Warring Societies of Pre-colonial Southeast Asiagreater their control over the human resources involved in the network
of product supply.
Manpower shortage remained a critical issue during the Second
Reign. Though it was not an unusual feature of the traditional system,
the 1810 royal decree of manpower registration shows that the court was
unhappy with the disarray of information about manpower. The lists of
lek, able-bodied men, were inaccurate. The number of lek had decreased
due to various reasons: death, old age, disability, arbitrary changes to
new platoons, and running away. Besides, some local officials tried to
hide the actual number of lek under their command from Bangkok so
that they could exploit the lek for their own benefit by not reporting
those non-tattooed to Bangkok. According to the 1810 decree, the tat-
tooing units first began their missions around the vicinity of Bangkok,
and then continued to the distant regions where local officials were
obliged to help and cooperate with the tattooing unit. Since palace-
appointed officials accompanied the tattooing mission, it was difficult
for local officials to keep the newly conscripted lek for their own use.
Besides, the tattoo also identified the categories of lek or to where they
belonged. The tattooing decree of 1810 was the first time that Bangkok
had high-ranking officials from the capital lead the tattooing units into
the countryside.^27 It suggests that forced conscription occurred in a
more widespread manner than during the previous period.
Although Siam’s conscription was not carried out in Cambodia, man-
power and forced conscription were also points of antagonism between
Bangkok and Oudong, the seventeenth to mid-nineteenth century
capital of Cambodia. In 1810, Rama II ordered the Cambodian court to
levy troops to help the Siamese campaign against the Burmese, but King
Chan II (also Ang Chan II, r. 1792–1834) intentionally disregarded the
request. The two Khmer okya or oknha “Lords” allied with the Siamese,
Chakroei Baen and Kalahom Muang, arbitrarily raised the troops them-
selves without Chan’s authorisation. Such non-compliance amounted to
an act of rebellion against the royal power. As a result, Chan had Baen
and Muang executed. Chan reported the matter to Bangkok with the
excuse that the two okya intended to revolt against him.^28
- Damrongrachanuphap, PKRR II: 43–46.
- Chotmaihet ratchakan thi song cho.so.1173 [Records in the Second Reign, Lesser
Era 1173 (AD 1811)] (Bangkok, Published on the occasion of the 203rd birthday