In the early 1830s a rebellion broke out in the Mekong Delta. The Siamese sent troops to support it, and then in 1834 the Vietnamese (i.e., the Nguyễn Dynasty), pushed the Siamese back. Afterwards, they tried to control the area of Cambodia, and did so until a major rebellion broke out at the end of 1840.
This period from 1834 to 1840 is referred to as “the Vietnamese annexation of Cambodia.” One of the first people to write in English about this period was historian David Chandler in his 1973 PhD dissertation, “Cambodia Before the French: Politics in a Tributary Kingdom, 1794-1848.”
In writing about that period, Chandler relied heavily on a Vietnamese source, the Đại Nam thực lục (Veritable Records of Đại Nam); a collection of Nguyễn Dynasty documents. Chandler praised this work in his dissertation, saying that “For several stretches in the early nineteenth century” this was “the most detailed and accurate source” for what transpired in Cambodia (13).
There was a problem though. Chandler could not read classical Chinese, the language this text is recorded in. Nor could he read modern Vietnamese, a language that this text had been translated into. Instead, his access to this text was made possible by the assistance of a certain “Miss Nguyen thi Thanh of Cornell University” whom he thanked in a footnote for “locating and translating references to Cambodian affairs from this valuable work” (23).
Having someone translate a source that one cannot read is potentially dangerous for an historian, and Chandler appears to have been aware of that danger as he wrote in his dissertation that “Working with a translator, I have had only limited access to this text” (13).
Nonetheless, passages from the translations that this translator produced and some of the ideas that Chandler clearly developed through working with this translator all made their way into his survey of Cambodian history, A History of Cambodia, now in its fourth edition, a work that has been the standard history of Cambodia in English for decades.
I will address the problem of translations in other posts, but let’s look here at a comment that Chandler makes in A History of Cambodia about Vietnamese actions in 1840. To quote, Chandler writes that,
“In June 1840 Minh Mạng [the Nguyễn Dynasty emperor] had instituted a Vietnamese taxation system in Cambodia. This made new demands on the okya [i.e., Cambodian officials] by taxing additional products, such as fruit and vegetables, and by calling for a new census, cadastral surveys, and reports on water resources” (130 in 1st edition, 1983; 158 in 4th edition, 2008).
Chandler does not cite where he gets this information from, but the Đại Nam thực lục contains a document on taxes in Cambodia that was issued in the sixth lunar month of 1840 (what Chandler refers to as “June”) that mentions taxes on vegetables and fruit, etc. However, the content of that document is very different from what Chandler described.
In 1840, Emperor Minh Mạng turned fifty, and in the first lunar month of that year he announced that he wished to celebrate that event by reducing taxes for his subjects. Cambodia, however, had yet to be incorporated into the Vietnamese tax system (210/1b-2b).
As he explained six months later in the summer of 1840, “this jurisdiction’s [meaning Cambodia’s] taxes are not sufficient to bother about, and therefore up until now no effort has been made [by us] to regulate them” (214/1b). Nonetheless, Minh Mạng wanted those taxes to be reduced so that his Cambodian subjects could likewise enjoy the birthday benevolence that he was extending to all of his subjects, and in the sixth lunar month of summer he gave detailed instructions concerning this.
In order to reduce taxes in Cambodia, Minh Mạng needed to first know what taxes were being levied. His top official in the region, Trương Minh Giảng, provided the emperor with a list of the taxes that Cambodian officials collected, and Minh Mạng replied in astonishment that “Not only are many water-related taxes collected on the likes of rivers, canals, islets and sandbanks, but taxes are even leavied on the vegetables and fruit that commoners grow. This is because the local rulers tax at will and never tire of robbing, leading to the point where local people have nothing left to offer and even lose their homes” (214/1b).
In other words, Chandler’s claim that the Vietnamese “made new demands. . . by taxing additional products, such as fruit and vegetables” is a complete distortion of what is recorded in the Đại Nam thực lục. In fact, what Chandler wrote in A History of Cambodia is the opposite of what is recorded in that text (and one can only assume that something must have gotten very lost in translation between Chandler and his translator here).
That text records Minh Mạng’s outrage at learning that Cambodian officials levied taxes on products as minor as fruit and vegetables that commoners grew, NOT that the Vietnamese tried to levy taxes on those products.
Getting information like this wrong is not a casual matter. The history of Cambodian-Vietnamese relations has been an incredibly sensitive issue for decades. In such a context, it is imperative that historians present information from the historical record accurately.
