The Problem of the Thai-Muslims in the Four Southern Provinces of Thailand* (Part One)

Nantawan Haemindra

doi:10.1017/S0022463400015010

The Problem of the Thai-Muslims in the Four Southern Provinces of Thailand* (Part One)

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011

Nantawan Haemindra

Show author details

Nantawan Haemindra: Affiliation:
Head of the History Department at Chiengmai University in Thailand. After graduating with B.A. and M.A. degrees from Chulalongkorn University, she was awarded a doctorate in history by the Sorbonne. She is preparing for publication her study of Thai politics and Anglo- French expansion in the early 20th century, and also researching on the Western community in Chiengmai during the early 19th century.

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Recent developments have made the Thai Government increasingly uneasy about the continuing disturbances in various parts of the country. The vexing problem of Communist subversion and Vietnamese minorities in the Northeast appears to be matched by growing anxiety over the increase in banditry, assassinations, and the activities of several illegal organized groups in the extreme South. Concern is mounting particularly over reports of alarming agitation by resentful elements in the southern Thailand-Peninsular Malaysia border region. Perhaps the most unpleasant strand in the pattern of unrest, and the most serious threat to national integrity, is the tendency to irredentism among the Muslim Malays in the provinces of Pattani, Yala, Setul and Narathiwat in southern Thailand.

Type: Articles
Information: Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , September 1976 , pp. 197 - 225

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463400015010 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 197 note 1} Note, for example, the appearance of various articles dealing with conditions in the South in such Thai newspapers as Siam Rath, Prachathipatai (Le Democrate), The Bangkok Post, and The Nation during 1974.

^{page 197 note 2} They consist mainly of two categories: (1) ordinary or non-political bandits (chon phurai); and (2) political bandits—sub-divided as communist terrorists (phugawganrai) and Malay separatists (phubangyaek dindaeri).

^{page 197 note 3} There are also scattered communities of Muslims all over the country (e.g., in the northern provinces of Chiengmai, Chiangrai and Lamphun), but mostly in the central region (e.g., around the Bangkok Metropolitan area and Ayuthya).

^{page 197 note 4} According to the 1973 census, the Muslims in the four southernmost provinces account for about 75 per cent of the total local population; they constitute a majority in Setul (83%), Pattani and Narathiwat (78%), and Yala (61 %).

Table 1 indicates roughly the proportion of the Muslim population to total population in j the four provinces. Because of the remoteness and poor transportation facilities, the ratio of Malays vis-a-vis the Thai has not changed in these provinces during the past few decades. See Thailand Population Registration (Bangkok: Registration Division, Local Department, Ministry of the Interior, 1974).Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 5} Damrongrachanuphap, Prince, Thai Rob Phama (The Thai Wars with Burma) (Bangkok: Khlang Withaya, 1958), pp. 581–582.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 6} Nang Phraya Tani, a siege cannon nine feet long, was placed in front of the Defence Ministry Building in Bangkok where it has remained ever since.

^{page 198 note 7} Damrongrachanuphap, Prince, Phrarachaphongsawadan Krung Rattanakosin Ratchakan Thi Song (The Royal Chronicles of the Second Reign of the Bangkok Period) (Bangkok: Thai Press, 1952), p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 8} States in the Malay Peninsula had already been under the leadership of Nakhonsrithammarat (Ligor), when the latter was brought under Thai rule. Leyden, John trans., The Sejarah Melayu, Malay Annals (London: Longman, 1821), p. 121;Google ScholarCoedes, GeorgesRecueil des Inscriptions du Siam, I (Bangkok: Bangkok Times Press, 1924), 48.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 9} Damrongrachanuphap, Prince, Sadaeng Banyai Phongsawadan Syam, Lectures on the History of Siam. (Bangkok: Khurusabha, 1949), p. 23.Google Scholar The Sultans liked to regard the valuable bunga etnas as a gift or a token of friendship, while the Thai kings saw it as a tribute and a sign of loyalty. See Mills, L.A.“British Malaya 1824–1867”, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), III, 2 (November 1925), 35–36Google Scholar; and Low, James trans., Marong Mahawongsa: The Kedah Annals (Bangkok: The American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1908), p. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 10} Wood, W.A.R.A History of Siam (Bangkok: The Siam Barnakich Press, 1933), p. 119;Google ScholarGiles, Francis H.“Analysis of Van Vliet' Account of Siam”, Journal of Siam Society (J.S.S.), Vol, 30, pt. 2, 197–198.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 11} The Governor of Nakhonsrithammarat enjoyed a status of Chao Phraya which was a suitable rank for officials of a Muang Ek or first-class province.

