The ongoing campaign to change the name “Thailand” back to “Siam” has recently attracted greater attention because of the deteriorating situation in the country’s “deep South.”

Earlier this month, a prominent history professor at Bangkok’s Thammasat University, Charnvit Kasetsiri, relaunched his campaign to call Thailand “Siam” because, as he claimed, it better reflects the country’s ethnic diversity. Charnvit argues that “Thailand” was intended to be exclusive from the start, referring to a distinct people, supposedly derived from the Tai of China.  

In 1939, the Thai military government under Field Marshal Phibun Songkram changed the country’s name from Siam to Thailand, justifying that it was suitable to call the nation by a name that represented the country’s majority and was popular with the people.

Siam had been the name of the kingdom for almost 800 years. In the 13th   century, it was recorded that the Mongol Court referred to the kingdom as “Hsien”, which was possibly pronounced later as “Siam”.

The country’s name change clearly had a political agenda. As always, the name of a historic site, city and even country can become intensely contentious in the event of it being used to contest the previous regime and to legitimise the present power. Siam became Thailand merely because Phibun wanted to validate his despotic regime. He sought to distance himself from the previous absolute monarchy rule.

“Thailand” also conveyed a message that the Thai races for the first time were integrated under the military government’s rule. It was politically significant because it indicated the connection between the elites’ political legitimacy and the plotted nationalism.

History was then rewritten to backdate the name of Thailand. Thailand was used as the name for all past kingdoms regardless of its anachronism. Therefore, the name Thailand has long been perceived as containing a racist-nationalist tone.

Today, the campaign supporters argue that politically and ethnically, the name Siam is correct. This is because there is great ethnic linguistic and cultural diversity among the people of the nation, ranging from the Thai, Malays, Lao, Mon, Khmer, Chinese, Arabs, Hmong, Farang (Caucasians) and many more—a total of more than 50 ethnicities and languages. The reasons cited by the Phibun government concerning the ethnic majority were thus not true and were contradicted by historical evidence. 

More importantly, the campaign supporters also believe that the country’s name change could help lessen the conflict in the south, which has been partly plagued by ethnic clashes between the Thai Buddhist state and the minority Muslims.

So far, the violence in the south has caused more than 3,000 deaths. Earlier this month, a group of assailants killed 11 Muslims at prayer and injured a dozen others in the mosque in Narathiwat’s Joh I Rong district. Thai Police claimed that the militants intended to create a rift within the Muslim population in the area.

The latest massacre adds a sense of vulnerability to the already fragile situation. The Abhisit government is facing a serious legitimacy crisis; and this could prove detrimental to its political survival.  

Prof Charnvit said that Siam was more inclusive of the various ethnic groups who live in the kingdom rather than Thailand, and would foster unity, harmony and reconciliation, which seemed in short supply lately.

The majority Muslims in the southernmost provinces have never identified themselves as Thai. The ethnic identification has long been tightly bound with religion. Buddhism is the national religion. “Thainess” was constructed based on Buddhism. Thus, in being Thai, one must profess Buddhism.

The name Thailand also carries a sense of superiority. This perceived superiority effectively encourages an attitude of ignorance.

Since the Pattani kingdom was annexed to Thailand in 1902, successive governments have neglected the Muslim-dominated region. As a result, it has remained the poorest and least developed region of Thailand. Officials who were stationed in the south were regarded as incompetent. The south has virtually been an alien part of the Thai state.

The situation became worse under the reign of Thaksin Shinawatra who adopted a hard-nosed approach toward the Muslim minority. The Krue Sae Mosque massacre in April 2004 saw brutal executions of the Muslim militants who seized this holy space, at the hands of the Thai state.

Later, the Tak Bai incident, in Narathiwat province, witnessed another tragedy when hundreds of local Muslims who protested against the detention of their fellows were also arrested. They were ordered to take off their shirts and lie on the ground. Their hands were tied behind their backs.