On an unfriend border it was the duty of local official to monitor the enemy's movements by undertaking spying missions into the opponent's territory. At the same time they had to guard the boundary against the enemy's spies. Perhaps the British accusation that the Siamese guards had gone on to their territory was not entirely groundless. Yet the marking of their surveillance point or the religious shrine marking the extent of their responsibility were not boundary mark. On a friendly border, however, as in the early years of reign, the pratice was opposite: "Nowadays, Thai and British are friends. [We] do not have to look after our khetdan as previously when facing the Burmese." For friendly countries, therefor, a prohibition on trespassing as the British prescribed was not welcome. It was probably seen as an unfriendly act since it was traditionally a step short of seizing the enemy. This is why the court was annoyed by the British ban. The prohibition also caused confusion among the local people, who were used to traveling across the boundary without permission in the case of friendly border. Local people were accustomed to visiting their relatives on both sides of the border; some even migrated from one side to the other from time to time. This has been true for all borders from the Pakchan River to northernmost Lanna.