Cady, J. F. 1966. Thailand, Burma, Laos and Cambodia:  The Modernization of Nations in Historical Perspective. New Jersey:  Prentice Hall.   (xxxcheck)

Calavan, Kay Mitchell. 1980. “Princes and Commoners in Rural Northern Thailand . The Case of Cao Mahawong .” In Royalty and Commoners, ed. by Constance M. Wilson, Chrystal Stillings Smith and George Vinal Smith, pp. 73-89. Leiden:  E. J. Brill.

Calavan, Sharon Kay Mitchell. 1974. “Aristocrats  and Commoners  in Rural Northern Thailand .” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.   446 pp.

Caldwell, J. Alexander. 1972 . Communist Insurgency in Thailand. Bangkok:  Royal Thai Government, Communist  Suppression Operations Command.

Caldwell, J. Alexander. 1974 . American Economic Aid  to Thailand. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath.   (Org. “American Economic Assistance to Thailand: A Case Study in Bilateral Foreign Aid.” Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1973,   676 pp.)

Caldwell, Malcolm. 1978. “Thailand and Imperialist  Strategy in the 1980s .” In Thailand. Roots of Conflict, ed. by Andrew Turton, Jonathan Fast and Malcolm Caldwell, pp. 5-20. Nottingham:  Spokesman.

Caldwell, Malcolm. 1976. “Thailand:  Towards the Revolution .” Race and Class 18 (2):  129-153.   Reprinted (1976) as Race and Class Pamphlet No. 3 as a joint publication by Race & Class and the Ad Hoc Group for Democracy in Thailand .   27 pp.

Callahan, William. 1993 . “The discourse of democracy  in Thailand.” Asian Review 7: 126-170.

It is reconfirmed that knowledge is not independent of social location. This is illustrated by the differences of thinking and communicating about ‘democracy’ that we can observe in different social categories, i.e., the military, NGOs…The relevance of this article could have been increased if Thai-language primary and secondary sources had been included into the analysis.

Callahan, William A. 1994 . “Astrology , video, and the democratic spirit:  Reading the symbolic politics of Thailand.” Sojourn 9 (1): 102-134.

Callahan, William A. 1994. “Imagining the demos in the Demos:  Mob Discourse in Thai Politics.” Alternatives 19 (3): 339-370.

Callahan, William. 1995. “Black May, NGOs  and Post-State Politics.” Journal of Social Sciences (Bangkok) 29 (2): 82-89.

Callahan, William A. 1995. “Non-governmental Organizations, Non-violent Action and Post-modern Politics in Thailand.” Sojourn 10 (1): 1-27.

Callahan, William A. 1996. “Rescripting East/West Relations, Rethinking Asian Democracy.” Pacifica Review 8 (1): 1-25.

Callahan, William A. 1998.  Imagining Democracy:  Reading ‘The Events of May’ in Thailand. Singapore and London:  ISEAS.   xviii+198 pp.

Callahan’s book on the May events consists of previously published material (Callahan 1994a+b and 1995a+b), except for Chapter 4. It is not the author’s aim to provide readers with “the truth” about what happened. Since meaning is not a simple reflection of the “facts” but socially constructed, it is important to throw light on the events from different perspectives (”discourses”). Although Callahan writes about democracy , he wants to avoid using the term “democratization.”  He feels that this concept is too teleological and that the “checklists” that usually follow from this approach are too sterile given the military-caused bloodshed. Moreover, the author somehow associates “democratization” with forbidden concepts such as modernization or Westernization. He also does not want to reproduce the occident/orient dichotomy (authors in this line of thinking often imagine the existence of Said’s “Orientalism in “Western” social science on foreign countries and are scared of falling into the imagined trap of becoming tools in the hands of neo-colonialists and neo-racists bent on subjugating defenseless Third World countries). Rather, the events of May 1992 are seen as providing an occasion for a cultural analysis of how different groups imagine democracy. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to determine the author’s intentions or thoughts since they are at times obscured by an unclear writing style.

            Callahan’s first chapter deals mainly with something Thais are very fond of: astrology. According to the author, astrological predictions explain why military leaders did not back away when faced with massive demonstrations and why they, afterwards, felt neither responsibility nor guilt but considered the entire affair as merely stemming from “bad luck.” The author admits that many observers dismissed the leaders’ statements simply as excuses. However, he insists that they really believed in that astrological stuff. Regrettably, he does not try to include other elements of Thai culture in his analysis. For example, it is well known that the necessity to save one’s face often leads to scurrilous excuses or outright lies. It is also not unknown that the rejection of any personal responsibility and its social dispersion belong to the core of Thai culture. (However, if I as a German were held responsible for the killing of dozens of unarmed protesters, I would not exactly be happy either.)

            Furthermore, it is claimed that the military coup-plotters chose 23 February 1991, 11.30, because this was astrologically predicted as the most auspicious time for the undertaking. It is not mentioned in this context that prime minister Chartchai , on that day, had ordered the air force to provide him with a plane to take him to Chiang Mai in order to let the King sign a letter of appointment putting a retired military rival (Arthit Kamlang-ek ) into the position of deputy defense minister. Obviously, this was a blatant provocation of the active class-five  clique (after many months of conflicts between the government and the military). They also suspected that one of theirs, namely Supreme Commander Sunthorn Kongsompong  would be dismissed on the same occasion. (Since his death in 1999, accusations have been raised that he used his position in the NPKC to become “unusually rich”—a government committee is investigating the case.) In other words, no time was to be wasted—from their perspective—to put a stop to this game. This explanation, which essentially does without astrology as an explanation, is not altogether absent from the book. It is not mentioned in this context, however, but only in passing and hidden in note 103 on p. 137. Callahan does not bother to confront these divergent explanations, or weigh their relative importance.

            The rest of the first chapter deals with TV-censorship, a video—produced by state TV—distorting the truth, and with an equally distorting fax.

            In the second chapter Callahan points out that concepts such as “public opinion” or ”public” are comparatively recent additions to Thai political culture and remain structurally unstable. He mentions the social processes that led the political system to internally develop a functionally specialized sphere called public (perhaps, he could have included the standard reference in this field of study, Habermas’s book on the public sphere). As a result, demonstrations and protests are still called “mobs.” This expression not only connotes disorderliness, unlawfulness, aggression, a lack of controllability, and a lack of political rationality. It also implies that mobs are not authentic expressions of political discontent and that they do not represent the participants’ political opinions. In Thai discourse, mobs mainly consist of people hired by a “third hand” in order to further its particular interests. (The Ministry of the Interior, politicians, and the military have substantial experience in making such use of the country’s “citizens.”)

            Of course, the May 1992 demonstrators were not of this kind. On the contrary, participants were mostly motivated by their convictions and their observation of political events. Nevertheless, no attempt was made to find a more positive term. Instead, variations of the negative expression were chosen as, for example, “middle-class mob”. This was accompanied by an attempt to re-define the meaning of this term in a way that it could also refer to rational and responsible political actors.

            From the perspective of the military, however, the old meaning remained valid, and it justified the use of violence. Callahan contextualizes this with a description of the military as an institution that—almost necessarily—introduces violence into the political sphere of action. In Thailand, this basic fact of political-military life is made even more significant by the decades old ideology of national security (that has partly been based on the regional threat of communism and an insurgency that existed until the early 1980s). It has gained additional weight by the military’s self-perception of being the savior of the nation, and by reference to the official state ideology of “Nation, Religion, King.” All this leaves little space for oppositional political mass movements. They may be branded as “un-Thai,” often even as “anti-Thai.” (An old-style favorite of right-wingers has been “communist”; a modernized version is “NGO.”)

            From Callahan’s description, one gets the impression that the acting generals can not actually be held personally responsible for the killings they ordered. After all, they merely communicated in the frame of reference of the existing discourse and, in their actions, reproduced the existing structures. The reader’s understanding is not helped when the author switches attributions for actions among “the military,” “the army,” and “Kaset and Issarapong” (two of the most important military actors, the first one from the air force, the second from the army). The attribution “Kaset and Issarapong” indicates both personal points of reference as well as their membership in class five of the military academy. Callahan himself notes that other members of the military did not like the demonstrations either but rejected the use of force against them. He also mentions that navy personnel protected fleeing protesters from army-personnel who were giving chase. Obviously, there is no “military” as a homogenous and monolithic bloc. Neither is there a unitary military way of perception and interpretation that, when it deemed action is necessary, provided for only a single option: shoot to kill. One may ask whether Callahan’s text would be different had he decided not to use “the military” as a main point of reference, and not even “the army,” but the “class five’s” (at least certain members) thirst for power.

            It is useful that Callahan describes a document (its full text is reproduced in an appendix) in which General Issarapong tries to justify what the army units did, and mentions the application of a military action plan that was originally designed to suppress armed communist uprisings in Bangkok (paireepinart—“destroy the enemy”). In this way, both “the military’s” ideological attitudes and an obviously grotesquely flawed organizational programming come into view. This last point gains weight by the observation that initially it was the police who were tasked with controlling the demonstrations, but that they were not prepared to perform this difficult assignment, either organizationally or in terms of equipment and personnel. A truly astonishing degree of incompetence on the part of the supposedly professional police and military seem to have contributed considerably to the sad events. This seems to have included serious problems with information-gathering: how can one act appropriately when one is basically in the dark about what is happening?