^{page 199 note 12} An honorific title for the Kalahom was Chao Phraya Mahasena, a generalissimo of all the armies, but in practice he controlled provincial administration, war, justice, and finance in the southern provinces. He was commonly known to Europeans as Minister of the South.

^{page 199 note 13} Prince Damrongrachanuphap, Preface to Luang Udom Sombat' s Records, Vol. II (Bangkok: Hong Samut Thai, 1932), 14–15.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 14} Prince Damrongrachanuphap, Preface to Wichiankhiri, PhrayaChronicle of Songkhla (Bangkok: Sobnon Phiphatthanakorn, 1928).Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 15} Rahman (also known as Reman), situated not far from the present-day Thailand-Perak boundary, later became a source of trouble to the Thai during the course of the 19th century.

^{page 200 note 16} Wichiankhiri, Phraya “Phongsawadan Muang Pattani” (The Chronicle of Pattani) in Prachum Phongsawadan (Collected Chronicles), No. 3 (Bangkok: Wachirayan National Library, 1914), pp. 19–21.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 17} Phraya was a third rank of nobility, next to Chao Phraya.

^{page 200 note 18} Thiphakarawong, Chao PhrayaPhratchapongsawadan Krung Rattanakosin Ratchakan Thi Sam (The Royal Chronicle of the Third Reign of the Bangkok Period) (Bangkok: Phrachan, 1935), p. 114.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 19} Chotmai Luang Udom Sombat (Luang Udom Sombat' s Record) (Bangkok: Wachirayan National Library, 1915), pp. 167–201.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 20} Chao Phraya Thiphakarawong, op. cit., pp. 196–197.

^{page 201 note 21} Kabangpasu was to be united with Kedah in 1859 after its Governor' s death. See Damrongrachanuphap, Prince “Phongsawadan Muang Saiburi (The Chronicle of Kedah)” in Prachum Phongsawadan (Collected Chronicles) No. 2 (Bangkok, Thai Press, 1914), p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 22} Setul, separated from Kedah, had been placed initially under Songkhla, then came under Nakhonsrithammarat in 1844. Phraya Wichiankhiri, Chronicle of Songkhla, pp. 38, 63.

^{page 201 note 23} Chao Phraya Thipakarawong, op. cit., p. 265.

^{page 201 note 24} National Archives, Fine Arts Department, Bangkok, Documents of the 4th Reign, No. 130, Ruang taeng tang Khunnang tang phaak tai (Creation of Noble ranks in the South) j.s. 1217.

^{page 201 note 25} Public Record Office, F.O. 69/234, Phraya Sri Sahadheb' s Memorandum on the political relations between Siam and the Siamese Malay States of Kelantan and Trengganu. Inclosure in No. 1, Prince Devawongse to Mr. Tower, 3 May 1902.

^{page 201 note 26} Chao Phraya Thiphakarawong, op. cit., pp. 5–30.

^{page 202 note 27} See Damrongrachanuphap, Prince and Ratchasena, PhrayaThesaphiban (Bangkok, 1960) pp. 81–85.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 28} In the same year, the Edict concerning the administration was promulgated. This Edict of 1897 together with the Regulations concerning the provincial administration of 1899 would very well serve the purpose of the Thesaphiban system.

^{page 203 note 29} Damrongrachanuphap, PrincePrawat Chaw Phraya Yommarat (Biography of Chao Phraya Yommarat) (Bangkok: Bamrungtham, 1939), p. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 30} Abdul Kadir' s Thai title was Phraya Wichitphakdi.

