Siri Hikayat Sangtawal - 10

8/9/2019 Siri Hikayat Sangtawal - 10

1/9

Hikayat Sangtawal ( 10 ) - Patani Bangkit - Bhg 1

Artikel Pilihan 1 : Patani Bangkit - Bhg 1

Tajuk :Pengenalan Dan Sejarah Ringkas Perjuangan Patani.

sumber :

http://www.puloinfo.net/default.asp?Show=Patani

Pengenalan :

Geographical Location:

Patani is located between the two latitude lines 5-8 on the north of the equator in middleof South-East Asia, Malay peninsula comprising nowadays of : Malaysia, Singapore,

Indonesia, Brunei and Patani, it is part of the Malay islands, bordering Malaysia from the

south, Thailand form the north, Indian Ocean form the west and China sea ( PacificOcean ) form the east.

Its area before the Thai occupation is: 50,000 square mile. However, in the present time,

there is a struggle to liberate its occupied area 16,000 square mile.It is comprised of four main states : Patani, Yala, Naratiwat and Stol, in addition to half

of Songkhla state. The remaining area is inhibited by a lot of Thai immigrants sent by the

Thai government and were settled there to put a pressure on the Patani people to compelthem and increase number of Thai Buddhist in these states.

Climate & Land:
http://sangtawal.blogspot.com/2009/03/hikayat-sangtawal-10-patani-bangkit-bhg.htmlhttp://www.puloinfo.net/default.asp?Show=Patanihttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EkAPRyIuoDk/Sbi4OeLqQiI/AAAAAAAAATQ/BOUUDl4gxQc/s1600-h/bendera+patani-2.jpghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EkAPRyIuoDk/Sbi7C6UjJKI/AAAAAAAAATY/7pK5lj7_8_Y/s1600-h/peta+patani.gifhttp://sangtawal.blogspot.com/2009/03/hikayat-sangtawal-10-patani-bangkit-bhg.htmlhttp://www.puloinfo.net/default.asp?Show=Patani


2/9

Its climate is generally of the tropical zone climate: seasonal rain, fertile land, thick

forests covering wide areas, full of large teak trees; one of the best quality and stronger

wood kinds, bamboo, coconut palms and other forest production and farm of crops andfruits.

Population:

People of Patani are historically and racially part of the Malay people. According to latest

statistics, they are about six million person.

Religion:

Most Patani people are Muslims; there are about 80% of the population, while other

20% are intruders and strangers. So, Muslims were 100% in Patani before those

settlers from Thailand came in. A huge number of Muslims are all over in Thailand;

their origin is from the captives; taken from Patani by the Thai armies when they

invaded it.

Language:

Patani people speak Malay language like all the countries in South-East Asia such as:

Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and Brunei because there is a very deep historical bound

among them all. In addition to their Malay nationality, we considered as a title of thePatani Muslim people. Their language is written in Arabic letters and added some

additional letters to be suitable according to their language.

However, Thai government made learning and knowing Thai language an obligatory

condition for getting any job or governmental office. They also tried to teach the Malay

language, since caring about language is tightly connected to the nation caring about itsnationality and future. The language is the nations national heritage and the culture's

identity which is a supreme need for humanity, hence, when language vanishes from

existence nationality, consequently will vanish as well. Since language embodiesnationality especially in Patani where any person is Malay race will certainly be Muslim,

because Malay people has a deep original relation with Islam.

Spreading of Islam in Patani:

Islam entered Patani in early stages through the merchants who came from the Arabic

peninsula across south India to Malay Island. It spread throughout it during the 5thAlhijra century till the country was under the Muslims leadership. During the fifteenth

century A.D., an Independent Islamic State was established in Patani. This was the

foundation for Patani Muslims. They all follow firmly the Islamic traditions and habits.

Economy & Main Crops:

Although Patani is a small state, nevertheless, it is one of the richest states in its region. It


3/9

is rich with its natural and mineral fortunes such as tin, gold, natural rubber, wood,

coconut, rice, fish, oil, natural gas and many others. The national income of the

mentioned four states exceeds 35% comparing with the general income of all Thailandwhich comprises of 71 provinces excluding Patani, especially when it recently is

discovered the new excavation of petroleum and natural gas wells in Patani coasts.

That is why Thailand government endeavored and exerted its best whatever it cost to

possess and hold Patani tightly, thus it defends its affairs with all military and political

ways and by settling the Buddhist people in it so to make them the majority of itspopulation.