            Chapter 3 starts with the observation that the protests did not end when Chamlong was put in jail. Therefore, there must have been other motivational forces at work leading to the mass mobilization other than merely Chamlong’s charisma. Callahan’s explanation does not refer to any “crisis of legitimacy” (as we have tentatively summarized Murray’s description). Instead, he emphasizes the development of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Their development is described at length, based on a very small number of NGO sources. The author assumes the existence of an “oppositional consciousness” as the main factor for creating identity. (For unexplained reasons, he uses action-oriented feminist theory to make his point, instead of more general social-science approaches; also the difference between opposition and boundary-drawing is blurred.) He encounters problems with distinguishing between “non-governmental” and “anti-governmental” attitudes and organizations. Then, the NGOs’ role after the coup of February 1991 is described. Particular importance—both strategically and tactically—is attached to the NGOs’ non-violent approach. This section is based on interviews the author conducted with the NGO-elite, people probably not inclined to understate their role.

            It seems problematic that Callahan attributes the mobilization of the protests exclusively to the NGOs’ information networks and to the corresponding networks of personal relations between NGO members and their acquaintances. Other motivational forces and channels of communication are excluded or, at least, are not considered. In the author’s reading, there is no place for “ordinary people” reading newspapers, having political opinions, being angered about TV censorship, talking to each other at their work places, or phoning each other and then using the information gathered for reaching the decision to go to see for themselves. At least, there is a quotation in which an NGO representative expresses his satisfaction regarding the support their cause received from “the masses.”

In this context, a distinction could have been introduced between the organizational aspects of the protests on the one hand and the mechanisms of mass mobilization on the other. Callahan criticizes that, in the military discourse, the protesters remained faceless and were degraded to constituting a “mob.” However, it cannot be said that his own account gives them a recognizable face. On the contrary, they remain anonymous and are reduced to people who were brought to the demonstrations via the NGO networks. It may seem somewhat strange, but the protesters as individual subjects, who certainly had their own “imaginations” of what happened during May 1992, are assigned only a very marginal position in this book. There are a large number of references to (mostly English-language) newspaper articles, to interviews with the NGO-elite, and to the perspective of “the military.” Yet, it was obviously not of great interest to find out what interpretations the participants in the demonstrations themselves had to offer.

            After the author’s stated intention to provide a cultural analysis largely gets lost in the third chapter’s historical-structural description (including a number of normative statements), the fourth and final chapter returns to culture. Callahan wants to analyze how people construct what they remember. He first takes a look at an art exhibition about the events. The less than startling result is that the military is not depicted as the hero but as the villain. His second example concerns different definitions of those who went missing in the aftermath of the shootings. It may not be too surprising to learn that state agencies tended to favor a restrictive definition which soon led to a reduction in the number of the missing. Again, what “ordinary participants” or “ordinary people,” who did not participate, remember is not considered important enough to warrant examination.

Callahan, William A. 1998 . “Challenging the Political Order:  Social Movements .” In Governance in the Asia-Pacific, eds. Richard Maidment, David Goldblatt, and Jeremy Mitchell, pp. xxx-xxx. London and New York:  Routledge; in association with the Open University.

Callahan, William A. 1999. “Visions of Gender and Democracy:  Revolutionary Photo Albums in Asia.” Millennium 27 (4): 1031-1060.

Callahan, William A. 2000. Pollwatching , Elections  and Civil Society in Southeast Asia . Aldershot:  Ashgate Publishing.   218 pp. (=Leeds Series on Democratization)

Callahan, William A. 2002 . “Diaspora, Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism : Overseas Chinese and Neo-Nationalism  in China and Thailand.” Hong Kong: Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong.   (SEARC Working Paper Series No. 35)   34 pp.   http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc.

Callahan, William A. and Duncan McCargo. 1996. “Vote-buying  in Thailand’s Northeast :  The July 1995  general election.” Asian Survey 36 (4): 376-392.

Cam Trong. 1998. “Baan-müang :  A Characteristic Feature of the Tai Social Structure.” Tai Culture 3 (2): 12-25.

Campbell, J. G. D. 1902 . Siam in  the Twentieth Century:  Being the Experiences and Impressions of a British Official. London:  Edward Arnold.

Campos, Joaquim de. 1940. “Early Portuguese  Accounts of Thailand.” JSS 32 (1): 1-27.

Carment, David. 1995 . “Managing Interstate Ethnic Tension: The Thailand-Malaysia Experience.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 1 (4):1-22.

Caron, Francois and Joost A. Schouten . 1969. True Description of the Mighty Kingdoms of Japan and Siam; trans. by Roger Manley. Bangkok:  Chalermit Historical Archives Series.   (Org.:  London 1671 )   Another edition is Francois Caron and Joost Schouten . 1969. A True Description of the Mighty Kingdom of Japan and Siam. Introduction and notes by John Villiers. Bangkok:  The Siam Society.   (xxxcheck)   Also see Joost Schouten . 1889. A Description of the Kingdom of Siam Written in 1636 . Bangkok:  Bangkolem Press.

Carter, A. Cecil, ed. 1904 . The Kingdom of Siam. New York:  G. P. Putnam’s Sons..   280 pp.  (xxxcheck)

Case, William. 1994 . “Elites  and Regimes  in Comparative Perspective:  Indonesia , Thailand, and Malaysia .” Governance 7 (4):431-460.

Case, William F. 1996 . “Can the ‘Halfway House’ Stand? Semidemocracy  and Elite Theory  in Three Southeast Asian Countries.” Comparative Politics 28 (4):437-464.

Case, William F. 2001 . “Thai Democracy,  2001: Out of Equilibrium.” Asian Survey 41 (3):525-547.

Case, William F. 2001 . Politics in Southeast Asia: Democracy  or Less. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.   (“Thailand: An Unconsolidated Democracy”, Chapter 5, pp. 147-199)

Chai-anan Samuthvanit. 1971 . “The Politics and Administration of the Thai Budgetary Process.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.   185 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1974. “Politicians and Bureaucrats:  Legislative-executive Interactions in Thailand, 1969-1971 .” Bangkok:  [s.n.].   59 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1980 . “Farmers Movement in Modern Thai Politics.” Paper. Thai-European Seminar on Social Change in Contemporary Thailand, 28-30 May 1980, University of Amsterdam, Anthropological-Sociological Centre, Dept. of South and Southeast Asian Studies.   30 pp.

Chai-anan Samudvanija. 1982 . The Thai Young Turks. Singapore:  ISEAS.   xi+101 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1985 . “Implications of a Prolonged Conflict  on Internal Thai Politics.” In Confrontation or Coexistence:  The Future of ASEAN -Vietnam  Relations, ed. by William Turley, pp. xxx-xxx. Bangkok:  Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University.

Chai-anan Samudvanija. 1985 . Village Bureaucracy  and Development . Bangkok:  The Public Affairs Group, The Public Affairs Foundation and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.   11+6 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1986 . “Political Institutionalization in Thailand. Continuity and Change.” In Asian Political Institutionalization, ed. by Robert A. Scalapino, Seizaburo Sato, and Jusuf Wanandi, pp. 241-260 Berkeley, Cal.:  Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1987 . Ministerial Reform Through Decentralization and Participation. [Bangkok]:  Public Affairs Institute; with the assistance and cooperation of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation.   95 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1987. “Political History.” In Government and Politics of Thailand, ed. by Somsakdi Xuto, pp. 1-40. Singapore:  Oxford University Press.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1987 . “The Bureaucracy.” In Government and Politics of Thailand, ed. by Somsakdi Xuto, pp. 75-109. Singapore:  Oxford University Press.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1989. “Thailand.” In Student Political Activism:  An International Reference Book, ed. by Philip G. Altbach, pp. xxx-xxx. New York:  Greenwood Press.