^{page 203 note 31} CO. 273/304, Conditions of the Bond, Inclosure 2 in No. 1, Mr. Paget to the Marquess of Lansdowne, 23 January 1904.

^{page 203 note 32} For the best description and analysis of the events leading up to the formation of Monthon Pattani, see Bunnag, Tej “Phraya Khaek Chet Huamuang khob khid khabot r.s. 121, Revolt in the Seven Provinces in 1902”, Vanvaithayakorn (Bangkok: Thai Watthanapanich, 1971), pp. 15–39.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 33} Ministry of the Interior, Ruang Kiaw Kab changwat chaidaen phaak tai, Matters concerning the Southern Border Provinces (Bangkok: Local Administration Department, 1967), p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 34} Haemindra, Saijit“The Transfer of the Siamese Suzerainty on Kedah, Kelantan, Trengganu, and Perlis from Siam to Great Britain in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn”, Unpublished M.A. thesis (Chulalongkorn University, 1964), 349–354.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 35} F.O. 422/62, Paget to Grey, 27 February, 1908. See also Numnonda, Thamsook“The Anglo-Siamese Negotiations 1900–1909”, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of London, 1966), 193–223.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 36} Ministry of the Interior, Matters concerning the Southern Border Provinces, p. 71.

^{page 204 note 37} In 1910 and 1911, the Government arrested in Yala and Pattani two Malays who had attracted a number of followers through their claims to be holy men (phu wised), Ministry of the Interior, op. cit. p. 8.

^{page 204 note 38} Muslims who have completed a pilgrimage to Mecca.

^{page 205 note 39} Tengku Abdul Kadir Qamaruddin and his family moved, around 1915, from Pattani to Kota Bahru in Kelantan. He passed away in 1933. Ibid., pp. 8–9.

^{page 205 note 40} The Muslim leaders arrested, apart from Haji Sulong, were Haji Valaca Wae Useng, Haji Wae Mamin, and Haji Wae Samae. The Straits Times, 28 January and 23 February 1948.

^{page 205 note 41} Tengku Mahmud Mahyiddin was the youngest son of the last installed Raja of Pattani, and the first royal-born Malay to go into business. Before the Second World War he built up a large import and export business in Kelantan. On joining the Kelantan Civil Service he became a pioneer of educational development, especially among women. As a member of the Kelantan Volunteer Force he was awarded the M.B.E. He was next appointed to supervise the Malay radio in New Delhi, afterwards employed on various missions in the Middle East and in London He relinquished the title Tengku of his own accord, and lived, in 1948, on his 75-acre estate at Pantai Chinta Berahi where he was developing what promised to become the most popular seaside resort in Malaya. He was regarded by Pattani Nationalists as their rightful leader and accepted spokesman (Ibid., 30 October 1947).

^{page 205 note 42} Warta Negara (The Penang Malay daily), 3 February 1948.

^{page 205 note 43} Malaya Tribune, 11 and 12 March 1948.

^{page 205 note 44} Sunday Times, 1 February 1948.

^{page 206 note 45} Malay Mail, 5 March 1948.

^{page 206 note 46} Eight policemen were reported to have been killed in the clash. The Straits Times, 5 and 10 March 1948.

^{page 206 note 47} Malaya Tribune, 28 April 1948.

^{page 206 note 48} The Straits Times, 29 and 30 April 1948.

^{page 206 note 49} Indian Daily Mail, 19 May 1948.

^{page 206 note 50} Singapore Free Press, 28 July 1948.

^{page 206 note 51} The Straits Times, 6 September 1948. It should here be noted that the Federation of Malaya had earlier declared a state of emergency (June 1948) to deal with the Communist insurrection in Malaya.

^{page 206 note 52} Phibul' s policy of cultural integration is further discussed in Part Two of this article, section IV.