Historical Background of Patani Case:

Thailand attempted to occupy Patani since 1603, but Patani Muslims withstood and

confronted such Thai-Buddhist attacks. Afterwards, Thailand government made many

several attempts to intrude Patani. In 1786 Patani was under their control. It became asubordinate state that pay taxes to the Thai Kingdom. But many Patani revolutions

erupted to liberate their land. The furious was the one erupted in 1822 and failed beforethe Thai forces attacks which spread on the Muslims land to destroy their house,

devastate their lands, killed a great number of them, executed violence actions against the

Patani Muslim people, violated their legal rights and raped their Muslim women. They

also eliminated and abolished Islam sacramental rituals and places such as destroyingmosques and religious schools and many other violence actions. In addition, thousands of

the Patani fighters and civilians were taken to the Thai capital (Bangkok) walking

barefoot, chained feet, and tightly tight with iron and bamboo in their feet and ears. Thatis why we can see till today a big number of Muslims in Bangkok originated to these

Patani captives carried by the Thai armies when invaded Patani. Since then, the Patani

revolutions against the Thai occupation never stop.

In 1902, Thai government eliminated the domination of the Patani sultans and the taxes

to make it directorates or province under its domination directly subjected to it andannounced that Patani is part of Thailand after conducting a contract with the British in

1909.

Attempts Made for Patani Liberation:

Since 1948 many frequent attempts, peaceful solution suggested by the people and the

armed groups and liberation fronts in Patani were made to get their rights back from the

Thai-Buddhist occupation to get the full right of liberation and independence. Thisstruggle materialized in the violent armed confrontations for going on the strife. But the

Thai government arrested the leaders of these movements and groups to practice cruel

and brutal genocide against the Patani people.


4/9


5/9

itself derived from the ancient kingdom of Langkasuka (mentioned in the Chinese texts

as Lang-Ya-Hsiu).

Since the 18th century, successive Thai rulers have sought to subjugate these Malay

states and bring them within the domain of the Siamese empire. In 1901 the Thai ruler

King Chulalongkorn broke the peace treaty with the Malay states and launched a militarycampaign against them. His centralisation programme (thesaphiban) regrouped the seven

provinces of Patani under one unit called the Boriween chet huamuang (Area of the

Seven Provinces). Siamese administrators were appointed by the King to rule the Malayprovinces directly from the royal capital of Krungtheep (Bangkok). In 1906 the seven

Malay provinces were brought closer together under a single administrative unit called

Monthon Patani. It was only in 1909 that the Malay kingdoms of Kelantan, Trengganu,

Kedah and Perlis were taken over by the British colonial power with the signing of theAnglo-Siamese treaty. Despite the division created by the Anglo-Siamese treaty, the

Malay kingdoms of Patani were similar to their mainland counterparts in every respect:

Patani society was Islamic and Malay in character. They shared the same language,

political culture, social structures, customs and values. Cross-border contact between thekingdoms remained high, despite various attempts by the British and Siamese to police

the boundary between them.(1)

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Malays of Greater Patani resented

having to live under the yoke of Thai imperial dominance. Soon enough the Malays ofSouthern Thailand rose in revolt: Patani resistance to Siamese hegemony began almost as

soon as Bangkok tried to re-establish its grip on the Malay kingdoms. In 1903 the Patani

Malay aristocrat Tengku Abdul Kadir Qamaruddin revolted against Bangkok. He wasdefeated and imprisoned for nearly three years as a result. As soon as he was released he

planned another insurrection against Siamese rule. The Patani Malays were angry with

Bangkok for trying to impose Thai laws on them and Bangkoks refusal to recognisetraditional Malay and Islamic laws in the region. After another failed revolt in 1915,

Tengku Abdul Kadir Qamaruddin retreated to Kelantan (which was under British indirect

rule) and attempted to regroup his forces with the help of the Sultan of Kelantan, SultanMuhammad IV.