Chai-anan Samudhavanij. 1989. “The Role of the Military in National Development .” In  Thailand's National Development:  Social and Economic Background, ed. by Suchart Prasith-rathsint, pp. 149-165. Bangkok:  TURA and CIDA.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1989 . “Thailand:  A Stable Semi-Democracy.” In Democracy in Developing Countries. Volume III:  Asia, ed. by Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset, pp. 305-346. Boulder, Col.:  Lynne Rienner Publishers; London, England:  Adamantine Press.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1990 . “The Military and Modern Thai Political System .” In Development, Modernization, and Tradition in Southeast Asia. Lessons from Thailand, ed. by Pinit Ratanakul and U. Kyaw Thau, pp. 185-189. Bangkok, Thailand:  Mahidol University.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1990. “Educating Thai Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 1 (4): 104-115.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1990 . “Administrative Reform.” In Thailand on the Move:  Stumbling Blocks and Breakthroughs, ed. by Suchart Prasith-rathsint, pp. 9-34. Bangkok:  TURA and CIDA.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1991. “The  Three-Dimensional State .” In Rethinking Third World Politics, ed. by James Manor, pp. 15-23. London and New York:  Longman.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1992 . “Promoting Democracy  and Building Institutions in Thailand.” In The Democratic Revolution. Struggles for Freedom and Pluralism in the Developing World, ed. Larry Diamond, pp. 125-143. New York:  Freedom House.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1992 . “High Speed Growth and High Performance in a Technocratic Polity :  The Thai Case.”   s.n.   48 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1993 . “The New Military  and Democracy  in Thailand.” In Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries, ed. by Larry Diamond, pp. 269-293. Boulder and London:  Lynn Rienner.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1993. “State-Identity  Creation, State-Building  and Civil  Society .” In National Identity and its Defenders. Thailand, 1939-1989, ed. by Craig J. Reynolds, pp. 59-85. Chiang Mai:  Silkworm Books. (reprint; org.:  Melbourne:  Monash University, Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, 1991)   (reissued with a new subtitle—“Thailand Today”—by Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai, in 2002; pp. 49-70)

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1995 . “Economic Development  and Democracy .” In Thailand’s Industrialization and its Consequences, ed. by Medhi Krongkaew, pp. 235-250. New York:  St. Martin’s Press.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1997 . “Old soldiers never die, they are just bypassed:  The military , bureaucracy  and globalisation .” In Political Change in Thailand:  Democracy and Participation, ed. by Kevin Hewison, pp. 42-57. London and New York:  Routledge.

Chai-anan Samudavanija, Kusuma Snitwongse , Suchit Bunbongkarn . 1990. From Armed Suppression to Political Offensive:  Attitudinal Transformation of Thai Military Officers since 1976. Bangkok:  Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University.   i+218 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Suchit Bunbongkarn . 1985 . “Thailand.” In Military-civilian Relations in South-East Asia, ed. by Zakaria Haji Ahmad and Harold Crouch, pp. 78-117. Singapore:  Oxford University Press.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sukhumbhand Paribatra. 1984 . “Factors behind Armed Separatism . A Framework for Analysis.” In Armed Separatism in Southeast Asia. eds. Lim Joo-Jock and Vani S., pp. xxx-xxx. Singapore:  ISEAS.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sukhumbhand Paribatra. 1986 . “Internal Dimensions of Regional Security  in Southeast Asia.” In Regional Security in the Third World, ed. by Mohammed Ayub, pp. xxx-xxx. London:  Croom Helm.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sukhumbhand Paribatra . 1987 . “In Search of Balance:  Prospects for Stability  in Thailand During the Post-CPT Era.” In Durable Stability in Southeast Asia, ed. by Kusuma Snitwongse and Sukhumbhand Paribatra, pp. 187-233. Singapore:  IEAS.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sukhumbhand Paripatra . 1990 . “Political Contestation  in Thailand.” In Political Contestation. Case Studies From Asia, ed. by N. Mahmood, pp. xxx-xxx. Singapore:  Heinemann Asia.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sukhumbhand Paribatra . 1993 . “Thailand:  Liberalization  Without Democracy .” In Driven by Growth:  Political Change in the Asia-Pacific Region, ed. by James W. Morley, pp. 119-141. Armonk, New York and London, England:  M. E. Sharpe.

Chaichana Ingavata. 1990 . “Community development  and local-level  democracy  in Thailand:  the role of tambol councils.” Sojourn 5: 113-143.

Chaichana Ingavata. 1981. “Students as an agent of social change . a case of the Thai student movement  during the years 1973-1976 . a critical political analysis.” Ph. D. dissertation, The Florida State University.   vi+211 pp.

Chairat Charoensin-o-larn. 1985. “Understanding Postwar ‘Reformism’ in Thailand:  A Reinterpretation of Rural Development .” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Hawaii. 405 pp.   (published in Bangkok:  Editions Duangkamol, 1988   318 pp.)

Chaiwat Bunnag. 1983. “Les coups  d’état militaires dans le contexte historique et politique thailandais (1932-1981 ).” Doctorat de 3^e cycle en sociologie, Paris VII.   537 pp.

Chaiwat Satha-Anand. 1987. Islam and Violence:  A Case  Study of Violent Events in the Four Southern Provinces, Thailand, 1976-1981 . Tampa, FL:  University of Florida.   (=USF Monographs in Religion and Public Policy)

Chaiwat Satha-Anand. 1992. “Pattani  in the 1980s :  Academic Literature and Political Stories.” Sojourn 7 (1): 1-38.

 Chaiyan Rajchagool. 1994. The Rise and Fall of the Thai  Absolute Monarchy:  Foundations of the Modern Thai State from Feudalism  to Peripheral Capitalism . Bangkok and Cheney:  White Lotus.   212 pp.   (Org.:  “The Social and State Formation in Siam, 1855-1932 .” Ph. D. thesis, Manchester University, 1984   273 pp.)   (= Studies in Contemporary Thailand, Volume 2)

Chakarin  Komolsiri. 1995 . “Globalization  and Local Voices: Globalists, Fusionists, and Resistors among Thai Intellectual Elites.” PhD thesis, State University of New York at Binghamton.

Chakrapand Wongburanavart. 1978 . “Administrative Attitudes of the Public  Officials in Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, The University of Mississippi.   232 pp.

Chakrit Noranitipadungkarn. 1970. Elites, Power Structures and Politics in Thai Communities. Bangkok:  Research Center, NIDA.   199 pp.   (Org.:  “Community Elites  and the Power Structure :  A Comparative Study of Two Communities in Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1968 .   xi+288 pp.)

Chakrit Noranitipadungkarn. 1974 . Rural Thai elites  and local development . Bangkok:  NIDA.   25 pp.

Chakrit Noranitipadungkarn and A. Clarke Hagenick . 1973 . Modernizing Chiengmai :  A Study of Community Elites in Urban Development. Bangkok:  Research Center, NIDA.   v+120 pp.

Chalidaporn Songsamphan. 1991. “Supernatural Prophecy in Thai Politics:  The Role of a Spiritual Cultural Element in Coup Decisions.” Ph. D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School.   x+226 pp.   (April 1, 1981   and September 9, 1985)

Chalidaporn Songsamphan. 1995 . “Thailand:  Slow Government, Sluggish Democratization .” In Southeast Asian Affairs 1995, pp. 327-342. Singapore:  ISEAS.   (xxxchecken)

Chalk, Peter. 2001 . “Separatism  and Southeast Asia: The Islamic Factor in Southern Thailand, Mindanao and Aceh.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24 (4):241-269.

Chaloeylakana Wongtrangan. 1988. “Thai Elite  Struggle in the 1932  Revolution .” Ph. D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.   383 pp.

Chalong Soontravanich. 1997. “Research on Thai-Myanmar  Historical Relations in Thailand.” In Comparative Studies on Literature and History of Thailand and Myanmar, pp. 93-101. Bangkok:  Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University; Universities’ Historical Research Centre, Yangon.

Chalong Soontravanich. 2000. “Siam and the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899 .” In  King Chulalongkorn’s Visit  to Europe:  Reflections on Significance and Impacts, ed. by Charit Tingsabadh, pp. 31-44. Bangkok:  Chulalongkorn University.

Chamberlaine, James R., ed. 1991. The Ram Khamhaeng Controversy:  Collected Papers. Bangkok: The Siam Society.    565 pp.

Chambers, Paul. 2001 . “Mung Lek nai Mung Yai: How Factions  Matter in Contemporary Thai Politics.” Journal of Social Sciences 32 (2): 192-230.

Chamnan Prasertchoung. 1987 . “An assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practices of local  political leaders in Thailand and their effect on the success of primary health care.” Dr. P. H. Hawaii.   xiii+260 pp.   (Kanchanaburi  province)

Chamnan Rodhetbhai. 1990. Role of Monarchy in Thai Political  and Social Development with Special Reference to King Bhumibol Adulyadej . New Delhi:  Centre for South, Central South-East Asian and South-West Pacific Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.   ix+419 pp.

Chan Ansuchote. 1970. The 1969  General Elections in Thailand. DeKalb, Illinois:  Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University.   44 pp.   (= Special Report Series, No. 3)

Chandler, David P. 1972. “Cambodia’s  Relations with Siam in the Early Bangkok Period :  The Politics of a Tributary  State.” JSS 60 (1): 153-xxx.

Chandran, Jeshurun. 1970. “The Anglo-French Declaration of January 1896  and the Independence of Siam.” JSS 58 (2): 105-xxx.

Chandran, Jeshurun. 1971. “The British Foreign Office and the Siamese Malay States, 1890-97 .” Modern Asian Studies 5 (2): 143-159.

Chandran, Jeshurun. 1977. The Contest for Siam, 1889-1902 :  A Study in Diplomatic Rivalry. Kuala Lumpur:  Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.   xxiii+383 pp.

Chang Kuo Tao. 1976. “All the King’s Men.”  AMPO, 8 (3): 18-25.  (xxx23? author?)

Chantima Ongsuragz. 1965. The Stages of Political Development. New York:  Alfred A. Knopf.   (xxxThailand?)

