[Lhtfajba]

CULTURE CONTROVERSY: ‘I cannot stand up for the republican anthem’
The Nation, Published on June 13, 2005

Sumet Jumsai, the well-known architect and historian, talks to Nation editor Pana Janviroj on our understanding of the national anthem, one of the centrepieces of the Thai national identity.

What do you think of the recent controversy concerning the national anthem?

The controversy arising from the potential musical variations by GMM Grammy [music company] and the protest by the minister of culture is really a storm in a teacup. It misses the basic question of whether the so-called “national anthem” should exist in the first place.

There have been a number of national anthems in the past. When I was a schoolboy we used to sing the “24th June Anthem” to coincide with National Day and to commemorate the coup which toppled the absolute monarchy in 1932. As I grew up, this was replaced by the republican anthem – that is, the present anthem. It gave way eventually to the Royal Anthem but was resurrected in the 1970s under the Thanin government, which was supposed to be staunchly monarchist.

Why do you suppose the national anthem is republican?

This country has two anthems, one royal, the other republican. Let me translate the wording of the latter for you to judge for yourself:

“Thailand comprises the Thai blood and race; it is the People’s State (that is, a republic) which belongs to the Thai race in its entirety. It preserves its entity by its pure Thai (blood) and unity. Thais love peace but are brave in battle. (Our) freedom cannot be compromised. We sacrifice every drop of blood for the country, for the Thai nation, for victory! Chai-yo!”

Are there problems with that?

Firstly, the monarchy is ignored in the anthem. Secondly, it is simply racist. I have a problem here because of my Chinese blood. Even on my Thai side, I am descended from Mon and Javanese Muslim ancestors, as are all the descendants of King Rama III and King Rama V. I am proud of that; but if I were a citizen from the South, that is, with Malay antecedents, I would find it difficult to stand up for the so-called “national anthem”.

In any case, I cannot stand up for the republican anthem; not in our case at any rate.

Isn’t that a criminal offence?

Many years ago, the French embassy celebrated their July 14 national day by playing the Marseillaise followed by the Thai republican anthem. MR Panthip Paribatra was there in the front row and sat down throughout the republican rendition! More recently, celebrating the same event, the embassy played the Thai republican anthem (again). I then walked up to the ambassador who happened to be a good friend and told him that it was out of tune. He understood and immediately instructed the band to replay the anthem – the correct one.

To answer your question: of course it is criminal to ignore the so-called national anthem. But thank God the guillotine is in the museum.

Recently you protested against the national anthem being played at the Cultural Centre. Could you elaborate?

It was at an embassy function earlier this year, a concert. When the republican anthem was aired, I simply sat down, like MR Panthip Paribatra before me. I then wrote to the National Culture Commission (NCC) to say that since we have not yet changed the Constitution, we should not pre-empt it.

Back in 1999 I wrote to then prime minister Chuan Leekpai to propose that we should have only one national anthem, the royal one, like in the UK. The PM’s Office was kind enough to reply saying that the NCC objected and something else short of being memorable.

I gather that for decades you have been advocating the Royal Anthem in association with “Siam” as the country’s name.

It isn’t just the name, but the concept of the country that is the real issue. “Thailand” entails ethnic connotations, hence exclusive; whereas “Siam” is inclusive, being a loose geographic entity comprising the different groups – ethnic, religious and cultural – all paying loyalty to the King who is protector of all the religions in the Kingdom – and this is unique in the world.

Both “Thailand” and “Siam” are the official names of the country, “Siam” being used only on auspicious occasions, or in conjunction with royal titles. So I would let it be and not disturb the status quo. All the same, for the South, the name “Siam”, and indeed its concept, would be infinitely more useful.

I should interject an anecdote here. Many years ago, in 1983, the late MR Kukrit Pramoj gave a talk at the Foreign Correspondents Club in which he related that Tungku Abdul Rahman once told him that he – the Tungku – was Siamese but that at the same time he could never be Thai.

As for the two anthems, I have tried my best to be open-minded about it. This country is full of contradictions. In fact it seems to thrive on the coexistence of the opposites. I don’t know what the future holds; I suppose the republican anthem might come in handy at some point. But I won’t be around then.