Various geocode systems for Thailands subdivisions

For all my purposes I am using the geocode system from the Ministry of Interior, with the two digit numbers for the provinces, four digits for district, six for the subdistricts. It's simply the easiest and most common system, and unlike all the others it goes down till the village level and apparently even includes the municipalities. And also parts of the codes are covered by the national standard TIS 1099-2548. But there are other geocode systems for the country subdivisions, which are not just limited to Thailand.

The most well-known geocoding system for country subdivisions is of course the ISO standard 3166-2, which in fact is identical with the province codes of TIS 1099, only the 3166-1 country code TH is added to disambiguate it with the codes from other countries. The only specialty is the code of Pattaya in that standard, TH-S, as Pattaya forms a special administrative area, which is a local government structure but outside the municipal (thesaban) system.

The US Federal government uses its own standard FIPS 10-4, which confusingly has the same structure as the ISO codes, but the numbers for each province is totally different. Another problem with it - after 4 new provinces were created in the early 1990s, not only new codes were added, but also the codes for the provinces altered were changed. The FIPS codes were also used in a first draft for the ISO standard (ISO/DIS 3166-2:TH), but probably after intervention from the Thai government the TIS system was finally used. Both ISO and FIPS only cover the first level of country subdivisions.

Gwillim Law both in his book as well as on his website statoids.com proposes his own geocode system named HASC (Hierarchical Administrative Subdivision Codes), addressing several problems other geocode systems have. For Thailand he has added codes till the district level, though it won't be difficult (just a lot of work due to the sheer number) to add the subdistricts or even the villages as well. Just too bad that the most serious flow he sees in the ISO and FIPS system, the time lag from changes in the entities till they get an official code, also applies to his HASC codes - not because of the bureaucratic work to be done but simply because he seems to be too busy. Wiang Kao still has no HASC code, even though I had notified him of this new district quite some time ago already.

The United Nations develop their own system of geocodes, going down till the second administrative level. Named Second Administrative Level Boundaries (SALB), it also includes maps of the boundaries, though only for few countries so far. Sadly they claim copyright on both the maps and the codes, and access to their website is only possible after registration. And of course any commercial use must be licensed, so I doubt the SALB codes will get much popularity. For Thailand, it has codes for the years 1990-2003, but no maps yet. Due to the five year time lag, it also does not contain Wiang Kao. But what is useful is the fact, that they also list the changes, i.e. the new provinces of the 1990s. But same as FIPS they chose to give different codes to e.g. Udon Thani before and after Nong Bua Lamphu was split off. Also, the list of historic changes of the 2nd level entities is "under process" - they'll have to list the 142 new districts created since 1990 there.

To also list a probably obsolete set of codes, in the national census 1990 the National Statictical Office had used codes which look similar with the TIS 1099, but in fact all the numbers, both for provinces as well as for the subdistricts, are different. There'll be a blog posting dedicated to this coding system in the future.

Missing TAO announcements

Another part of the missing Royal Gazette announcement series, this time for the TAO. While working through the 6781 TAO creations since 1995 and cross-checking them with the list of TAO and municipalities (thesaban), there are a few cases where I could not find the complete history with my sources so far, so either it wasn't announced in the Royal Gazette at all, or the announcement is for whatever reason not be found.