In 1922, Tengku Abdul Kadir launched his biggest campaign against the Siamesegovernment, in response to the new education policy introduced by Bangkok which made

it compulsory for all Patani Malays to attend Thai government schools and learn the

Siamese language. Tengku Abdul Kadir regarded this as a deliberate and calculatedattempt to erase Patani-Malay identity and to convert the Patani Malays to Buddhism.(2)

But Tengku Abdul Kadirs rebellion ended in failure and a number of prominent Malay

rulers were either killed or captured. Despite the fact that they managed to defeat theinsurgents, the Thai government realised that it needed to revise its own policy towards

the Patani Malays. King Vajiravudh introduced new guidelines in order to help assimilate

the Patani Malays into the local administrative structure in the region, in order to give

them a sense of commitment and investment in Thai policies. In time, Bangkok began to


6/9

offer limited concessions to the local Malay rulers, and attempted to co-opt them into the

administrative framework of the Patani government.

From Conquest to Co-optation

Due in part to the geo-political realities of the time, the lot of the Patani Malays was not

about to improve. British colonial rule in Malaya meant that an entente cordial had beenstruck between the kingdom of Thailand and Britain both of which were imperial

powers, it should be noted. The British were prepared to turn a blind eye to the

developments in Southern Thailand as long as the Thai government recognised the

borders of British Malaya that had been set by the Anglo-Thai treaty.

Throughout the 20th century successive Thai governments and rulers have sought to co-

opt and pacify the Patani-Malay communities of Southern Thailand by the use offinancial inducements as well as the threat of force and violence. More often than not,

these policies were directed towards the goals of assimilation and absorption of theMalay community into the Thai-Buddhist mainstream.

Prior to the Second World War Thailand experienced a change of political leadershipwhich led to the rise of General Phibun Songkhram. General Phibun was an extreme

right-wing nationalist who was very much influenced by the neo-fascist and ultra-

nationalist ideas of Nazi Germany and Japan at the time. Under his rule, Thai society wasforced to undergo many radical changes to its political system and social values. In 1939

General Phibuns government introduced the Thai Ratthaniyom (Thai Customs Decree)

which forced all Thai citizens to conform to a set of common cultural norms and whichforced all minority groups to follow the model set by the government. This caused

considerable outrage in the Malay provinces of Patani, and the Patani Malays regarded it

as yet another attempt to erase their cultural and religious identity.

Under General Phibuns decree Patani Malays were not allowed to dress according to

their Malay customs, were forced to use the Thai language, and in some cases evenforced to participate in the public worship of Buddhist idols.(3) Phibuns policy led to an

immediate response from the Patani Malays who rebelled against the government. But

the governments response was equally harsh: the army was used to quell the rebellion,leading to the arrest and killing of many Patani leaders. Thousands of Patani Malays fled

south to join their fellow Malays in Malaya.

During the post-war years the southern regions became the hotbed of militant anti-state

and communist activities, and by the 1970s was the hideout of the Malaysian Communist

Party (MCP) that had been forced to go underground. Southern Thailand also became the


7/9

base for a number of Malay separatist groups such as the Barisan Nasional Pembebasan

Patani (BNPP- National Liberation Front of Patani) (4), Pertubuhan Perpaduan

Pembebasan Patani (PULO- Patani United Liberation Organisation) (5) and the theBarisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN- National Revolutionary Front) (6).

Between 1968 to 1975 the Thai government launched a series of military operations in

the south that were aimed at destroying the networks of Patani liberation movements and

underground organisations. Operation Ramkamhaeng and the Special Anti-TerroristCampaign that lasted nearly seven years resulted in 385 violent armed clashes between

Thai security forces and Patani militant groups. A total of 1,208 detentions and arrests

were made, while 329 Patani fighters were killed. 250 militia camps were destroyed and

1,451 weapons were captured. But despite the scale of the counter-insurgencyprogrammes and operations, the Patani region remained tense. In December 1975 Thai

security forces killed five Patani youths, leading to the largest anti-government rallies in

the history of the region that were carried out in front of the Patani central mosque. To

complicate matters even further, the killing of the Patani youths sparked off protests byMalays in the neighbouring state of Kelantan as well, and prompted the leader of the Pan-

Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), Asri Muda, to raise the matter in the MalaysianParliament.

In the wake of the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Patani resistance movements inSouthern Thailand also experienced a shift towards a more radical Islamist register.

