THE HISTORY OF CONTRADICTORY IMPERATIVES
7. Peace Process
2.3.5 MELAYU IN DEEP SOUTH, THAILAND: A STRUGGLE OF NATION AND ITS IDENTITY TO SIAM-THAI STATE
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.3.5 MELAYU IN DEEP SOUTH, THAILAND: A STRUGGLE OF NATION AND ITS IDENTITY TO SIAM-THAI STATE
Figure 5: Thai militants patrolled Masjid Kerisek, Pattani province, after Muslim Melayu Patani insurgents took shelter inside the building during a skirmish in 2004. Thirty-two Muslims were killed while Thai government has been heavily criticized of overreacting as the dissidents only possessed knives and daggers. The stand-off at a masjid, a house of prayer, also created discontent among Muslims as they felt their identity has been attacked. This incident was one of the crucial turning points that prolonged the insurgency in the South of Thailand until nowadays (AFP PHOTO / PORNCHAI KITTIWONGSAKUL, Art & Culture Magazine, 2004)
The conflicts between Thai officials and Melayu Patani insurgents in the deep South have continued until now. In 1975, six Melayu Patani Muslims were killed by a unit of Thai Marine Corps, leading to mass gathering in Pattani which further resulted in thirteen more deaths during the attempt to disperse the protesters (Bangnara, 2008). In 2004, a major incident broke out with the killing of a Buddhist monk, the first time that a monk has become a victim in the conflict. Further attacks have been carried out at police outposts, and more than 300 militants have taken shelter in Masjid Kerisek. The government decided to send troops and kill the insurgents, which resulted in 112 deaths by both sides. In that same year, a lawyer who
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
represented Muslim suspects in the court also disappeared, giving him the status of a hero similar to Haji Sulong (Sta-anand, 2008).
This study focuses on the struggle of identity among Melayu in deep South Thailand after the annexation of Patani by the Anglo-Siamese Treaty 1909. The treaty was part of the process of modernizing Thai state and nationalist state-building action that arguably has continued until present time.
The Anglo-Siamese Treaty was formulated during the colonization of the French and British Empire in Indo-China and Malays Peninsula. Prior to the ratification of the Treaty, the British and French had agreed to sign the Anglo-French Declaration which designated Siam, during the reign of King Chulalongkorn (Rama V), as a buffer state between the two Empires in Indo-China. The Declaration prohibited British and French from colonizing Siam, but did not include the Melayu states that were ruled by the Rajas as Siamese protectorates. In 1879, Siam has signed a secret Convention with the British Empire that allowed the British to have economic privilege, as well as extraterritorial rights, in the Southern part of Siamese Kingdom (from Pachuap Khiri Khan province to the southern end of Siam Melayu territories). In return, the British Empire would protect the Southern territory from the third power and declared that Siam had sovereignty over a portion of Malays Peninsula, which included the area inhabited by Melayu Patani Muslims (Luekajornchai, 2019).
However, Siam later decided that giving the British extraterritorial rights and economic privilege would prevent the Siamese Kingdom from becoming a full sovereign nation-state. To nullify the Anglo-Siamese Convention, Siam relinquished their claims over the area that was considered as a part of Siam which consisted of Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah, Perlis and surrounding islands to Great Britain, and agreed to receive a loan for the construction of railways in Southern Siam. The sultanate of Patani, which had been previously divided into seven largely autonomous states by Siam, was officially annexed as a part of Siamese Kingdom, along with the city of Satun and Tak Bai. The territories that had been brought under the British influence later became part of the Federation of Malaya or nowadays Malaysia. The area that had been annexed by Siam became a Monthon, or subdivision of Siam, and later transformed into provinces of Thailand.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The Melayu states were divided into two groups, those who were under the sphere of influence of the British and those who were annexed by Siam. Luekajornchai (2019) questioned the motive of this action as the Rajas of the Melayu states strongly opposed the decision. The states that went under Siamese control have openly expressed their anger as Tengku Abdul Kadir Kamaruddin, the last Sultan of Patani, one of group of Melayu states said “The annexation was compared to thorn under the skin that would make the pain to Siam in the future” (Andaya B.
& Andaya L., 1893). The Sultan of Terangganu similarly indicated his rage as his state unwillingly bestowed to Great Britain. Luekajornchai (2019) believed that the separation of Melayu states created long-term tensions between the Melayu and central authority of Thailand.
The Anglo-Siamese Treaty, however, was a crucial element for Siam that led to the formation of the modern Siamese Kingdom, especially the establishment of the modern Siamese border.
