Southeast Asia is not a static place before the European impact.

There is a central
kingdom which governs its territories. These kingdoms and sultanates are almost identical to their
western counterparts. Though some parts of Southeast Asia have no central government, (e.g. prehistoric Philippines). On the otherside of Southeast Asia, in the mainland mainly evolved on these
kingdoms.
The organization of the Vietnamese kingdoms is almost similar to the one used in
China. This is due to the overlay Chinese of government to China. Anyone who passes a certain
examination can enter the government. This differs strikingly from the one used by the Buddhist
States (Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos) which is more of a inheritance of the throne or
position. Being a son of an official, it is essential fact to have a secure place or seat in the
government. This kind of ruling system ought to rule in detail up to the level of village. On the
other hand. The Buddhist states is organized very differently from the one from Vietnam. The
pattern of official relationships is very complex and different. There is no pattern or clearly
defined lines of authority. This is due to the view of Buddhism that is fair and square. No one is
on the top level or at the bottom. Nevertheless, Southeast Asian monarchy became an
indispensable tool to fight the colonization of Thailand by the foreign invaders.
The peasant farmers and cultivators were the most important Southeast Asian group
outside the upper caste. They plant rice and other plants to self-substinence. Other important are
the artisans and merchants. Fishermen lives on the shores of the rivers, lakes and seas. For the
peasants, the world continues. It is dominated by the cycle of crop planting and harvesting, the
seasons and the events of birth and death.
Courts and kings symbolizes power and weatth while peasants symbolize nothing. This
this the common thing we think about them. The one who is at the bottom is always the
insignificant. Wherein the apparent truth is that these people is the true power of any kind of
government or a kingdom. The bottom dwellers of this pyramidal society is the most ignored. On
the other hand, the kings are seen as mediator between the physical and the spiritual world. With
the influence of China, these cult-like kingdoms emerged in the region.
The colonial caste system was, as we have seen, predominantly classificationa based. It
denied access to economic and political power and the ensuing social prestige to those who did
not belong, by birth, to the upper caste. There was a basic contradiction between this principle as
applied in the colony and the democratic principle as adhered to by the colonizing powers at

home, according to which achievement was the only criterion for ones position within the status
system.
The people in rural Southeast Asia and the city dwellers live in sharple developed
worlds.Those in rural Southeast Asia live in primitive lifestyle. They see no immediate hope of
change. City dwellers on the other hand live in a world of change and a promise of bright
future.This situation is similar to the division of kings and peasants.
I strongly agree with Milton Osborne's description of the pre-European Southeast Asia.
Courts and kings were the symbols of power while peasants were the lowly creatures of such
kingdoms. It is inevitable that these are the inculturation to us by the colonizers like China and
India. From the hierarchy system up to the caste.
We cannot disagree to the fact that up to this day many parts of Southeast Asia still have
this kind of social division. While most of the countries do not have kings but still have the
peasants. The common kings today are the capitalists with substantial amount of money that
invest on the countries. The workers are the peasants wherein they are the ones who work hard
to get a salary. Nonetheless, this fact is not hidden to us but we ignore it. It may not be the same
as the courts and kings of the Pre-European Southeast Asia but this is its modern counterpart.
The courts and kings were divided from the farmers, merchants and fisherfolks over
whom they ruled. But the emphasis should be is that we live in a single world. There might be a
social barrier but not the world itself. These peasants are a help to the closed economy of these
early states wherein they produce for self-suststainability. To a great extent, the history of the
region brought the assumption of a single, settled world.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Cady, J.F., (1964)

Southeast Asia: Its Historical Development.
United States of America: Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.

Church. P., (2006)

A Short History of Southeast Asia .
Singapore: John Wiley & Sons
Karnow, S. (1968).
Life World Library Southe-East Asia. The Netherlands:
Time Life International.
Marr, D. G., et al. (1986)
Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries. Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Research School of Pacific Studies.
Osborne, M., (1989).
Southeast Asia: An Illustrated Introductory History.
Canberra, Australia: Allen and Unwin
Williams, L.E., (1976)
Southeast Asia: A History. New York:
Oxford University Press

R i v e r a , L l o y d C h r i s t i a n e P.
IHST