CHAPTER SEVEN

REMAIN OR LEAVE?: THE DUTCH AND THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SIAMESE COURT

Introduction

A period of relatively stable relations between the VOC and King Thaisa, who succeeded King Süa in 1709, was followed by the much more trou- bled times of the last reigns of Ayutthaya under Kings , (r. 1758), and Ekathat (r. 1758-67). Research into Borom- makot’s reign has resulted in two contrasting interpretations. In its longer-term consequences, his long reign represents ‘a sort of golden age’ of Ayutthaya history. Revealing himself as a strong supporter of Buddhism and as a powerful actor in regional politics, his kingship became an inspiration to the founders of the Chakri in the 1780s and 1790s.1 In the shorter term, Borommakot’s policy and its (unintend- ed) consequences—most importantly, political factiousness and misman- agement of manpower—were partly responsible for the political and social confusion which would dominate the short reigns of his sons, Uthumphon and Ekathat, and which would contribute to the fall of Ayutthaya.2 To a certain extent, the Dutch representation of King Borommakot agrees with the second interpretation: it shows a King who had to suffer the sharing of power and resources with both the chao—his many children—and the khunnang. This situation, which threatened Dutch interests in Siam and required their constant attention, continued into the reigns of Uthumphon and Ekathat, who in turn did not have the same command of the situation their father had had. As we shall see in this chapter, between 1733 and 1767 the Dutch- Siamese relationship was put to the test in several ways. In the past, royal favour had been the last resort which saved the Dutch from many diffi- culties. However, soon after Borommakot’s enthronement, the absence of any intention on his part to intervene in their favour forced the Dutch to realize once again that they were no longer a privileged nation in Siam. In the face of the decline in the VOC-Siam trade, the Ayutthayan court increased its pressure on the Company servants in the kingdom, while the High Government in Batavia grew less conciliatory to the court demands. The Dutch now also had to widen their scope and interact with the more powerful chao and khunnang. At the same time, various external factors, REMAIN OR LEAVE? 181 such as the importance of Ceylon to the VOC’s strategy and the Burmese invasions of Siam posed additional challenges to the Dutch to reconsider their position in the Thai kingdom.

Diplomat or Despot?: Dutch Evaluations of King Borommakot

In the eyes of the Dutch, the basic conditions which had characterized the period immediately preceding King Borommakot’s reign—precisely the reigns of his father, King Süa, and his older brother, King Thaisa—did not differ distinctively from the previous century. After the elimination of those associated with King , the tensions among the chao of the new dynasty quickly became manifest. The Thai chronicles give an inkling of King Süa’s mistrust of his own sons,3 and a Dutch report mentions that a cousin or nephew (the Dutch word is the same) of the King plotted against him in September 1706.4 Nevertheless, the transition from King Süa to King Thaisa was a peaceful one—the first untroubled succession since the enthronement of King in 1605. In 1712 and 1713, Thaisa’s legitimacy was challenged by a rebel force which attacked Tenasserim and Mergui. The Dutch sources say it was led by a person who claimed to be a son of a brother of King Narai. The Phrakhlang explained to Batavia that this man was a Mon monk from Tavoy and that he had Burmese followers and some Moors also assisted his forces in plundering both cities. In the end, the rebellion was de- feated and its leader fled.5 If the Dutch were right about his claim to be related to King Narai, this information points to a dominant pattern in provincial revolts during the late Ayutthaya Period and the position King Narai had won in the popular imagination. All the leaders of the Thammathian Rebellion of 1689, the Revolt of 1699, and again in this Tenasserim uprising were (or were reported to be) either a magic-practising monk or a ‘holy man’ who allegedly claimed to be related to King Narai—a name to be conjured with. They legitimized themselves and won support among a certain part of the population by linking ‘magic’ with ‘royalty’. Now and then, Ayutthaya’s vassal states broke away before re-submit- ting within a short time, just as they always had done. In 1712, when the Queen of Patani rebelled against King Thaisa, Thai troops were sent there. Rumour had it that a Siamese governor might replace the Queen. Whether this was considered a threat or a promise, Patani decided to send the tributary flowers to the Ayutthayan court the following year, and with this token of submission the war came to an end.6 In 1717, Thaisa engaged in a war against King Angk Em of Cambodia, mainly to help restore its former King Thommo-reachea IV, who had sought refuge at