Chantima Ongsuragz. 1982 . “The Communist Party of Thailand :  Consolidation and Decline.” In Southeast Asian Affairs, pp. 362-374. Singapore:  Heinemann Educational Books.   (xxxyears title?)

Chao Saicheua. 1999 . “Safeguards for the Protection of Liberties and Citizen’s Rights :  The Role of the Constitutional Court  of Thailand.” Paper, Regional Conference on “Protection of Liberties and Citizen’s Rights in Contemporary Legal Systems”, Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand, 8-10 November 1999.   5 pp.  (The author is the first president of the Constitutional Court.)   Published as “The Constitutional Court of the Royal Kingdom of Thailand.” In Perspectives 2/1999: 11-18.

Charas Suwanmala. 1991. “Central control and local productivity:  A case study in Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University.   xxx pp.

Charas Suwanmala. [2000 ]. “An Overview of Decentralization  in Thailand.” MS, 46 pp.

Charit Tingsabadh. 2000. King Chulalongkorn’s Visit to Europe:  Reflections on Significance and Impacts. Bangkok:  Chulalongkorn University.   vii+135 pp.

“This book is the result of the International Conference on ‘King Chulalongkorn  of Siam’s First Royal Visit to Europe in 1897’  held by Chulalongkorn University European Studies Programme (CUESP) on 6-7 November 1997’ (p. 135). See the articles by Rolin Jacquemyns, Nish, Kullada, Chalong, Piyanart, and Chompunut.

Charivat Santaputra. 1985. Thai Foreign Policy , 1931-1946 . [Bangkok]:  Thai Khadi Research Institute, Thammasat University.   iv+465 pp.  (Second English edition Bangkok:  Suksit Siam, 2000; [18]+401 pp.)

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1974. “Buddhism  and Political Integration  in Early Ayudhya , 1350-1488.” Journal of the Faculty of Archaeology (Silpakorn University) 4 (4): xxx-xxx.

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1974. “The First Phibun  Government and Its Involvement  in World War II.”  JSS 62 (2):25-88.

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1976. The Rise of Ayudhya:  A History of Siam in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Kuala Lumpur:  Oxford University Press.   xii+194 pp.   (Org.:  Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1973, 254 pp.)

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1976. “Generations of Elites  in Thai History.” Journal of Social Review (Bangkok) No. 1: xxx-xxx.

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1977. “The Front Palace :  The Office of the Heir Apparent.” In The Emergence of the Modern State:  Thailand and Japan, ed. by Carl A. Trocki , pp. 85-101. Bangkok:  Chulalongkorn University.

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1979. “Thai Historiography  from Ancient Times to the Modern Period.” In Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia, ed. by Anthony J. S. Reed and David G. Marr, pp. 156-170. Singapore: Heinemann Educational Books.

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1992. “Ayudhya :  Capital-Port of Siam and Its Chinese  Connection in the Fourteenth  and Fifteenth Centuries.” JSS 80 (1): 75-xxx.

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1997. “Preliminary Observations on Thai History .” In Comparative Studies on Literature and History of Thailand and Myanmar, pp. 111-119. Bangkok:  Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University; Universities’ Historical Research Centre, Yangon.

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1998. “October 14.”  Translated by Benedict Anderson . Art and Culture Magazine 19 (12): 83-104.   ชาญวิทย์ เกษตรศิริ   เขียน. Benedict Anderson ถอดความเป็นภาษาอังกฤษ. 2541. “14 ตุลา.” ศิลปวัฒนธรรม 19 (12): 83-104. Originally, this text was printed as a brochure:  “October 14:  Thai Student Uprising 1973.” With A Historical Account Written by Charnvit Kasetsiri, Translated by Benedict Anderson. English 33 pp, Thai 26 pp. It accompanied a video cassette, with Thai subtitles, of the same tite, published in 1998 in Bangkok by Thammasat University Archives.  14 ตุลา. วันมหาวิปโยค จงคืนอำนาจแก่ประชาชนชาวไทย ขับไล่คณาธิปไตยตายเพื่อสร้างเสรี 2516. พร้อมบันทึกประวัติศาสตร์โดย ชาญวิทย์ เกษตรศิริ . [กรุงเทพฯ]:  โครงการหอจดหมายเหตุธรรมศาสตร์, 2541. Reprinted in ชาญวิทย์ เกษตรศิริ. 2543 [2000]. บันทึกประวัติศาสตร์ 14 ตุลา 2516. กรุงเทพฯ:  สายธาร. (pp. 181-215)

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1999. “Origins of a Capital and Seaport:  The Early Settlement of Ayutthaya  and Its East Asian Trade.” In From Japan to Arabia:  Ayutthaya’s Maritime Relations with Asia, ed. By Kennon Breazeale, pp. 55-79 Bangkok:  The Foundation for the Promotion of Social Sciences and Humanities Textbooks Project.   

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1999. “From Siam to  Thailand:  What is in a Name? Asian Review 12 (1998): 21-43.

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 2000 . “Siam /Civilization —Thailand/Globalization : Things to Come?” Thammasat Review 5 (1):114-133.

Charoenkiat Thanasukthaworn. 1977 . “Religion and the Thai Political System.” Social Science Review (4):  pp. 100-143.

Chartchai 2. Publication of The Nation, September 1990 . Bangkok:  Nation Publishing Group.   18 pp.

Chartchai Na Chiangmai. 1983 . “Parapolitical behavior  of Northern Thai  villagers . an application of social network concepts .” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.   326 pp.

Chartchai Na Chiangmai. 1996 . “Meeting New Demands:  Empowering Chiangmai  City Government’s Management of Economic Development.” Thai Journal of Development Administration 36 (2): 31-78.

Charupat Ruangsuwan. 1977 . “The Use of Military  Forces for National Development  in Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School.   217 pp.

Chatchai Panananon. 1982. “Siamese Slavery :  The Institution and Its Abolition.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.   (xxxcheck)

Chatri Ritharom. 1976. “The Making of the Thai-U. S. Military Alliance and the SEATO Treaty of 1954 :  A Study in Thai Decision-Making.” Ph. D. dissertation, Graduate Faculty of International Relations, Claremont Graduate School.   313 pp.

Chatthip Nartsupha. 1984. “The Ideology of ‘Holy Men’ Revolts  in North East Thailand .” In History and Peasant Consciousness in South East Asia, ed. by Andrew Turton and Shigeharu Tanabe, pp. 111-134. Osaka:  National Museum of Ethnology.

Chatthip Nartsupha. 1999. The Thai Village Economy in the Past. Translated by Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit. Chiang Mai:  Silkworm Books.   131 pp.

Chattip Nartsupha and Suthy Prasartset, eds. [1978]. The Political Economy  of Siam, 1851 - 1910 . [Bangkok]:  The Social Science Association of Thailand.   402 pp.

Chattip Nartsupha and Suthy Prasartset. [1978]. “Introduction.” In The Political Economy of Siam, 1851-1910, ed. by Chattip Nartsupha and Suthy Prasartset. pp. 1-52. [Bangkok]:  The Social Science Association of Thailand.

Chattip Nartsupha, Suthy Prasartset, and Montri Chenvidyakarn, eds.. [1978]. The Political Economy of Siam 1910-1932 . Bangkok:  The Social Science Association of Thailand. (xxxchecken)

Chaumont, Alexandre, Chevalier de. 1685 . Relations de l’Ambassade de Mr le Chevalier de Chaumont à la Cour du Roi de Siam. Reprint Bangkok:  Chalermnit, 1985.

Chaumont, Chevalier de and Abbé de Choisy . 1998. Aspects of the French Embassy to Siam, 1685 . Edited and in part translated by Michael Smithies . Chiang Mai:  Silkworm Books.

Chauncey, Helen R. 1978 . “The Growth of the United Front .” Southeast Asia Chronicle No. 60: 2-10.

Chay-Nemeth, C. 2001 . “Revisiting Publics : A Critical Archaeology of Publics in the Thai HIV/AIDS Issue .” Journal of Public Relations Research 13 (2):127-162.

Chayachoke Chulasiriwongs. 2001 . “Thailand’s Relations with the New ASEAN  Members: Solving Problems and Creating Images.” In Southeast Asian Affairs 2001, pp. xxx-xxx. Singapore: ISEAS.

Chayan Vaddhanaphuti and Martha Winnacker . 1982 . “Old Class Structures  and New Crops.” Southeast Asian Chronicle 86: 3-9.   (xxxcontent?)

Chayan Vaddhanaphuti. 1980 . “Social Structure and Peasant Political Culture :  A Case Study of a Northern Thai Village.” Paper. Thai-European Seminar on Social Change in Contemporary Thailand, 28-30 May 1980. University of Amsterdam, Anthropological-Sociological Centre, Dept. of South and Southeast Asian Studies.   18 pp.

Che Man, W. K. 1990 . Muslim  Separatism:  The Moros of Southern Philippines and the Malays of Southern Thailand. Singapore:  Oxford University Press.   240 pp.