^{page 207 note 53} See Nai Adul Na' Saiburi (Tengku Abdul Jalal) to Premier Phibul Songkhram, 14 February 1944, and Phoon Chattek Wanek (for Secretary to Prime Minister) to Nai Adul Na' Saiburi, 29 April 1944, printed in Some Facts about Malays in South Siam (Kota Bahru: Information Bureau, Gabongan Melayu Pattani Raya, 1948), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 54} A copy of the Petition, dated 1 November 1945, is in the papers of Miss Barbara Whittingham-Jones, MS. 145982, Library of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (Hereafter referred to as Jones Papers).

^{page 207 note 55} The post-war Anglo-Thai relations were cool as a result of the Thai declaration of war on the United States and Great Britain on 25 January 1942. Although the Thai acquisition of Kedah, Kelantan, Trengganu, and Perlis in Malaya and of the two Shan States in Burma was declared, on 16 August 1945, as null and void in that it had been made contrary to the will of the Thai people and in violation of the constitution and law of Thailand, and compensation would be made for losses incurred to nationals of the aggrieved nations as a consequence of the Thai occupation, the British still felt reluctant to treat Thailand as a friendly rather than an enemy nation. See Chaiyanam, DireckThai Kab Songkhram Lok Khrang Thi Song (Thailand and the Second World War), Vol. I (Bangkok: Phrae phithaya, 1967), 488–520;Google ScholarKhemayothin, NetrNgan Tai Din Khong Phan Ek Yothi (The Underground Work of Colonel Yothi) (Bangkok: Thanakanphim, 1957), pp. 637, 723.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 56} The local population were dissatisfied with the rice rationing, charging that Thai administrative officials were selling on the black market the rice supplies sent for distribution.

^{page 208 note 57} Pridi Phanomyong, who had been the Regent and leader of the underground Free Thai organization during the war, replaced Khuang Abhaiwongse as Prime Minister in March 1946.

^{page 208 note 58} An Islamic Central Committee of Thailand with the Chularajmontri as the ex-officio chairman had been set up by Pridi in an effort to appease the Muslim Malays.

^{page 208 note 59} Apparently a Muslim “judge" helped participate in Thai trials of Muslims on an ad hoc basis.

^{page 208 note 60} Some Facts about Malays in South Siam (Kota Bahru: Information Bureau, Gabongan Melayu Pattani Raya, 1948).Google Scholar It is believed that the compiler of the book was Tengku Mahyiddin.

^{page 209 note 61} It was stated in “Gugusan Chahaya Keselamatan” (The Lights of Safety) claimed to be written by Haji Sulong when he was in jail and published in 1958, that Tengku Mahmud Mahyiddin had been clandestinely elected by Pattani people as the leader of the four provinces. Part of this statement was reproduced in Suara Siswa (December 1970) issued by the National Union of Malaysian Muslim Students, Kuala Lumpur.

The statement was confirmed in an article entitled “Pattani—Malay State outside Malaya”, written by a British journalist, Miss Barbara Whittingham-Jones who was Mahyiddin's close friend, after a tour through Pattani, and published in the Straits Times of 30 October 1947. Miss Jones pictured the Muslims in Pattani as being subjected to blackmail, victimization and reprisal by a corrupt Thai officialdom. Her misleading but forceful article created a sensation throughout Malaya.

^{page 209 note 62} According to Miss B. W. Jones, who claimed to have had informal conversations with Bangkok spokesmen, Thailand was willing to concede all points except the first which was the keystone of the whole. The Straits Times, 30 October 1947.

^{page 209 note 63} In a letter to Miss B.W. Jones, dated 13 December 1947, Tengku Mahyiddin stated that the Pattani people were getting more restless because Phibul had come to power; that they were expecting the introduction of all “pro-Thai” rules and legislations again, and that everybody was waiting to know with wide interest what line of policy the Government was going to take. (Jones Papers).

^{page 209 note 64} The Straits Times, 18 December 1947.