The establishment of the modern border was crucial for Siam in becoming a modern state, as the concept of traditional state in Southeast Asia focused on the influence over people, not the territory. The lack of knowledge in cartography and the concept of geographical map in general hindered Siam to form a modern, territorial defined state. Traditionally, the smaller states that were under the influence of a larger, more powerful state did not interact in the form of colonies, but was under a political deal that gave such patronage and assistance to each other (ibid.).
Winichakul (2009), who wrote ‘Siam Mapped : a History of Geo-Body of a Nation’, pointed out that ancient Siamese leaders did not have a perspective of maintaining defined territory in the sense of a modern state and nation-state. In contrast, the maps that they used were Comograph and diagram, both did not accurately reflect the real geography (Winichakul, 2009).
Their political power sphere was compared to candlelight which was strongly illuminated in the center but slightly dimmed farther away (ibid.). Siamese leaders just realized the concept of geographic map when facing the incoming colonial period, particularly through the influence of British and French. On the other hand, some smaller states which received dimmed candlelight from Siam such as Melayu were a buffer state which needed to undergo political bargain with the colonial ruler (Aiemueayut, 2016). In this sense, the defined territory that came as a result of Anglo-Siamese Treaty led to the formation of the modern Siamese Kingdom.
The annexation of Patani Kingdom prompted the end of sovereignty of Patani. Siam then integrated Patani under their political influence and formed new power elites to rule the territory. However, according to many historians such as Eoseewong (2007), the Siam
nation-‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
building process was initially a territorial integration. It was not considered as national integration because the annexation only resulted in the overthrow of Melayu sultans, which did not substantially affect the way of living of ordinary Melayu Patani people. The main reason that Siam could not completely integrate Melayu Patani State during that time was the lack of resources (Eoseewong, 2007).
However, during the reign of King Maha Vajiravudh (Rama VI) of Siam, a successor to throne of King Chulalongkorn (Rama V), Bangnara (2008) & Aphornsuvan (2012) pointed out that the process of constructing a modern nation-state in Siam has intensify. Rama VI promulgated a law that enforced compulsory education in 1921. As result, every Melayu Patani children were forced to study in Thai schools and being taught in Thai central language, which was in opposition to their traditions of studying in Melayu language in Pondok or Muslim’s seminary school. The disappointment and anger toward the perceived threats to their identity was spread as compared to adding fuel to the fire, leading to riots between Melayu Patani rebels and Siam troops in 1922. Melayu Patani rejected paying tax and lending their land to Siamese authority, regarding the law as an attempt to interfere with their religion and culture. As a result, King Maha Vajiravudh (Rama VI) later consented to revise the law (Aiemueayut, 2016;
Aphornsuvan, 2012; Che Man, 1990).
The situation in former Malayu Patani states, however, worsened by the Thai ultra-nationalism policy started in 1939 with the change of the official name of the country from Siam to Thailand.
Thai ultra-nationalism and cultural revolution, for Melayu Patani oppositions, could be compared to adding fuel to the fire again. The policy was implemented by Field Marshal Plaek Phibunsongkhram, a Thai nationalist and Prime Minister of Siam-Thailand and one of the leaders of People’s Party in 1932 Siamese Revolution which prompted the end of absolute monarchy and the establishment of constitutional monarchy.
The birth and the forging of ‘Thainess’ to replace ‘Siamese’ was the attempt to westernize and civilize the country to be on a par with other modern states and to prevent colonization during the time of World War II. This revolutionary model, based on Japanese Meiji revolution which included cultural reforms, has impacted extremely to Melayu Patani in the deep South (Aiemueayut, 2016; Aphornsuvan, 2012; Bangnara, 2008; Eoseewong 2007; Unno, 2011).
Field Marshal Phibunsongkhram promulgated a series of Thai cultural mandates, widely regarded as the Thai cultural Revolution, with the goal to eliminate “those who lack culture
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
and personal hygiene, do not dress properly, and are deprived of critical thinking”
(Aphornsuvan, 2012). The Thai central government started to propagate the ‘Thai glorious history’ in order to promote single national unity and ideology, and to encourage pride in national achievement (ibid.). For Thai citizens, they were forced to follow several mandates, such as prohibition of betel nut consumption, requirement for women to wear hat and western-styled dress, and demand for Thai to consume food only with fork and spoon. Pad Thai, a famous Thai dish, was also an innovative solution made during the Thai Cultural Revolution in order to differentiate Thai noodle from Chinese style dishes and to galvanize Thai nationalism.