Che Man, W. K. 1990. “The Thai Government and Islamic Institutions in the Four Southern Muslim  Provinces.” Sojourn 5 (2): 255-282.

Che Man, Wan Kadir. 1995. “National Integration  and Resistance Movement:  The Case of Muslims  in Southern Thailand.” In Regions and National Integration in Thailand 1892-1992 , ed. Volker Grabowsky, pp. 232-250. Wiesbaden:  Harrassowitz Verlag.

Child, Jacob T. 1892 . The Pearl of Asia:  Reminiscenses of the Court of a Supreme Monarch or Five Years in Siam. Chicago:  Donohue and Henneberry.

Chittrapat Krairiksh. 1980. “Between consent and order:  a theory of galactic polity  for Thailand.” (Parts I and II). Ph. D. dissertation, Georgetown University.  v+686 pp.

Cho, Hung-Guk. 1994. Die  politische Geschichte Thailands unter der Herrschaft König Narais (r.1656-1688 ). Seoul:  Munduksa Publishing Co.   (originally presented as a Ph. D. dissertation to the Department of Languages and Cultures of Southeast Asia, University of Hamburg, Germany)   401 pp.

Choi, Alex H. 2002. “Non-Governmental Organisations and Democratisation : The 1992   Bangkok Uprising Revisited.” Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.   (Working Paper Series, No. 25)   46 pp.   http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc.

Choi, Alex Hang-Keung. 2002. “Non-governmental Development Organizations (NGDOs) and Democracy  in  Thailand: The 1992  Bangkok Uprising.” PhD thesis, Queen’s University at Kingston (Canada).   427 pp.

Choisy, Abbé de. 1993. Journal of a Voyage to Siam, 1685-1686 . Translated and Introduced by Michael Smithies . Kuala Lumpur:  Oxford University Press.  305 pp. Choisy, Abbé François-Timoléon de. 1687. Journal du voyage de Siam fait en 1685 et 1686. Paris:  Sebastien Mabre-Cramoisy.  (Reprint edited by M. Dassé, Bangkok:  DK Book House. Also Journal du voyage de Siam fait en 1685 à 1686. Reissued, with an introductory essay by Maurice Garcon. Paris:  Editions du Charter and van Buggenhout, 1928.   296 pp.)  For another edition see F.-T. de Choisy. 1995. Journal du Voyage de Siam. Présenté et annonté par Dirk van der Cruiysse . Paris:  Fayard. (On Choisy see, e.g., Francis H. Giles. 1911. “The Abbé de Choisy.” JSS 8 [3]: 1-xxx.)

Cholatis Ajamanapap. 2000 . Unmasking Anand Panyarachun : Thailand’s Ex-Prime Minister. Bangkok, Thailand: Lak Thai Books.   123 pp.

Chompunut Nakirak. 2000. “General Advisers and Siam’s National Survival .” In  King Chulalongkorn’s Visit  to Europe:  Reflections on Significance and Impacts, ed. by Charit Tingsabadh, pp. 61-75. Bangkok:  Chulalongkorn University.

Chontira Satayawatana. 1977 . “A note from Jungle to the City.” AMPO Nr. 3: xxx-xxx.

Chontira Satayawatana. 1978 . “Life in  the Thai Liberated Zones.” In Thailand:  Roots of Conflict, ed. by Andrew Turton, Jonathan Fast, and Malcolm Caldwell, pp. 168-176. Nottingham:  Spokesman.

Cholthira Satyawadhana. 1991 . “The Defrocking of Phra Bodhiraksa :  A Case Study on Human Rights  Violations in Thailand.” In Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region, ed. by John Girling, pp. 75-91. Canberra:  Department of International Relations, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.

Cholthira Satyawadhna. 2000 . “Ban Khrua Community :  Ethnohistory, Struggle, Resistance , and Social Movement .” Tai Culture 5 (2)194-206.

Choop Karnjanaprakorn. 1959 . “Municipal Government in Thailand as an Institution and Process of Self-Government.” Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University.   282 pp.

Choowong Chayabutra. 1997. Local Government in Thailand. Bangkok:  Local Affairs Press, Department of Local Administration.   vi+261 pp.  (see also the Thai version ชูวงศ์ ฉายะบุตร.  2539. การปกครองท้องถินไทย.  พิมพ์ครั้งที่สอง. กรุงเทพฯ:  สมาคมนิสิตเก่า รัฐศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.)

This book was not sold but given by the author, a former director general of the LAD and permanent secretary of the Ministry to the Interior, who is no a party-list MP for Thai Rak Thai Party, to foreign visitors. It is not an academic work, but useful to get to know en detail the formal structure of Thai local government from an official point of view.

Chowong Chayabutra. 1965 . “A Comparative Study of Local Government  Institutions in Thailand and England.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Exeter.

Christensen, Scott R. 1990. “Thailand in 1989 :  Consensus at Bay.” Asian Survey 30 (2): 178-186.

Christensen, Scott R. 1991. “Thailand in 1990 :  Political Tangles.” Asian Survey 31 (2): 196-204.

Christensen, Scott. 1991. “Thailand after the Coup .” Journal of Democracy 2 (3): 94-106.

Christensen, Scott R. 1992 . Between the Farmers  and the State :  Towards a Policy Analysis  of the Role of Agribusiness in Agriculture. Bangkok:  TDRI.

Christensen, Scott R. 1992 . “The Public Policy Process  and Political Change  in Thailand. A Summary of Observations.” TDRI Quarterly Review 7 (1): 21-26.

Christensen, Scott R. 1993 . Democracy  Without Equity ? The Institutions and Political Consequences of Bangkok-based Development . Bangkok:  TDRI.   vi+38 pp.   (=Synthesis reports, vol. III)

Christensen, Scott Robert. 1993 . “Coalitions  and Collective Choice :  The Politics of Institutional Change  in Thai Agriculture.” Ph. D. dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison.   xv+518 pp.

Christensen, Scott R. 1994 . “Water Allocation Conflicts in Thailand:  An Analysis of Government  Failure.” In Water Conflicts, Second Edition, pp. 53-85. Bangkok:  Natural Resources and Environment Program, Thailand Development Research Institute and Queen’s University, Canada.

Christensen, Scott R. and Ammar Siamwalla . 1993 . Beyond Patronage :  Tasks for the Thai State . Bangkok:  TDRI.   vii+60 pp.

Christensen, Scott R., Ammar Siamwalla , and Pakorn Vichyanond . 1997 . “Institutional and Political Bases of Growth-Inducing Policies  in Thailand.” In Thailand’s Boom and Bust:  Collected Papers, pp. 21-51. Bangkok:  TDRI.

Christensen, Scott et al. 1993 . The Lessons of East Asia:  Thailand. The Institutional and Political Underpinnings of Growth, Washington D.C.:  The World Bank.

Christian, John L. and Nobutaka Ike. 1942. “Thailand in Japan’s Foreign Relations.” Pacific Affairs 15: 195-221.

Christie, Clive J. 2001. Ideology and Revolution in Southeast Asia 1900-80: Political Ideas of the Anti-Colonial Era. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.   (Thailand is dealt with in passing)

Chrobot, Stefan. 1996 . Gewerkschaften in Thailand. Bangkok:  Friedrich–Ebert–Stiftung.   (=Länderbericht)

Chrobot, Stefan. 1996. Trade Unions in Transition:  Present Situation and Structure of the Thai Labour Movement. Bangkok, Thailand:  Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

Chula Chakrabongse. 1943 . Brought up in England. London: xxx.

Chula Chakrabongse. [1956]. The twain have met; or an eastern prince came West. London:  Foulis.   299 pp.

Chula Chakrabongse, Prince. 1960. Lords of Life:  The Paternal Monarchy  of Bangkok, 1782-1932 . New York:  Taplinger Publishing.   352 pp.   (check:  Lords of Life:  A History of the Kings of Thailand. Third Edition. Bangkok:  DD Books, 1982; same title New York:  Taplinger, 1960; 2^nd revised edition London:  Redman, 1967.)

Chulacheeb Chinawanno. 1984. “Political Science in Thailand:  Major Trend in Research.” In ทิศทางของรัฐศาสตร์ไทย  พรศักดิ์ ผ่องแผ้ว บรรณาธิการ หน้า 217-255. กรุงเทพฯ:  สมาคมนิสิตเก่ารัฐศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.

Chulacheeb Chinwanno. 1984. “Thailand in 1983 :  The Parliamentary System  Survives.” Southeast Asian Affairs 1984, pp. 311-325. Singapore:  ISEAS.   (also Bangkok:  Center for Asian and Pacific Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University, 1984.   40 pp.  Monograph No. 1)

Chulacheeb Chinwanno. 1986. “Thailand in 1985 :  Prem  Continues to Survive.” Southeast Asian Affairs 1986, pp. 315-332. Singapore:  ISEAS.

Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy  Bangkok Thailand. 1977 . Bangkok:  Aroon Karn Phim Limited Partnership.   47 pp.

Chulalongkorn University, Thai Studies Program. 1984 . Thai Politics  and Government . Minority Groups. Bangkok:  Thai Studies Program.   (various pages)

Chulalongkorn University, Department of Local Security and Development in Northeast Thailand . 1968 . Official-Villager  Contacts and Villager Loyalties . Bangkok.   55 pp.

