Date:May 12, 2008 (Mon.) 16:00-18:00PM
Venue: E207, 2nd floor of East Building, CSEAS
Presentation:
1.Junko Koizumi (Associate Professor, CSEAS)
2.Fumikazu Ubukata(G-COE Assistanct Professor)
Commentator:
Naoto Kazotani (Professor, Institute for Research in Humanities)
Shinya Takeda (Associate Professor, ASAFAS)
Presentation 1:
The presentation provides a general view regarding the process of negotiations over the issue of the resumption of tribute payments, which occurred over the period between the 1860s and the mid-1880s, and negotiations over the conclusion of treaties between the mid 1880s and the first decade of the 20th century. In the presentation, an explanation was given of how Siam, with its large population of domestic Chinese residents, was in a situation in which it could neither offer a clear rejection nor acceptance of tribute payments and treaties, by citing that the proposal for tributes came from Tianjin, and that they were premature. The possibility was also indicated that the China problem may at times have felt more serious than the threat of the West, and the need to place Western nations on an axis of relations with China and other Asian countries was also highlighted.
One commentator (Kagotani Naoto) introduced an argument raised in recent years in the study of Chinese history as a critique of the tribute system theory, the idea that goshi (trade) was taken as the basis of foreign diplomacy in the Qing Dynasty. Based on this, he suggested that the true picture of commerce, alongside the problem of the relation between the Tianjin route and trade as well as the connection with tribute payment, may have been something somewhat less rigid. In addition, he pointed out the necessity to consider the differences in attitude to taxation system and networks with mainland China among the newcomers and old-comers from China to Thailand. A question was further raised regarding the level of investment in the financial sector by overseas Chinese in Thailand, as described in the book Kakyokeizairon (Overseas Chinese Economy) by Fukuda Shozo, and the historical significance of this investment. In addition, there was a comment from the floor on the need to focus attention on the changing of the concept itself of “treaty” in Europe, from the standpoint of the history of the Western world.
For the presenter, the above points were fruitful opportunities that offered clues as to how to situate Siamese-Chinese relations from many angles beyond those of Thai history. The issue of how to approach the problematic of the humanosphere, however, was left as a future task. While keeping in mind the long-term dynamism of tribute relations between Thailand and China stretching back to the 13th century, we hope in the future to commence a search for a historical vantage point that situates problems of the latter half of the 19th century.
Presentation 2:
In his presentation, Dr. Ubukata Fumikazu discussed the question of how resource management systems are demanded and supplied, based on the transformation process of the commons (resource shared by a community and resource management system) that occurred in North-East Thailand. He concluded that factors introduced through contact with the outside world applied pressure toward changes in the management system of a scale that was greater than those incurred through conditions of resource distribution within the community. Based on results of a research, three areas were classified as deserving attention in considering relations between resource scarcity and institutional change. It was noted that these areas reflect the significance of resource scarcity in modern “connected communities.”
Comments and arguments:
・Do regional natural conditions and historic context not heavily influence the process of institutional change?
・Is there any influence of the apparent change in the meaning of resource in Thailand, which has resulted from recent societal change?
・Common property resources in Thailand, unlike those under the former Japanese iriai system (system of access right to community resources), are not absolutely indispensable for survival. Is this not something that is reflected in these sorts of results?
(Junko Koizumi and Fumikazu Ubukata)