This Post Has 4 Comments
It seems to me that Chandler was referring to the paragraph immediately following the one that you quoted above. Here it is:
“Xét ra, tính toán công việc, vốn là chuyên trách của bọn Tướng quân, Tham tán. Nhưng mới bắt đầu xếp đặt công việc có phần bận nhiều, tất phải có đại thần Kinh phái hội lại cùng làm, mới có thể chóng xong được. Vậy phái ra Tham tri bộ Binh là Lê Văn Đức quyền tạm trao hàm Thượng thư sung làm Khâm sai đại thần ; thự Tham tri bộ Hộ là Doãn Uẩn làm phó. Mang cờ bài vương mệnh và đem theo khoa đạo cùng nhân viên ở ty trong 6 bộ là 10 người đi đến Trấn Tây, hội đồng với bọn Tướng quân, Tham tán, Hiệp tán. Chiểu số các bãi, bến, sông, ngòi, đầm, ao, chỗ nào có người, buôn bán, đi lại, đổi chác, liệu đặt cửa quan, bến tuần, định rõ ngạch thuế. Còn điền thổ sản vật, phàm thứ gì thuộc về sức dân làm ra thì ngạch thuế đánh nhẹ, để tỏ rõ chính sách của triều đình khoan rộng. Những điền thổ đã thành bờ ngăn, đều đem trượng đo, cho thành mẫu sào. Sản vật hoa lợi sản xuất ra, xét quả là nghề nghiệp vẫn làm thì cho cứ nộp thuế bằng sản vật ấy, cho dân được tiện. Đến như công việc gì ở hạt ấy nên làm, cứ từng việc một phải hết lòng trù tính mà làm cốt được chu tất thoả đáng. Những việc thường cho một mặt cứ làm, một mặt tâu lên, đợi Chỉ tuân hành. Còn như lệ thuế tạp ngạch lặt vặt theo thổ tục từ trước, đều cấm cả, để cho bọn thổ dân, đều được vui việc cày ruộng trồng dâu, sớm yên sinh nghiệp. Còn như số dân nhiều, ít, cứ phải theo thực số biên tên báo lên, không được giấu bớt đi : tiền thuế thân, tiền đầu quan, tạm hãy khoan miễn, đợi sau này dân nhiều của giàu sẽ bàn.”
I understand this to mean that before this time the local officials imposed unreasonable and unregulated taxes and fees on the Cambodians which made Minh Mạng angry once he found out, as you quoted above. But then he sent his own officials to set up a more clearly defined system of taxes and fees on waterways as well as local produce and/or products. Only the “miscellaneous” taxes according to the local customs were now banned. Furthermore, each person is to be registered to be taxed at a later time.
So yes, Minh Mang was upset with some unreasonable local customs, and he wanted to show that he was a benevolent ruler. But then he would send his own officials to institute a new tax system that would be more clearly defined (and thus easier for the court to monitor?).
It is interesting to note that after this event (Minh Mạng sending officials to set up the new system), here is what happened to his representative Trương Minh Giảng in Cambodia:
“Tướng quân Trương Minh Giảng, Hiệp tán Cao Hữu Dực thành Trấn Tây, dâng sớ tự bày lỗi của mình, nói : Giảng khi mới đến Trấn Tây chót có nhận lấy tiền chè là về việc thuỷ lợi của tỉnh An Giang, tuỳ việc chi tiêu việc công. Dực khi ở Hà Tĩnh cũng có lấy riêng tiền chè lá về cửa quan, bến tuần để chi dùng.
Vua dụ rằng : thuế cửa quan, bến tuần, từ trước đã định có thành ngạch, há có lẽ lại thu thừa ra ngoài ngạch. Trương Minh Giảng là đại thần của nước, mình coi giữ trọng trấn, nếu có chi tiêu việc công, ngại gì việc tâu xin lấy của công mà chi, sao lại bị người xui giục làm thói bậy ấy. Nếu có đem chi việc công, cũng chưa là phải, nữa là trong khi chi phát, chưa chắc đã về việc công cả ư. Nhưng đã biết theo lời dụ bày tỏ, không giấu giếm che chở chút nào, gia ơn miễn việc xử phân. Còn những món tiền gạo chi tiêu xét ra thuộc về việc tư, thì chiểu số tư đem của nhà đền ra, lưu làm của công hạt ấy. Cao Hữu Dực cũng cho khoan miễn, nhưng chiếu số tiền thu riêng bao nhiêu, cho tiện nộp ở Trấn Tây, chuyển báo cho Hà Tĩnh chi tiền kho ra đủ số ấy để làm chi tiêu việc công.”
We really don’t know how much “tiền chè lá” (tea and cigarette money!) local officials like Trương Minh Giảng charged the Cambodians, but maybe it was not as much as what Minh Mạng imposed later, and this new tax system thus contributed to the rebellion?
But you are absolutely correct that MM did not impose new taxes on the local products. It was the opposite.
Yes, I’m going to write about this. Keep reading further! There’s more about taxes in Cambodia a little later in the year.
It’s an interesting critique of Chandler’s work. I think it reveals a lot about the perils in relying on translations and secondary sources rather than understanding the finer points of a language.
I’m now in the 2021. Chandler didn’t mention from which came Miss Nguyen Thi Thanh’s English version: Đại Nam Thực Lục in classical Chinese or Đại Nam Thực Lục in current Vietnamese vernacular? I hope from the later one. No wonder the sixth month of the Lunar Year automatically became the month of June.