Church, Peter, ed. 1997 . Focus on Southeast Asia. St. Leonards, NSW:  Allen & Unwin.   (Asean Focus Group, Hong Kong, 1995)   (Thailand:  pp. 124-141)

“Civil Service Act of 1954 .” International Translations Directory, 1954, pp. 581-616.

Clad, James. 1989. Behind the Myth:  Business, Money, and Power in Southeast Asia. London:  Grafton Books.   (xxxThailand?)

Coast, John. 1953 . Some Aspects of Siamese Politics . New York:  Institute of Pacific Relations, International Secretariat.   58 pp.

Coedes, Georges. 1912. “The Origins of the Sukhodaya Dynasty .” JSS 14 (1): 1-xxx.

Coedes, Georges. 1921. “Siamese documents of the seventeenth century.” JSS 14 (2): 7-39.

Coedes, Georges. 1925. “Documents sur l’histoire politique et religieuse du Laos occidental.” Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient 25 (1): 1-200.

Coedes, Georges. 1966. The Making of South East Asia. Translated from the French by H. M. Wright. Xxx:  University of California Press.   xvi+268 pp.

Coedes, Georges. 1968. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu:  xxx.  

Cohen, Erik. 1991. “Thai Collective Identity :  Unitary Through Ambiguity.” In Thai Society in Comparative Perspective:  Collected Essays, by Erik Cohen, pp. 11-35. Bangkok and Cheney:  White Lotus.

Cohen, Erik. 1991. “Sociocultural Change  in Thailand:  A Reconceptualization.” In Thai Society in Comparative Perspective:  Collected Essays, by Erik Cohen, pp. 36-46. Bangkok and Cheney:  White Lotus.

Cohen, Erik. 1991. “Siam and the West:  The Problem of Thai ‘Modernization’ .” In Thai Society in Comparative Perspective:  Collected Essays, by Erik Cohen, pp. 47-66. Bangkok and Cheney:  White Lotus.

Cohen, Erik. 1991. “Bangkok  and Isan :  The Dynamics of Emergent Regionalism  in Thailand.” In Thai Society in Comparative Perspective:  Collected Essays, by Erik Cohen, pp. 67-88. Bangkok and Cheney:  White Lotus.

Cohen, Erik. 1991. “Citizenship , Nationality  and Religion in Israel  and Thailand.” In Thai Society in Comparative Perspective:  Collected Essays, by Erik Cohen, pp. 105-127. Bangkok and Cheney:  White Lotus.

Cohen, Erik. 1991. “Thai Democracy  as National Symbol and Political Practice.” In Thai Society in Comparative Perspective:  Collected Essays, by Erik Cohen, pp. 89-104. Bangkok and Cheney:  White Lotus.

Given the topic of this article, its relevance could have been increased, if Thai-language primary and secondary sources had been included into the analysis.

Cohen, Paul. 1981. “The Politics of Economic Development in Northern Thailand, 1967-1979 .” Ph. D. dissertation, University of London.

Cohen, Paul T. 1987 . “From Moral Regeneration  to Confrontation :  Two Paths to Equality  in the Political Rhetoric of a Northern  Thai Peasant  Leader .” Mankind 17 (2):  153 - 167.

Cohen, Paul T. 2000 . “A Buddhist Kingdom  in the Golden Triangle: Buddhist Revivalism and the Charismatric Monk Khruba Bunchum .” Australian Journal of Anthropology 11 (2):141-154.

Cohen, Paul T. and Ross E. Pearson . 1998. “Communal Irrigation , State , and Capital in the Chiang Mai Valley (Northern Thailand): Twentieth-Century Transformations.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 29 (1):86-110.

Colbert, Evelyn. 1977. Southeast Asia in International Politics, 1941-1956. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.   (xxxThailand?)

Collis, Maurice. 1965. Siamese White. London:  Faber and Faber.   (Samuel White , 17^th century )

Colloques (Les) de la Thailande. 1985. La Thailande. Paris:  L’académie diplomatique international.   vii+257 pp. (xxxcheck politics, TH 327.593.044.C714T ml)

Combating Corruption  at the Grassroots: The Thailand Experience 1999-2000. Washington, D.C. and Bangkok: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs .   26 pp. + 85 pp. append  ices

“Community Forestry . Declaration of the Customary Rights  of Local Communities:  Thai Democracy  at the Grassroots.” Bangkok:  Local Development Institute, July 1992 .  29 pp.  ป่าชุมชน . ปฏิญญาว่าด้วยสิทธิชุมชนท้องถิ่น :  รากเหง้าประชาธิปไตยไทย. กรุงเทพฯ:  สถาบันชุมชนท้องถิ่นพัฒนา, กรกฎาคม ๒๕๓๕.

Condominas, Georges. 1978. “A Few Remarks about Thai Political Systems .” In Natural Symbols in South East Asia, ed. by G. B. Milner, pp. xxx-xxx. London:  University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies.

Condominas, Georges. 1990. From Lawa to Mon, from Saa’ to Thai:  Historical and anthropological aspects of Southeast Asian social spaces. Trans. By Stephanie Anderson, Maria Magannon and Gehan Wijeyewardene, ed. By Gehan Wijeyewardene with the assistance of Judith Wilson and Paula Harris. Canberra:  Department of Anthropology, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.   [This Occasional Paper contains, “Notes on Lawa history concerning a place named Lua’ (Lawa) in Karen country”, pp. 5-28, and “Essay on the evolution of Thai political systems ”, pp. 29-91.]   114 pp.   (The latter article appeared first in the journal Ethnos 41: 1-4 and 7-67 in 1976 entitled, “Essai sur l’évolution des systèmes politiques thaïs”; it was partly translated by จิรดิ ดิงศภัทิย์, "บททดลองเสนอว่าด้วยวิวัฒนาการของระบบการเมือง ของชองชาติที่พูดภาษาไท-ได", สงคมศาสตร์และมนุษศาสตร์ II, 2: 26-40, 1981.)

Connor, David William. 1996 . “Personal power , authority , and influence :  Cultural foundations for leadership  and leadership formation in northeast  Thailand and implications for adult leadership training.” Ed. D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University.   423 pp.

Connors, Michael K. 1997. “When the dogs howl:  Thailand and the politics of democratization .” In At the Edge of International Relations:  Postcolonialism, Gender and Dependency. ed. Phillip Darby, pp. 125-147. London and New York:  Pinter.

The author argues against those who see democratization in Third World countries as an outcome of globalization , here conceived as the simple diffusion of Western models. To prove his point, the long and jargonladen introduction is followed first by an overview of Thai political development from 1932 to 1992. Secondly, various social groups’ conceptions of democracy are presented. These groups are big business , crime bosses (chao pho ; their inclusion might be based on a misconception of their status, role, and importance), the middle class,  labor, and NGOs . Finally, pertinent ideas of some intellectuals (Thirayut , Anand , Anek ) are also shortly analyzed.

Connors, Michael K. 1999. “Political Reform and the State in Thailand.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 29 (2): 202-226.

This is a detailed, critical, and useful account of political reform  and the drafting of a new constitution  between 1991  and 1997. However, the author’s intention to argue “for the relevance of a broadly Marxist  approach to social and political change” seem to have been buried under the amount of descriptive and interpretative detail. Something similar must have happened to the concept of the state mentioned in the title. This is regrettable because the restructuring of the Thai state has arguably been the most prominent issue in recent years, covering political reform via the rearrangement of existing and the addition of new state institutions, privatization (not the least as part of the global policy-making process), good governance, decentralization, civil service reform, and the political neutralization of the military. This is followed in significance by the growth of the public; some would prefer to say ‘civil society’, but this goes much beyond the political sphere we are concerned with here. Compared to these areas, the development of political parties seem to be stalled (largely preventing willing members of the public to enter into the political decision-making process), and the expansion of non-state political space reaching beyond but including parts of the Thai territory or population—primarily in the form of building an Asian public—still seems to be in its infancy.

Connors, Michael. 2000 . “Subjecting Citizens :  Democracy, National Ideology  and the Doctrine of Political Development  in Thailand.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne.

This thesis is an exploration of how the idea of democracy is used for hegemonic and governmental purposes in Thailand. Taking as my prime empirical material the propagation of democracy by state agencies, I argue that in the 1960s a significant shift occurred that connected the question of democracy to the ‘doctrine of political development’. I argue that this articulation was characterized by a thematic contradiction between claims of popular sovereignty and state projects aiming to create the citizens worthy of such sovereignty. I also explore how this contradiction manifests itself in the contemporary politics of Thailand. The entire discussion is framed by the suggestion that we might think of democracy in terms of elite projects to subject the citizen to imaginary forms of their own rule, or what I call democrasubjection. [preliminary abstract provided by the author]

               Forthcoming (in revised form) as Democracy and National Identity in Thailand. London: Routledge.

