Chulalongkorn abolished prostration
May 14th, 2011 by Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Guest Contributor · 6 Comments
In 1873, the Royal Siamese Government Gazette published a palace announcement on the abolition of the prostration practice. It reported that King Chulalongkorn called for a meeting at the Amarin Winitchai Hall, with the presence of members of the royal family, senior bureaucrats, phu yai, phu noi and representatives of the armed forces. King Chulalongkorn said that since his enthronement in 1868, he had wanted to ensure the kingdom's prosperity and to bring happiness to the royal family, nobles, bureaucrats, members of thesangha, and ordinary Siamese. Therefore, during his rule, the King wished to eliminate whatever could be perceived as acts of subjugation that would cause hardship to his peoples.
As reported in the Gazette, the King said:
In other major powers, in other great capitals of the world, in other kingdoms in East Asia, such as in China, Yuan (Vietnam), Japan, and in West Asia, such as India—these countries once enshrined the practice of prostration, commanding the subordinates to prostrate before their superiors (chaonai) and the nobles, just like what is currently experienced by Siam. But now, those countries have abolished the prostration practice. The reason behind this is that they acknowledged the necessity of rebuilding a more equal relationship between different groups in society—no more class oppression. Since the abolition, those countries have become more prosperous. In Siam, the practice of prostration reaffirms the existence of oppression which is unjust. Furthermore, there are other practices that must be abolished or at least reduced in their degree of strictness. But to eliminate all the practices at once will be impossible. The process has to be gradual and timely. At the end of the process, Siam will re-emerge as a much more prosperous kingdom.
King Chulalongkorn added:
The practice of prostration in Siam is severely oppressive. The subordinates have been forced to prostrate in order to elevate the dignity of the phu yai. I do not see how the practice of prostration will render any benefit to Siam. The subordinates find the performance of prostration a harsh physical practice. They have to go down on their knees for a long time until their business with the phu yai ends. They will then be allowed to stand up and retreat. This kind of practice is the source of oppression. Therefore, I want to abolish it.
The 1873 Gazette also reported that the King's wish truly exhibited his generosity and compassion to bring happiness to his peoples, for them not to suffer any longer from the prostration practice. It said:
From now on, Siamese are permitted to stand up before the dignitaries. To display an act of respect, the Siamese may take a bow instead. Taking a bow will be regarded as a new form of paying respect. The dignitaries may first question the reason behind the abolition of prostration practice. They may ask: How will the change assist in developing Siam? They must know now that the abolition of this practice is indeed to show the world that Siam rejects any oppressive and unjust practice. Powerful countries which have been successful in refraining from oppressing their own peoples are now enjoying prosperity. Henceforth, members of the royal family and senior and junior bureaucrats who wish to have an audience with the King at his residence, or in public places, please adopt this new recommended practice as instructed by the King. His Majesty the King has assigned Than Chao Phraya Srisuriyawongse, his Regent, to enact this new practice for the Siamese kingdom.
Tags: Royal family · Thailand
6 RESPONSES SO FAR ↓
1Ray // May 14, 2011 at 11:58 am
Very interesting article. Thank you. Where did you get copies of the 1873 Gazette?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
2Jim Taylor // May 14, 2011 at 12:10 pm
a thoughtful piece; the implication being how come it was reintroduced in the twentieth century under the current king as court practice? This came about during Sarit's time with a new compact between the palace and regime was formed which essentially re-sacralised the monarch. This was undertaken in the interests of the amaat regime (flapping in the wings since 1932!) to regain real control over society, culture, politics, and economy…the rest, as they say, is history.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
3Maratjp // May 14, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Let's not forget too that King Rama VII ROSE to meet the leaders of the People's Party: "I rise in honour of the Khana Ratsadorn."
Why don't we see this image plastered throughout the Kingdom? This moment was a moment of truth for Thailand discarded to make way for the Royalist Restoration after '32.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
4Pavin // May 14, 2011 at 2:07 pm
To Ray
Thank you. I got the copy of this particular Gazette from a Thai historian who is currently with me at ISEAS.
Pavin
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
5John // May 14, 2011 at 2:08 pm
"Powerful countries which have been successful in refraining from oppressing their own peoples are now enjoying prosperity."
This statement just goes to show how backward the evolution of Thai democracy has become.
Thailand's present society is highly paternal and autocratic and I agree with Jim Taylor that laws where changed to serve a small percentage of the population who have assumed some sort of hierarchical superiority over so called inferior Thais.
There are no 'feudal lords' in the kingdom only extraordinarily rich families who are connected wanting to retain vestiges of the past that were dissolved when the country changed in the 1930′ s.
They have distorted the once sacred 'patronage system' evolving it into the corrupt practice it has become today. A system that still has so called inferior Thais prostrating themselves to their illegitimate superiors. These wealthy families and those that protect them are still oppressing the people and yes holding back all Thais right to prosperity.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
6leeyiankun // May 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Yes, this is one bit that has truly gone backwards no matter how you look at it. Unfortunately, royalist will claim that those that did do it 'willingly', not because they're afraid someone might lynch them.