• The first one I already mentioned when I compiled the complete list of local government units of Surat Thani - the creation of TAO Bang Kung (องค์การบริหารส่วนตำบลบางกุ้ง) was announced in 1995, however that area was also added into the town Surat Thani in 1994. Either the abolishment of that TAO is missing, or it was a mistake to list it in the creation announcement.
• TAO Wiang (องค์การบริหารส่วนตำบลเวียง) in Phrao district, Chiang Mai, was created in 1997, and apparently it was included into the subdistrict municipality Wiang Phrao (เทศบาลตำบลเวียงพร้าว). But all I could find about that was this listing, which suggest that the merge was done in 2000 - which I could not find in the Royal Gazette yet. However the addition of TAO Thung Luang into the same municipality in 2004 was announced in the Gazette.
• The rename of TAO and subdistrict Plueai (เปลือย) to Hua Chang (หัวช้าง), Suwannaphum district, Roi Et, maybe in 1999.
• In Nong Song Hong district, Khon Kaen province, two TAO had a different spelling in the announcement on their creation than they have today. For Khuemchat, the (silent) final i is left out, thus คึมชาดิ changes to คึมชาด; for Wang Hin (วังหิน) it is spelled Wan Hin (วันหิน).
• In Kalasin, the TAO Non Sila Loeng (โนนศิลาเลิง) was announced with the name Non Sila (โนนศิลา), however I cannot find anything about a rename.
• TAO Nong Yai (หนองใหญ่), Chonburi province, was apparently merged into the municipality Nong Yai, but no announcement on this.
• The TAO Samrong Phlan (สำโรงพลัน), Sisaket province, was announced by the name Samrong Phlap (สำโรงพลับ), and no notice on a rename of the TAO. Another TAO of Sisaket, Pa Ao, changed spelling slightly, a silent R has been left out, so ประอาว became ปะอาว.
• In Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya, the TAO Bo Ta Lo (บ่อตาโล่) is spelled Bo Ta So (บ่อตาโส). This is most likely a misspelling, the tone mark changed the letter L into a S.

City status for Samui - more confusion

The municipal status of Ko Samui seems to become a quite odd story. In March the provincial governor tried to block the upgrade, but just few days after that was reported it was decided by the Ministry of Interior to upgrade it to city status, effective April 19. However I haven't found any other reports on this thereafter. Samui Express changed their website in April and May making some editions never appear online, so I thought I just missed the important article. Now, to my surprise, on the Thai Wikipedia the article on the municipality was just recently moved to เทศบาลเมืองเกาะสมุย - Thesaban Mueang (town) instead of Thesaban Nakhon (city), one status lower than originally decided. So I asked the one who moved the article - a wikipedian who works a lot on the districts and other administrative entities in the Thai Wikipedia - and he pointed me to a news article of the regional office 5 of the Public Relations Department "ยกฐานะเทศบาลตำบลเกาะสมุยเป็นเทศบาลเมือง", which states that the upgrade was effective June 9. Also the website of the municipality now calls itself Thesaban Mueang.

Neither that user nor me yet know when and why the original decision was revoked and changed; the website with the meeting transcripts right now ends with the meeting on May 8, so maybe after the next update of that site we can see in more detail what happened.

Cancelled municipality upgrade?

While working through the board meeting transcripts of 2007, in the one of meeting 36/2007 there seems to be talking about upgrading TAO Bang Phriang (องค์การบริหารส่วนตำบลบางเพรียง) to a subdistrict municipality. However unlike all the other similar sections in these transcripts, this one does not include the date it will be effective in the concise first paragraph, and even though that meeting was almost one year ago Google does not find anything about the municipality except the transcript and the Excel sheet with all the topics of 2007. Also the website of the TAO does not say anything about municipal status either.

As my Thai is still way to bad, and reading it with the great thai2english is also quite hard, I don't know what is being talked about in the text, only the last sentence gives an idea - if I understand it correctly.

เรื่อง จัดตั้งองค์การบริหารส่วนตำบลบางเพรียง อำเภอบางบ่อ จังหวัดสมุทรปราการ เป็นเทศบาลตำบลบางเพรียง จากการพิจารณาของคณะกรรมการพิจารณาร่างกฎหมายของกระทรวงมหาดไทยได้

to my understanding means on the upgrade of TAO Bang Phriang, Bang Bo district, Samut Prakan province to become a subdistrict municipality, to abandon the consideration by the committee to draft bills of the Ministry of Interior. The reasons for this must be within the two pages of text on this topic I cannot read.