Connors, Michael Kelly. 2001 . “Ideological Aspects of Democratisation  in Thailand: Mainstreaming Localism .” Hong Kong: Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong.   (SEARC Working Paper Series, No. 12)   29 pp.   http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc.

Connors, Michael Kelly. 2001 . “The ‘Forces of the Land Movement ’: The Politics of Civic  Engagement and Reformed Nationalism .” Draft paper presented to the Eighth International Thai Studies Conference, Nakhon Phanom, Thailand, January 9-12, 2001.   22 pp.

Connors, Michael Kelly. 2001 . “Thailand.”  In The Southeast Asia Handbook, ed. by Patrick Heenan and Monique Lamontagne, pp. 41-55. London and Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

Connors, Michael. 2002 . “Framing the ‘People’s Constitution’.” In Reforming Thai Politics, ed. Duncan McCargo, pp. 37-55. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS).

“Constitution of Siam, 1946 .” In Thai Politics:  Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 504-523. Bangkok:  The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.   (signed:  Pridi Phanomyong)   Also see “Thai Constitution of 1946 .” English Translation. In:  Frank C. Darling. 1961. “American Influence on the Evolution of Constitutional Government in Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, The American University, Appendix B, pp. 414 - 435.    รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรสยาม ฉบับ ๙ พฤษภาคม ๒๔๘๙.  In:  ปรีดี พนมยยงค์.  2535. แนวความคิดประชาธิปไตย ของปรีดี พนมยยงค์. กรุงเทพฯ:  มูลนิธีปรีดี พนมยยงค์ โครงการ ๖๐ ปี ประชาธิปไตย, pp. 280-292.

“Constitution  of Siam (Provisional), 1947 .” In Thai Politics:  Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 524-541. Bangkok:  The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.   (signed:  Phibun Phibunsongkhram)

“Constitution  (Interim) of the Kingdom of Thailand, 1959 .” In Politics in Thailand, by David Wilson. Ithaca, New York:  Cornell University Press, 1967 (2^nd ed., first:  1962), pp. 285-289.

“The Constitution  of the Kingdom of Thailand [2511/1968 ].  With an English Translation. By Watana Ratawanich  and Meechai Ruchupan . [Bangkok]:  Office of the Juridical Council, June 1968. รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย  พร้อมด้วย คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษ โดย วัฒนา รัตนวิจิตร  และ มีชัย ฤชูพันธ์.  [กรุงเทพฯ]:  สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา, มิถุนายน ๒๕๑๑.  

“Constitution  of the Kingdom B. E. 2515 [1972 ].  ธรรมนูญการปกครองราชอาณาจักร พุทธศักราช 2515 .” [Bangkok]:  Office of the Juridical Council’s Welfare Fund. กรุงเทพฯ:  สวัสดิการข้าราชการสำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา.   (7)+9 pp.

This 9^th (interim) Constitution of December 15, 1972 was issued by Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn  in his capacity as the Chairman of the National Executive Council , that is the coup group which Thanom used to topple his own government on November 17, 1971 . The official publications appeared in the Government Gazette, Special Issue, Volume 89, Part 192 dated 15 December 2515 (ราชกิจจานุเบกษา ฉบับพิเศษ เล่ม 89 ตอนที่ 192 วันที่ 15 ธันวาคม 2515).

            The text of the constitution is preceded by seven pages of short descriptions of the previous eight constitutions, written by Amorn Chandara-Somboon . The Juridical Council translates its Thai name now as ‘Council of State’.

“Constitution  of the Kingdom of Thailand B. E. 2521 (1978 ). As last amended by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand Amendment, B. E. 2528 (1985 ).” Foreign Law Division, Office of the Juridical Council, 1987. In Pisan Suriyamongkol. 1988. Institutionalization of Democratic Political Processes in Thailand:  A Three-Pronged Democratic Polity. Bangkok:  Arunee Indrasuksri, pp. 99-153.  กวี อิศริวรรณ.  2529. ปริทรรศน์รัฐธรรมนูญ  Thai Constitutional Review. พร้อมด้วย คำแปลรัฐธรรมนูญเป็นภาษาอังกฤษ เรียงตามลำดับมาตรารวม ๒๐๖ มาตรา. กรุงเทพฯ:  สำนักพิมพ์ นิติบรรณการ.    593 pp.  (English-Thai)

“Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 1997. รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาญาจักรไทย 2540.” Bangkok:  International Translations Office .   99 pp.

This translation, that has been prepared by a commercial translation office, is not too reliable. It starts on the cover page where the year of this constitution is given as ‘1998’. What should read ‘Thailand has a democratic system of government with the king as head of state’ has been translated as ‘Thailand has a democratic system of government under the rule of a monarch’ (Art. 2); the Thai word for local government is given as ‘Local Administration’. An very important change of meaning occurs in their translation of section 145 (4) where ‘polling station’ as level for calling new elections in the case of irregularities was translated as ‘election constituency’. Finally, in Article 284, the important word ย่อม has not been translated, and ‘have autonomy to’ is translated as ‘are free to’.

“Constitution  of the Kingdom of Thailand. B.E. 2540 (1997).” [Bangkok]: Office of the Council of State, n.d. 142 pp. This translation was also published in the Council’s journal, Administrative Law Journal, special issue, vol. 16, 1997, pp. 100-211 (the actual date of publication is 1999). The same translation was published by the Office of the Constitutional Court and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation as a Thai/English edition. For online access see, amongst others, the web site of the King Prajadhipok Institute at       http://www.kpi.ac.th.

This translation is certainly better then the above. Still, there are some points of contention. For example, what has been translated as ‘one’ kingdom may probably better be called unified kingdom. In the second article (here called ‘section’) a translation has returned to the final version that was strongly advised against during the preparation stage, i.e. that Thailand ‘adopts [the Thai text simply reads ‘has’] a democratic regime of government…’ This regrettably puts Thailand in one category with military, fascist, and communist regimes that are called ‘regimes’ because they are considered undesirable from a democratic point of view and should therefore be replaced by a ‘democratic system (or form) of government’ which seems to be a more appropriate translation from the Thai original ‘kanpokkhrong [government] rabop [system, form] prachathipattai [democracy]’. Article 283 opens with’, ‘Any locality which meets the conditions of …’ In this case one may find the translation in the above version more corresponding to the Thai-language text, i.e., ‘Any locality which has the characteristics of …’ Again, no difference is made between ต้อง [ให้, มี] and ย่อม [มี]. Both are translated as ‘shall (give, have)’ although many people would think that the second word is (much?) less binding than the first one which is certainly important to know when interpreting the meaning of the articles. Finally, it is difficult to understand why the Council of State does not provide a detailed table of contents listing the chapters, parts, and sections (articles) as this would have greatly facilitated using this translation.

Conway, Susan. 2002.  Silken Threads Lacquer Thrones: Lan Na Court Textiles . Bangkok:   River Books.     281 pp.

Cook, Nerida M. 1993 . “Democratisation  in Thailand.” Asian Studies Review 17 (1): 126-134.   (xxxchecken)

Cook, Nerida M. 1997 . “Democratisation  in Thailand Revisited.” Asian Studies Review 21 (2-3):157-173.

Cooper, Donald F. 1995 . Thailand:  Dictatorship  or Democracy ? Montreux, London, Washington:  Minerva Press.   409 pp.

Copeland, Mathew Phillip. 1993. “Contested Nationalism and the 1932 Overthrow of the Absolute Monarchy in Siam.” Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.   xxx pp.

Cordier, Henri. 1912-1915. Bibliotheca Indosinica. Paris:  Imprimerie Nationale.   4 vols. (Siam:  vol. 1, pp. 714-995)

Corfield, Justin, ed. 1993. Rama III and the Siamese Expedition to Kedah  in 1839 , The Dispatches of Luang Udomsombat . Transl. by Cyril Skinner. Clayton, Victoria, Australia:  Centre For Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University.   (=Monash Papers on Southeast Asia, No. 30)   338 pp.

Cornish, Andrew. 1997. Whose Place is This? Malay Rubber Producers and Thai Government Officials in Yala. Bangkok and Cheney:  White Lotus.   (Studies in Contemporary Thailand No. 5)   132 pp.   (org.:  “Relations  between Malay Rubber Producers and Thai Government Officials  in a Development Project in Southern Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, Australian National University, 1989 .   188 pp.)

Correspondence Concerning the Affairs of Siam. Presented to both  Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, August 1894 . London:  Harison & Sons, 1894.

Costa, LeeRay M. 2001 . “Developing Identities: The Production of Gender, Culture and Modernity  in a Northern Thai Non-governmental Organization.” PhD thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa.   508 pp.

“Council of State  Act, B.E. 2522 (1979 ).”  and “The Council Of State Act (No. 4), B.E. 2542 (1999 ).”  In Laws Relating to the Administrative Court of Thailand. [Bangkok]:  Office of the Council of State, sections three (11 pp.) and four (4 pp.). พระราชบัญญัติคณะกรรมการกฎษฎีกา (ฉบับที่ ๔) พ.ศ.  ราชกิจจานุเบกษา ฉบับกฤษฎีกา เล่ม ๑๑๖ ตอนที่ ๙๔ ก วันที่ ๑๐ ตุลาคม ๒๕๔๒ หน้า ๔๔-๔๘.