^{page 209 note 65} Phibul led the coup d'etat but Khuang, with Phibul's backing, became the new Prime Minister. Apart from full freedom of religious worship, the Government allowed the teaching of the Malay language in primary schools in the four provinces, the observance of Friday as a school holiday, and a plan for the recruiting of Malay teachers for the next school year. Ibid., 17 January 1948.

^{page 209 note 66} When he was asked about the truth of the demonstration in the four provinces, the Premier merely said that it was a rumour which had come from certain persons who wished to gain popularity in politics in the region. The Siam Nikorn, 23 January 1948.

^{page 210 note 67} Warta Negara, 22 January 1948.

^{page 210 note 68} Sunday Times, 7 March 1948.

^{page 210 note 69} Mahyiddin to B. W. Jones, 17 November 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 210 note 70} “Gugusan Chahaya Keselamatan”, reproduced in Suara Siswa (December 1970).

^{page 210 note 71} Enclosed in Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 27 January 1948, Jones Papers. Mahyiddin received a bundle of about 5,000 copies of the letter. See also fn. 41 above.

^{page 210 note 72} The Straits Times, 5 February 1947.

^{page 211 note 73} Warta Negara, 3 February 1948.

^{page 211 note 74} Straits Echo, 16 February 1948.

^{page 211 note 75} Daily Mail, 4 February 1948.

^{page 211 note 76} The Straits Times, 9 February 1948.

^{page 211 note 77} Ibid., 19 March 1948. Before this, an invitation to prominent Muslims in Kelantan (e.g. Tengku Mahyiddin, Tengku Abdul Jalal, and Tengku Mohammed) to come for a conference was said to have been made by the authorities of Teluban in Pattani. But a reply from that State suggested they go there instead if they considered the matter to be discussed of such vital importance to all concerned. ibid., 12 February 1948.

^{page 211 note 78} Apart from a demonstration by about 300-odd persons in a few days after Sulong's arrest, the Pattani Malays also tried to induce Tengku Mahyiddin to intervene in the case. Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 31 January 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 211 note 79} The separatist movement was particularly strong in Pattani and Narathiwat but less strong in Yala and Setul. Sunday Times, 1 February 1948.

^{page 211 note 80} This view was also shared by Banchong Sricharoon, President of the Muslim League and memberof the House of Elders, who stated that only extremists sought the separation of the four southern provinces. Straits Echo, 15 May 1948.

^{page 211 note 81} The Times and the Glasgow Herald, 20 February 1948.

^{page 211 note 82} Malay Mail, 7 February 1948.

^{page 211 note 83} Straits Echo, 19 February 1948.

^{page 212 note 84} Phraya Ramrajbhakdi denied that detachments of police and troops were dispatched in expectation of a revolt, but stated that the special police were sent to the area to combat smugglers and had not much to do with secessionists. The Straits Times, 23 February 1948.

^{page 212 note 85} Ibid, 12 March 1948; and Singapore Free Press, 13 March 1948.

^{page 212 note 86} Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 22 February 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 212 note 87} In fact Tengku Abdul Jalal had already telegraphed, on 27 January 1948, to the Secretary General of UN. The telegram read: “Repression of Malay Community in South Siam by Siamese officials endangering peace. Attempts being made by Siamese Government to suppress Malay language and Muslim religion. Religious leader arrested and confined since 16th January and no charge yet brought against him. Fear Malays so incensed that bloodshed will issue. Request immediate action and urgent enquiry by Security Council. Sgd. Malay Representative Committee South Siam Tengku Abdul Jalal bin Abdul Muttaleb Raja Saiburi.” See Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 31 January 1948, Jones Papers; and Singapore Free Press, 14 February 1948.

^{page 212 note 88} Tengku Mahyiddin was always convinced that he would be able to liberate his fellow Muslims from the Thai “yoke” if only he could manage to voice the public opinion in the four provinces. In a letter to Miss B. W. Jones he wrote: “Can you, with consultation with experts, give me advice of actions to be followed to achieve the ‘ultimate success’? The only way I can I see is to ask UNO to allow a plebiscite. I hate to think that I have to use the last resort…” (31 January 1948, Jones Papers).