Figure 6: Field Marshal Plaek, a Thai nationalist and Prime Minister of Siam-Thailand who forged ‘Thainess’ through his extremist cultural assimilation’s policy.
The effects of Thai Cultural Revolution were also felt by Melayu Patani people. Field Marshal Plaek has given them the name ‘Thai-Islam’, a word which was required by law to replace either the name of Melayu or Muslim Melayu. The Field Marshall hoped that by providing a new name, just as he did in coining the name of ‘Thailand’, a sense of unity could be built upon diverse groups of people. The use of Melayu language was prohibited, as well as
Melayu-‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Muslim uniform (Aphornsuvan, 2012). The authority was ordered to arrest and punish those Muslim Melayu who wore Muslim clothing, and even have them subjected to public punishment (Khunthongpetch, 1986). There were reports that women wearing hijab have been subject to physical attacks by state authority, and even market vendors have been smacked by rifle stock because they defied to wear Kebaya, a traditional dress, and hijab (ibid.). Importantly, significant intervention in the Muslim affairs over the former Melayu states was to de facto revoke the Sharia law and its court including the studying Al-Quran (Aphornsuvan, 2012). This damaging policy led to Melayu Patani filing charges in Syariah Court in Malaysia.
Aphornsuvan (2012) found that during 1943 - 1947, there was zero case of religious dispute or community affairs filed to the Criminal Court in the Southernmost provinces of Thailand. This action has been regarded as another push for separatist movement among the Melayu caused by the Thai central authority. For people in the province of Pattani, which has no direct border to Malaysia, they decided to elect a prominent religious scholar to act as a communal judge:
Haji Sulong bin Abdul Kadir.
Figure 7 : Haji Sulong bin Abdul Kadir, a de facto spiritual leader of Melayu Muslims, was an advocate of his people’s rights who led many movements in calling for protection of Melayu identity. His forced
appearance further escalated the tensions between locals and the central government. His son and granddaughter chose to participate in parliamentary elections to represent the Melayu and their identity on national level.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In 1926, Haji Sulong bin Abdul Kadir returned to Patani after having pursued his religious education for many years in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Upon the death of his son, he decided to return to Patani, which has greatly changed his path of life and of Patani alike. After arriving, he was dissatisfied by ‘outdated’ culture of Melayu Patani Muslims riddled with animistic beliefs (as previously discussed). He then decided to settle in Patani and began teaching in pondok schools. He later found his own school and masjid, which later became a house and a museum (which is a subject of study of this research). Haji Sulong was widely revered by Melayu Patani muslims, making him an important spiritual leader. Along with other religious scholars, he also found an organization that aimed to oppose cultural assimilation by Thailand and to protect Islamic purity from the dream of Thai nationalists’ movement to subsume Melayu Patani communities (Syukri, 2005). His movement, however, has been closely watched by local leaders and central Thai authority. Aphornsuvan (2012) indicated that World War II further caused panic among Thai authorities to believe that these Melayu Patani activists were a threat to the state security, and that they were secretly supported by the British to the point that the Southernmost provinces would became independent if they were able to help the Allies to push back the Japanese force out of the Peninsula.
Figure 8 : Map of three provinces in deep South Thailand. Noted that the name of the province
‘Pattani’ is transcribed from the Thai pronunciation of the name of the city, replacing the original spelling of ‘Patani’ which was transcribed from Melayu language. The map of Thailand territory was the result of Anglo-Siamese Convention in 1909 that defined Siamese border and divided Melayu states to be either annexed by Siam or British Empire.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Haji Sulong later gained a prominent political role, being elected as the President of the Islamic Committee in the Provincial Islamic Council of Pattani (PICP). During his tenure, Melayu Patani suffered from the aftermath of World War II, being subjected to unequal development and injustice caused by Thai central state. As a leader of PICP, together with other Islamic clerics, he submitted a declaration to the Thai government, which later became known as the seven-point declaration (Aphornsuvan, 2012).
1 The four southern provinces shall be governed as a unit with Muslim governor
2 Eighty percent of the local government officials shall be local Melayu 3 Melayu language and Thai shall be used as the official languages 4 For elementary school curriculum, Melayu language shall be allowed as
the language of instruction
5 Islamic judicial system shall be separated from the Civil court and the Family court
6 All taxes collected in the Southernmost provinces shall be expended there 7 The Provincial Islamic Committees shall have authority over the practice of Table 2 - Seven-point Declaration by Haji Sulong
His movement in protecting Melayu Patani nation and its identity not only defied Thai nationalism directly but also arose consciousness of being Melayu Patani among Muslim Patani Melayu, inducing some of them to imagine the flourishing past of Melayu Patani states.