Cowan, William L. 1967. “The Role of Prince Chuthamani  in the Modernization  of Siam.” JSS 55 (1): 41-xxx.

Crawfurd, John. 1987. Journal of an Embassy to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China. Introduction by David K. Wyatt . Singapore:  Oxford University Press. (Org.:  1828 ) [Crawfurd, John. 1828. Journal of an Embassy From the Governor-General of India to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China. Exhibiting a View of the Actual State of those Kingdoms. London:  Henry Colburn. (reprinted Kuala Lumpur:  Oxford University Press, 1967; Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints)      (2nd ed. London:  Colburn and Bently 1830; 2 vols.)

Crawfurd, John. 1915. The Crawfurd Papers:  A Collection of Official Records Relating to the Mission of Dr. Crawfurd Sent to Siam by the Government of India in the Year 1821 . Bangkok:  Vajiranana National Library.   285 pp.   (Reprinted 1971, London:  Gregg International)

Crisis in Democracy:  Report of an International Fact-Finding Mission to Thailand on the Events of 17^th-20^th May 1992 in Bangkok. Hong Kong, November 1992 .   (xxxchecken)

Croissant, Aurel. 2000 . “Von der Vetokammer zum deliberativen Organ? Die ersten Senatswahlen in Thailand.” Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 33 (3): 348-370.

In its first part, this article describes the senate before and after the constitution of 1997 came into effect. In its second part, the organization of the first senate elections and its results are dealt with. Croissant’s conclusion is that there remain considerable deficits regarding the institutionalization of “meaningful” (according to Hadenius) elections. This is said to be especially true with respect to the “correct” performance of elections.

            The author’s main source of information for the senate elections are the websites of The Nation and the Bangkok Post. No first-hand experience or research results seem to have gone into writing this piece. Maybe, this is the reason why, in the first sentence of the article, the author informs the reader that senate elections were held on March 4 and April 29. Later, he mentions a third round in passing whilst the fourth and fifth round seem to have escaped his attention. Instead of assuming a political science perspective and trying to understand the Thai electoral structure, Croissant takes sides by merely repeating the Bangkokian elite’s common moralistic condemnation of politicians by saying that, “the established cheating structure of Thai elections” was again effective. Needless to say, he also repeats the usual clichés regarding vote-buying and political parties without noticing the existence and function of provincial phuaks and systems of hua khanaen (political parties are said to command “electoral machines” in rural areas).

            Especially surprising is Croissant’s statement that, “for the first time in Thai electoral history, the legal provisions were in fact applied, results annulled, and candidates brought to court and sentenced because they violated the election law.” What he probably refers to is the suspension of winning candidates by the Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) based on their misinterpretation of section 145 (4) of the constitution. On the page following this quote, the author notes that the ECT suspended the candidates. However, he does not reconcile these rather different views. And he criticizes the “weak constitutional basis” of the ECT’s decision by overlooking that the constitution drafters deliberately lowered the legal requirements so that “convincing evidence” would be constitutionally sufficient for the ECT to act upon. The courts (and their much stricter criteria for passing judgements) were excluded from this process because they had been ineffective in dealing with violations of the election law.

            Croissant then wonders how the ECT was able to distinguish between valid and invalid results in different areas of the same constituency. In fact, the ECT did not have to do this at all simply because its decision-making did not at all concern results in certain areas of a constituency but the candidates’ behaviour. As soon as the ECT thought they had “convincing evidence” of misbehavior (by the candidate or by others in his or her favor, with or without his or her knowledge), the individual candidate’s election result in the entire constituency was nullified. The ECT did this although section 145 (4) of the constitution (on which the ECT based its decisions) actually targeted what happened in the polling stations on election day and by no means the candidates’ campaign actions in a constituency. No analysis of these issues is provided, although Croissant at one point mentions that “considerable (?) pressure” was put on the ECT to first acknowledge the winners and only deal with violators later, after them taking their seats had enabled the Senate to convene.

            The first part on the senate more generally also has its fair share of misunderstandings. It is incorrect to say that the senate was introduced in 1946 because it was abolished soon afterwards, i.e. in 1951. It was only with the constitution of 1968 that the senate was re-established. According to Croissant, the government had no influence on the composition of the senate, and it was only with the amendments of 1992 that the PM got the right to suggest who should be appointed senator. One wonders who actually the author thinks previously selected the senators. It is also not explained how the senate got its image as a government-directed ‘rubber-stamp’ when, following the author, it was a strong “veto” institution. Further, what does it mean to say that the military and the civil bureaucracy deprived the elected representatives of “vital matters of political decision-making” via the senate? And I can not recall that the “re-positioning” of the senate was indeed “one of the central concerns of the constitutional reform of 1997.” The constitution went into effect on October 11, not on October 16, 1997.

            Finally, Croissant says that impeachment procedures cannot be initiated by parliament but by at least 50,000 voters petitioning the senate. This is incorrect since one quarter of the total number of MPs can initiate an impeachment procedure as well. Moreover, whether or not a procedure is started does not so much depend of the senate’s “political will” but, first, on the cases for which the constitution stipulates the possibility of an impeachment and, second, on the investigation of the National Counter Corruption Commission to which the senate has to transfer any request for initiating an impeachment process (see Section 303 of the Constitution).

Croissant, Aurel. 2002. “Electoral Politics in Southeast and East Asia: A Comparative Perspective.” In Electoral Politics in Southeast and East Asia, eds. Aurel Croissant, Gabriele Bruns, and Marei John, pp. 321-368. Singapore: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Office for Regional Co-operation in Southeast Asia.

Croissant, Aurel.  Forthcoming. Demokratische Entwicklung in Asien: Eine vergleichende Analyse defekter Demokratien in den Philippinen, Südkorea und Thailand. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Croissant, Aurel and Jörn Dosch. 2001. “Old Wine in New Bottlenecks? Elections in Thailand under the 1997 Constitution.” Leeds: Department of East Asian Studies, University of Leeds.    (Leeds East Asia Papers No. 63)   28 pp.

This publication is obviously based on the first author’s German-language paper described above. The mistakes are repeated; some new ones concerning the House elections have been added.

Croissant, Aurel and Wolfgang Merkel . 1999 . “Die Demokratisierung in Ost- und Südostasien.” In Merkel, Wolfgang. Systemtransformation:  Eine Einführung in die Theorie und Empirie der Transformationsforschung, pp. 305-372. Opladen:  Leske + Budrich.

Crone, Donald K. 1987 /88. “State , Social Elites , and Government Capacity  in Southeast Asia .” World Politics 40:  252-268.

Crone, Donald K. 1991 . “Military  Regimes and Social Justice in Indonesia  and Thailand.” In Civil Military Interaction in Asia and Africa, ed. by Charles H. Kennedy and David J. Louscher, pp. 96-113. Leiden u. a. O.:  E. J. Brill.

Crone, Donald K. 1993. “States, Elites, and Social Welfare in Southeast Asia.” World Development 21 (1): 55–66.

Crone, Donald K. 1994. “The Military and Development in Thailand and Indonesia:  Patrimonialism Versus the Market.” In Seeking Security and Development, ed. by Norman A. Graham, pp. 193-207. Boulder:  Westview.   (xxxcheck)

Crosby, Sir Josiah. 1943 . “The Failure of Constitutional Government  in Siam.” Asiatic Review 39 (October): 415-420.

Crosby, Sir Josiah. 1943 . “Siamese Imperialism  and the Pan-Thai Movement .” Fortnightly CLIX (New Series CLIII) (May): 300-307.

Crosby, Sir Josiah. 1944 . “Observations on Post-War Settlement  in Southeast Asia .” International Affairs 20: 357-368.

Crosby, Sir Josiah. 1945 . Siam:  The Crossroads. London:  Hollis and Carter.  174 pp.

Crouch, Harold. 1985 . Economic Change , Social Structure  and the Political System  in Southeast Asia . Singapore:  ISEAS.

Crouch, Harold. 1985 . “The Military  and Politics in South-East Asia.” In Military-civilian Relations in South-East Asia, ed. by Zakaria Haji Ahmad and Harold Crouch, pp. 287-317. Singapore:  Oxford University Press.

Crouch, Harold. 1997 . “Civil-Military Relations  in Southeast Asia.” In Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies:  Themes and Perspectives, ed. by Larry Diamond et al., pp. 207-235. Baltimore and London:  The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cruikshank, R. B. 1975. “Slavery  in Nineteenth Century  Siam.” JSS 63 (2): 315-xxx.

Cushman, Jennifer Wayne. 1976. “Fields from the Sea:  Chinese Junk Trade with Siam during the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries.” Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.

Cushman, Jennifer W. 1981. “Siamese State Trade and the Chinese Go-between, 1767-1855 .” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 12 (1): 46-61.

Cushman, Richard D., translator. 2000. The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya . Ed.  by David K. Wyatt . Bangkok:  The Siam Society.   xx+556 pp.