Regions of Thailand in the 1950s

As mentioned before, the four regions which existed in the 1940s were changed into 9 regions in 1951. What makes this interesting comes clear when one compares the regions with geocodes of the provinces today - the first digit of these is exactly the region number the provinces belonged to.

Well, not completely, there are three deviations. At first, Samut Prakan and Uttaradit changed the region in 1955, however for the geocode only half of this change was used. Samut Prakan has geocode 11, and was reassigned from region 2 to 1 in 1955. Uttaradit however has geocode 53, but was reassigned from region 5 to 6 in 1955. The third one is Nong Bua Lam Phu, which was created in 1993 and received the geocode 39. However the parent district Khon Kaen belonged to region 4. The reason why it got a different number is quite simply the fact that all number from 40 to 49 were already used; also 38 is still left free which also shows that the 39 actually belonged into the forties. Maybe they should have used hexadecimal geocodes, as soon as they create more than one new province in the northeast the numbers will run out. Also the central region 1 is full already with geocodes. I don't want to list all the provinces with their regions here, so if the maps aren't enough simply look at the ISO 3166-2 standard defining the geocodes.

Thongchai Winichakul on the Preah Vihear issue

Thongchai Winichakul, historian professor at the University of Wisconsin and most well-known for his book "Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo Body of a Nation", wrote a comment on the Preah Vihear issue in English language newpaper The Nation. Since I blogged about that issue some month ago, it has apparently become the main political topic in Thailand, especially now the UNESCO World heritage committee started its annual session with that temple on their agenda. While the foreign ministry tries to keep tensions down by a joint statement on the nomination with the Cambodia government, especially the Democratic Party as well as the PAD protesters on the streets try to use the nationalistic feeling for their fight with the government. And all this despite the fact that the issue was already finally settled at the International Court of Justice in 1962, which confirmed the boundary as marked by the French in 1907. Below are the in my opinion main statements in Prof. Thongchai's comments, though I recommend to read it completely:

Using the temple to fan nationalism can lead to much bigger tragedy. The nature of modern boundaries between Thailand and its neighbours is like a time bomb. [...] With little exception, claims to exclusive "ownership" rights of borderlands longer than the past 100 to 130 years are probably false and historically impossible to support. [...] We should respect the settlement provided by the court since Thailand has no better justifiable claim than Cambodia. Despite that, the talks about "losing territory" have been common among thoughtless nationalists in the region. [...] Thais have been taught their territories were lost as well. Every country lost territories. The idea of loss is a powerful tool used to whip up nationalism, especially in domestic politics. The dark side of nationalism is dangerous as ever. It has now become a weapon in today's Thai politics.

To get a deeper understanding into the complexity of the boundaries, Prof. Thongchai aove mentioned book is a great resource. It is important to know that before the spread of European colonialism to the area there was nothing like a demarcation line as we know the boundaries today. Instead the semi-independent city states (Mueang) at the boundary area often swore allegiance to both more powerful kings, making the countries in fact a blurred with each other in their boundary areas. This has become known under the term "Mandala" since O.W. Wolters coined the term in 1982.

Vision statement of the Department of Provincial Administration

The Department of provincial administration (DOPA, กรมการปกครอง) displays a nicely designed advert banner on their website. It shows Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, the first interior minister 1892-1915 and father of the administrative subdivisions still in use today. I am not sure which building is to the left, but I suspect it's a statue in front of the Ministry of the Interior, as the same one shows on the MOI website as well. During my last vacations I did not make it to Rattanakosin island, so I could not take photos of the MOI building like I originally planned. The text defines the vision of the department:

วิสัยทัศน์กรมการปกครอง	Vision of the department of provincial administration
เป็นองค์กรสมรรถนะสูง	be an office with high abilities
มุ่งมั่นบูรณาการงานในพื้นที่	concentrate on integrating of local works
และเป็นที่พึ่งของประชาชน	and be supported of the citizens
เพื่อสังคมสงบสุข	to be a happy society