While some of the more secular Patani liberation movements like BRN and PULO

would gradually pale into insignificance (the BRN and PULO offices in Saudi Arabiawere practically inoperative by the mid-1980s), other movements like the BNPP would

move closer to the global current of Islamist radicalism. In 1979 the BNPP upgraded its

military training programme and expanded the scope of its guerrilla activities againstThai security forces in the region. In 1985 the more radical and militant elements of the

BNPP, led by its vice-chairman Wahyuddin Muhammad, broke away from the parent

organisation to form the Barisan Bersatu Mujahideen Patani (BBMP- United MujahideenFront of Patani). Later in 1986 the BNPP renamed itself the Barisan Islam Pembebasan

Patani- (BIPP-Islamic Liberation Front of Patani) in order to underline its stronger

commitment to Islamist politics.

The developments in Southern Thailand point to a similar trend across the Muslim world

in the late 20th century. All over the world disaffected and marginalised Muslimminorities began to clamour for equal rights and equal citizenship, and when these

demands were not met they inevitably turned to some form of popular resistance or

another. Groups like the PLO in Palestine, PULO and MNLF in ASEAN and others oftheir ilk were all fighting on secular-democratic platforms, but were defeated due to their

secular-leftist orientation. With the Cold War at its height and American power on the

ascendant, these groups were summarily labelled as terrorist or Leftist.


8/9

The failure of the secular-democratic resistance groups in turn contributed to the shift to

the Islamist register and the growing appeal of Islam as a marker of common solidarityand identity among persecuted minority communities. Following the Islamic revolution

in Iran in 1979, political Islam became the political tool of choice and this led to the

emergence of splinter groups with a more Islamic image and leaning in the 1980s. In thePhilippines the MNLF was overtaken by the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front), in

Palestine the PLO was eclipsed by Hamas, in Thailand PULO, BRN and BNPP were

overtaken by the Barisan Bersatu Mujahideen Patani (BBMP- United Muhajideen Frontof Patani) (est. 1985). The rest, as they say, is history and what a bloody, sordid,

shameful history it is too.

Anti-Terror or Business as Usual?

Thus far the Thai and international public has been fed a steady stream of undiluted

hogwash about the possible causes for the insurgency in the region. Prime MinisterThaksin has claimed that criminal gangs may be behind it all. Thailands Chief of

Armed Forces General Chaiyasidh Shinawatra has claimed that these fanatical banditsmay have been under the influence of drugs. The regions so-called terror experts

have pontificated about the alleged links to foreign Islamist militant groups. While Thai

government officials insist that this is a local problem that needs to be handled

domestically.

None of these lame and flaccid excuses actually help to explain the developments takingplace in Southern Thailand at present. To label such groups as fanatics, terrorists and

criminals is to take a page out of the propaganda book of the Cold War when legitimate

autonomy and freedom movements were criminalised and pathologised by the coldwarriors of the past. Lest it be forgotten, it was the Southern provinces that voted for the

democratic party at the past few elections proof, if any was needed, that the Southerners

still believed in the democratic process until not too long ago. But the failure of thegovernment to deliver on their much-lauded reform programmes coupled with

Bangkoks failure to deal with issues like local corruption, nepotism, police brutality and

violence meted out by the Thai army has ended up alienating vast sections of Patani

society who may now feel that the democratic process simply doesnt work and haveturned back to radical religio-politics as they did in the 1980s.

Prime Minister Thaksin may well think that he has the green light to go on with his

policies vis the South of Thailand. Indeed, with Thailand being declared a major ally of

the US at the moment, the geopolitical winds seem to be blowing his way. But the Thaigovernment would be nave and foolish to think that Washingtons endorsement and

support for its policies is a fixed factor that will not shift in the future. Likewise Thaksin

should consider the fate of other pro-US despots and tyrants of ASEAN, such as

Ferdinand Marcos and Soeharto of Indonesia, who were ultimately let down and


9/9

abandoned by their erstwhile American allies when push came to shove.

In the end, no amount of bogus anti-terror rhetoric or propaganda will alter the fact that

Thailands troubles in the southern provinces are rooted in the internal politics of Thai

society itself. The people of Southern Thailand feel themselves to be the victims ofBangkoks uneven development policies and like their counterparts in the northeastern

province of Phaak Isaan, they feel that they have been left out and cast aside in the

nations march towards development. In the end, it is this simple economic and politicalfactor that will shape the future development of relations between Bangkok and the outer

provinces. Talk of militant Islamist groups and war on terror should be exposed for

what it is: A shallow and facile disguise for a divisive form of politics that has thus far

torn apart Thai society, at the cost of the country and its neighbours.

Siri Hikayat Sangtawal - 10

Documents

Transcript of Siri Hikayat Sangtawal - 10