However, a coup d’état in 1947 led by the Army units under the control of Field Marshal Phibunsongkram, who was deposed during the War, disrupted and terminated all agreements between Melayu Patani people and Thai central state. Many insurgents were arrested, including Haji Sulong, over their involvement in stirring up Melayu Patani communities to act against the state and defaming Thai authority. The seven-point declaration was used against him in the court as evidence of his separatist action, and he was sentenced to four and a half years in prison (Aphornsuvan ,2012). Haji Sulong was released in 1952, with thousands of supporters awaiting his arrival at the train station. The city of Patani and the pondoks became crowded when Haji Sulong retook his role as teacher. However, the purge from Thai authority continued and his pondok was later forced to close. Two years after his release, he and his eldest son mysteriously disappeared (ibid.). His disappearance further escalated the tensions between Thai central authority and the Melayu Patani.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Another significant incident that increased the tensions between Thai authority and Melayu Patani Muslims was the 1948 Dusong Yo Incident. A clash broke out at the village of Dusong Yo in Narathiwat province, one of the four southernmost provinces in Thailand. The police mistakenly understood that a blessing ritual for firearms used against robbers was a gathering of insurgent groups. The attacks by the police caused rounds of clashes. A total of around four-hundred villagers were killed, as well as thirty police and military officials. Moreover, up to 6,000 Melayu Muslim fled Thailand to Malaysia, and more than 250,000 people have signed a petition to the United Nations asking for separation of former-Melayu Patani states from Thailand and to allow them to join the newly formed Federation of Malaya (Aphornsuvan, 2012; Singapore Free press, 1948).
The conflicts between Thai officials and Melayu Patani insurgents in the deep South have continued until now. In 1975, six Melayu Patani Muslims were killed by a unit of Thai Marine Corps, leading to mass gathering in Pattani which further resulted in thirteen more deaths during the attempt to disperse the protesters (Bangnara, 2008). In 2004, a major incident broke out with the killing of a Buddhist monk, the first time that a monk has become a victim in the conflict. Further attacks have been carried out at police outposts, and more than 300 militants have taken shelter in Masjid Kerisek. The government decided to send troops and kill the insurgents, which resulted in 112 deaths by both sides. In that same year, a lawyer who represented Muslim suspects in the court also disappeared, giving him the status of a hero similar to Haji Sulong (Sta-anand, 2008).
By the end of 2004, another incident broke out in Tak Bai district of Narathiwat province. The tragedy began with a demonstration in front of a police station to protest the detention of Muslims men. During the attempt to disperse the protesters, seven people were killed and more than a thousand have been arrested. More than a thousand of people were stacked atop one another in trucks and transported to an army camp, killing seventy-eight more detainees from suffocation and organ collapse. According to an updated database from DSW Database(2020), the number of deaths is 7,111 and the number of injuries is 13,266, resulting from 20,564 incidents during 2004-2020. Aphornsuvan (2012) stated that the southern Thailand insurgency is a prime example of problems caused by cultural assimilation and nationalist movement during the process of state-building of Thailand.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Since 2005, attempts have been made for informal negotiations and reconciliation talks between the Thai government and insurgent groups. Mahathir Mohamad, former prime minister of Malaysia, has been invited to be a facilitator for a peace talk, which was dubbed as Langkawi Peace Talk. The insurgents have proposed a peace plan, but it has never been implemented (Puengnet, 2013). Many attempts of peace talks have followed, both publicly and secretly, and some prime ministers of Thailand, such as General Surayut Chulanon and Abhisit Vejjajiva, even tried to broker the talk themselves. However, the negotiations hardly bore fruit due to Thailand domestic political conflicts and disunity among insurgency groups. The talk resumed in 2013 and 2015 between the Thai government and Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN)
Since 2005, attempts have been made for informal negotiations and reconciliation talks between the Thai government and insurgent groups. Mahathir Mohamad, former prime minister of Malaysia, has been invited to be a facilitator for a peace talk, which was dubbed as Langkawi Peace Talk. The insurgents have proposed a peace plan, but it has never been implemented (Puengnet, 2013). Many attempts of peace talks have followed, both publicly and secretly, and some prime ministers of Thailand, such as General Surayut Chulanon and Abhisit Vejjajiva, even tried to broker the talk themselves. However, the negotiations hardly bore fruit due to Thailand domestic political conflicts and disunity among insurgency groups. The talk resumed in 2013 and 2015 between the Thai government and Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN)