician, advising it should first secure Bangkok militarily and eventually the country would follow. He also advised the Promoters to be more secretive to avoid official and police detection.[18] Eventually, he approached his friend Colonel Phraya Ritthiakhaney, commander of the Bangkok Artillery, who shared his concerns about the princes' domination over the army and eventually joined the party. Finally, they were joined by Phra Phrasasphithayayut, another discontented officer.[19]
    Forming what was known within the party as the "Four Musketeers" (4 ทหารเสือ, Four Tiger Soldiers), the most senior members of the party they eventually became its leaders.

    Modernized attempt of Rama VII

    chang kben, armed with krabi
    HRH Prince of Nakorn Sawan, the minister of interior and most powerful member in the government

    Prince

    Minister of the Interior, German-educated Prince Paribatra Sukhumbandhu, high-ranking Chakri princes had regained dominance of the government, and only four of the twelve ministries were administered by commoners or members of the lower nobility.[20] Prajadhipok turned out to be a sympathetic monarch, immediately ordered a cut in palace expenditure and travelled extensively around the country. He made himself more accessible and visible to the ever-growing Bangkok elite and middle class by carrying out many civic duties. By this time, students sent to study abroad had started to return. Faced with a lack of opportunity, the entrenchment of the princes, and the comparative backwardness of the country.[21]

    Discontent from the economic crisis

    In 1930, as

    Minister of Defence, resigned.[23] Boworadet was not a member of the supreme council, and it was suspected that disagreement with the council over budget cuts led to his resignation.[22] The King, who openly confessed his own lack of financial knowledge, stating he was just a simple soldier, tried with little success to battle the senior princes over the issue.[22]

    Constitution denied by Rama VII

    Meanwhile, the King put his efforts into the drafting of a constitution, with the help of two princes and an American foreign policy advisor,

    Raymond Bartlett Stevens.[24] Despite being advised that his people were not yet ready for democracy, the King was undeterred and was determined to implement a constitution before his dynasty's 150th anniversary in 1932.[25] The document was rejected by the princes in the supreme council.[25]

    On 6 April 1932, the King opened

    Plan leak

    Despite their precautions, word of the plan's existence eventually

    Khuang Abhaiwongse. All communications between the princes and senior members of the administration were thus disabled.[26] Their houses were also under surveillance and guarded by both civilian and military party members.[26]

    Coup

    Bangkok seizure

    Soldiers assembled in front of the Throne Hall, 24 June 1932
    Troops on the street during the revolution.
    Tanks outside Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall.

    While King Prajadhipok was residing out of Bangkok, at about 04:00 on the morning of 24 June 1932, Phraya Phahon, Phraya Songsuradet, and Phra Phrasasphithayayut were already carrying out their part of the plan.[27] Phraya Phahon and some supporters gathered near the Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall waiting for the signal,[28] while Phraya Songsuradet went with a couple of the conspirators to the barracks of the First Cavalry Regiment of the Royal Guards, where most of the armoured vehicles in Bangkok were kept. On arrival, Phraya Songsuradet reprimanded the officer in charge of the barracks for sleeping while there was a Chinese uprising taking place elsewhere in the city—all the while opening the gates of the barracks and mobilising the troops. The ruse worked, and through all the confusion and panic, Phraya Prasan was able to arrest the commander of the regiment and place him in custody. Plaek Phibunsongkhram was ordered to guard him. Armoured vehicles, including some tanks, were commandeered and ordered to head toward the Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall, including Phraya Ritthi. Having been told weeks before that a military exercise was happening, other troops in the vicinity of Bangkok joined the plotters, thus unknowingly participating in a revolution.[28] Units loyal to the monarch shut themselves in their barracks.[29]

    By the time the infantry and cavalry arrived in the

    constitutional state in Siam. The Promoters cheered, followed by the military, probably more out of deference than full comprehension of what has actually happened.[30]

    In truth,

    Hua Hin.[29] By 08:00 the operation was over and the Promoters had won the day.[30]

    The Khana Ratsadon forced the princes to sign a document proclaiming their commitment to peace and to avoidance of any bloodshed. The coup elicited almost no response from the populace, and the day-to-day life of the people returned to normal even before the end of the day. The rest of the country was also similarly disaffected,[33] prompting The Times in London to report that the revolution merely was "a simple re-adjustment".[34]

    By the evening of 24 June, the

    Khana Ratsadon were confident enough to call a senior ministerial meeting. In the meeting Pridi tried to persuade senior civil servants to support the Khana Ratsadon, asking them for support and telling them to remain united, lest the semblance of confusion lead to foreign intervention. Pridi asked the foreign ministry to dispatch to all foreign missions a document stating that the party was committed to protecting foreign lives and business and to fulfilling Siam's treaty obligations.[35]

    Khana Ratsadon manifesto

    Most of the military and civil administrations offered little resistance. Accustomed to taking orders and with all lines of communication shut down, they were unable to act. The next stage of the revolution was left to the civilian side of the party. Pridi Banomyong, its leader, with the help of his supporters, blanketed the capital in the Khana Ratsadon's propaganda leaflets, pamphlets, and radio broadcasts, all supporting the revolution.[30] The text of the manifesto of the Khana Ratsadon, written by Pridi, criticised the monarch in harsh terms:

    All the People,

    When this king succeeded his elder brother, people at first had hoped that he would govern protectively. But… the king maintains his power above the law as before. He appoints court relatives and toadies without merit or knowledge to important positions without listening to the voice of the people. He allows officials to use the power of their office dishonestly… he elevates those of royal blood to have special rights more than the people. He governs without principle. The country's affairs are left to the mercy of fate, as can be seen from the depression of the economy and hardships… the government of the king has treated the people as slaves… it can be seen that from the taxes that are squeezed from the people, the king carries off many millions for personal use… The People's Party has no wish to snatch the throne. Hence it invites this king to retain the position. But he must be under the law of the constitution for the governing the country, and cannot do anything independently without the approval of the assembly of the people's representatives… If the king replies with a refusal or does not reply within the time set… it will be regarded as treason to the nation, and it will be necessary for the country to have a republican form of government.[36]

    The tone of the manifesto differed greatly from that of the telegram sent to the King signed by the three full colonels and musketeers: Phraya Phahon, Phraya Songsuradet, and Phraya Ritthi. The telegram stated, using royal language (Rachasap: ราชาศัพท์), that if the King did not wish to remain as a monarch under a constitution, the party was willing to replace him with another royal prince. Despite the language, the telegram warned the monarch in strong terms that if any member of the Khana Ratsadon was hurt, the princes in custody would suffer.[37]

    Royalty reaction

    Siam Ratsadon Newspaper, the headline reads: "A change of government for Siamese King to be under law"

    Before the arrival of the Musketeers' telegram, the King was aware of ongoing events in Bangkok. He was playing golf at the summer villa's course with

    Khana Ratsadon.[33]

    King Prajadhipok returned to Bangkok on 26 June. His first action was to grant a royal audience to the Khana Ratsadon. As the members entered the room, the King rose and greeted them by saying: "I rise in honour of the Khana Ratsadon". It was a significant gesture, as in Siamese culture the king always remains seated when their subjects offer homage, not the reverse. This led to Pridi apologising for defaming him in the manifesto. Subsequently, all known copies were pulled from circulation. The King responded to this act by affixing his royal seal on a document exonerating all members of the Khana Ratsadon for the coup.[34] The Khana Ratsadon then released all their hostages with the exception of Prince Paribatra, whom they considered too powerful. They asked him to leave the country instead. He later left for Java, never to return and died in Bandung in 1944. Other princes went into voluntary exile in other Southeast Asian countries, and some others in Europe.[39]

    The coup took place in an era when most of the population was kept out of politics and the political sphere was the domain of military and bureaucratic elites.[40][page needed] Handley suggests that there was the refusal of both Rama VI and VII, and aristocracy to share power with the new "commoner" elites, forced the "commoner" elites and some high-ranking nobility to support the Promoters' bid to seize power through military force.[41] The resulting unhappiness at the status quo due to the awareness of the ideals of Western democracy, nationalism, and communism, coupled with the mismanagement by the absolute monarchy and the deteriorating economic conditions caused by the Great Depression, triggered the 1932 revolution. The onus of the outbreak of the 1932 revolution from this perspective thus lies with the disgruntled commoner elites. who wanted radical change and were generally unwilling to compromise with the monarchy and the aristocracy, in particular with Rama VII, who was supposedly in favour of a constitutional monarchy.[citation needed]

    First constitution of Thailand

    The granting of Siam's 'permanent' constitution on 10 December 1932 at the Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall
    King Prajadhipok signing the Permanent Constitution of Siam on 10 December 1932

    In the immediate aftermath of the revolution, Prajadhipok and the Khana Ratsadon immediately set about granting the Siamese people their

    Assembly of People's Representatives
    (รัฐสภาผู้แทนราษฎร) made up of 70 appointed members.

    "Democracy" for Siam was to be given to the people in three installments. First, assembly members were to be appointed by the Four Musketeers. They would exercise power on behalf of the people, and their first session was to last six months. Second, a period when the mostly ignorant populace would learn about democracy and elections; the assembly would then be changed to be composed of half-appointed members by the Musketeers, and the other half through indirect representation. These candidates must, of course, have been examined by the Khana Ratsadon before any election. Third, the charter stated that full democratic representation in the assembly could only be achieved at the end of ten years or when more than half of the populace had gone through primary education, whichever was achieved first.[44]

    The first session of the People's Assembly convened in the Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall on 28 June 1932.[45] The charter however did not last long. By the end of the year a new more moderate permanent constitution[46] would be signed, on 10 December. This constitution eventually gave back to the monarchy many powers it had lost in the previous charter, and the monarchy was once again held "sacred and inviolable". The Assembly of People's Representatives was expanded to include 156 members, 78 elected and 78 appointed. The democratic restrictions were removed and the government scheduled Siam's first election in October 1933.[47]

    Aftermath

    Phraya Manopakorn Nititada
    addressing the crowd at Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall.

    Despite his lofty ideals and Western education, Pridi's version of democracy faced the same dilemma that Prajadhipok's version did: the notion simply that the country, especially the rural populace was not yet ready for it.

    Phraya Manopakorn Nititada on 1 April 1933.[50]

    Sesquicentennial celebrations.

    In late 1932, the King wrote to his nephew Prince

    Prince Boworadet and the many others who had permanently lost their influence and positions because of the seizure of power by the Khana Ratsadon. The rebellion was a failure, and although there is no evidence whatsoever that Prajadhipok was involved, his neutrality and indecisiveness during the brief conflict led to the loss of his credibility and prestige. Three years after the revolution, King Prajadhipok abdicated the throne and left Siam never to return. He died in England in 1941, during World War II.[51] He was replaced as king by his nine-year-old nephew Prince Ananda Mahidol (King Rama VIII), who at that time was attending school in Lausanne
    , Switzerland.

    Legacy

    Public perception and discourse over the 1932 revolution

    Public perception and discourse over the 1932 revolution has fluctuated over time. With the revival of the role of the monarchy initiated by the government of Sarit Thanarat in the 1960s, the state began downplaying the significance of 1932. Public observation of 24 June as National Day was abandoned in favour of King Bhumibol's birthday on 5 December. The events were glossed over by school textbooks, while views describing the actions of the People's Party as premature, and the idea that Vajiravudh and Prajadhipok had been making their own preparations for giving democracy to the people when ready were popularized.[52]

    References

    1. ^ Mektrairat 2010, p. 33-34.
    2. ^ Lapomarede 1934, p. 251-252.
    3. ^ Mead (2004)
    4. ^ Vella, Walter Francis; Vella, Dorothy B (1974). Chaiyo!: King Vajiravudh and the development of Thai nationalism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 126–175.
    5. ^ a b Stowe (1991), p. 4
    6. ^ Mead (2004), pp. 85–92
    7. ^ a b c Handley (2006), p. 37
    8. ^ Mead 2004, p. 155.
    9. ^ Stowe 1991.
    10. ^ Mead (2004), pp. 66–69
    11. ^ Mead 2004, pp. 126–153.
    12. ^ Stowe (1991), pp. 9–11
    13. ^ Stowe (1991), pp. 9–22
    14. ^ a b c d e Stowe (1991), p. 12
    15. ^ Baker & Phongpaichit (2005), p. 116
    16. ^ a b Mektrairat 2010, p. 298.
    17. ^ a b Stowe (1991), p. 13
    18. ^ Stowe (1991), p. 14
    19. ^ a b c Stowe (1991), p. 15
    20. ^ Landon (1939), pp. 20–27
    21. ^ Stowe (1991)
    22. ^ a b c Stowe (1991), p. 2
    23. ^ a b Stowe (1991), p. 1
    24. ^ Sivisanvaja & Stevens 1932.
    25. ^ a b Stowe (1991), p. 5
    26. ^ a b c d Stowe (1991), p. 16
    27. ^ Mektrairat 2010, p. 304.
    28. ^ a b c Stowe (1991), p. 17
    29. ^ a b Chakrabongse (1957), p. 160
    30. ^ a b c d Stowe (1991), p. 18
    31. ^ Chakrabongse (1957), p. 159
    32. ^ Mektrairat 2010, p. 306.
    33. ^ a b c Stowe (1991), p. 20
    34. ^ a b Stowe (1991), p. 22
    35. ^ Stowe (1991), p. 21
    36. ^ Banomyong 2000, Part II Chapter 7.
    37. ^ a b Stowe (1991), p. 19
    38. ^ a b Chakrabongse (1957), p. 161
    39. ^ Baker & Phongpaichit (2005), p. 119
    40. ^ Stowe (1991)
    41. ^ Handley (2006), pp. 35–43
    42. ^ Stowe (1991), p. 25
    43. ^ Banomyong 2000, Part II Chapter 8.
    44. ^ a b c Stowe (1991), p. 26
    45. ^ a b Stowe (1991), p. 27
    46. ^ Stowe (1991), p. 33
    47. ^ Stowe (1991), p. 34
    48. ^ Chakrabongse (1957), p. 162
    49. ^ "ย้อนรอย 'เค้าโครงเศรษฐกิจ' แผนพัฒนาเศรษฐกิจฉบับแรกที่ไม่ได้ใช้ของปรีดี พนมยงค์" [Pridi's "Draft National Economic Plan"]. prachatai.com (in Thai). 2020.
    50. ^ Lapomarede 1934, p. 257-258.
    51. ^ Stowe (1991), p. 75
    52. ^ Mark, Eugene (29 June 2017). "Time to Truly Understand Thailand's 1932 Revolution". The Diplomat. Retrieved 16 October 2020.

    Bibliography

    External links