^{page 212 note 89} Singapore Free Press, 14 February 1948.

^{page 212 note 90} The Straits Times, 5 March 1948.

^{page 213 note 91} Warta Negara, 3 February 1948.

^{page 213 note 92} Straits Echo, 16 February 1948.

^{page 213 note 93} Warta Negara, Editorial, 2 March 1948.

^{page 213 note 94} The Straits Times stated that large numbers of Malays from the four southern Thai provinces had been pouring into Kelantan, Penang, Kedah, Perlis, and Perak since the January arrest because of the threats of arrest and oppression by the Thais; that most of the refugees had left their homes and gone into hiding with nothing more than the clothes they wore—The Straits Times, 16 February and 2 March 1948.

^{page 213 note 95} Malay Mail, 5 March 1948; and theStraits Times, 5 and 6 March 1948.

^{page 213 note 96} The leaders of the Malay religious body in Kelantan and Kedah told a Straits Times correspondent that they expected widespread guerilla warfare if Haji Sulong, who was under arrest, was treated or sentenced unjustly. SeeThe Straits Times, 4 March, 1948; and Utusan Melayu, 5 March 1948.

^{page 213 note 97} Singapore Free Press, 2 March 1948.

^{page 213 note 98} The Straits Times, 2 March 1948; and Sunday Tribune, 14 March 1948.

^{page 213 note 99} Malaya Tribune, 5 March 1948. Tengku Mahyiddin said in a letter to Miss B.W. Jones that he had not been present at the inauguration meeting of GAMPAR headquarters in Kota Bahru, which was initiated by the local Malay Nationalist Party (MNP) because he had to be “outside the pale” (6 March 1948, Jones Papers).

^{page 214 note 100} The Malay Rulers might be unable to help their fellow Malays by virtue of the Federation Agreement which prevented them from associating themselves with such affairs. See Majlis, 4 March 1948; andThe Straits Times, 9 March 1948.

^{page 214 note 101} Malay Mail, 7 March 1948.

^{page 214 note 102} Utusan Melayu, 16 February 1948.

^{page 214 note 103} Singapore Free Press, 2 March 1948.

^{page 214 note 104} Sunday Times, 7 March 1948.

^{page 214 note 105} Straits Echo, 9 March 1948.

^{page 214 note 106} The Pattani nationalists demanded the reconstruction of Pattani as an autonomous Malay State. The case rested upon part 3 of the Atlantic Charter which stated that every race has the right to choose or form a government of its own provided the rights and the sovereignty of other nations are not jeopardized. Sunday Tribune, 14 March 1948.

^{page 214 note 107} Malaya Tribune, 22 March 1948.

^{page 214 note 108} Sunday Gazette, 28 March 1948; and Malaya Tribune, 31 March 1948.

^{page 215 note 109} The Straits Times, 6 March 1948.

^{page 215 note 110} The Bangkok Post stated that in its editorial: “Unless decisive action is taken by the Government in the matter of reported unrest in the four provinces along the Malay border the prestige of this country will be seriously damaged…” (quoted in Sunday Tribune, 14 March 1948).

^{page 215 note 111} The Straits Times, 12 March 1948.

^{page 215 note 112} Singapore Free Press, 13 March 1948.

^{page 215 note 113} The Straits Times, 19 March 1948.

^{page 215 note 114} The idea of bringing the matter to the UN was not new to the Thai Government. When questioned about this, the Premier just laughed at it and said, “Do you think it can be done? The four provinces are not under Thai protection (literally, the four provinces are not annexed to Thailand). They are provinces in Thailand itself, and the people in these provinces admit, themselves, to be all Thai. Because of this, how can they expect UNO to do anything?” See The Siam Nikorn, 23 January 1948.

^{page 215 note 115} The Straits Times, 19 March 1948.

^{page 215 note 116} Singapore Free Press, 10 March 1948.

^{page 216 note 117} Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 15 March 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 216 note 118} Abdulla Wangputeh was a grand-nephew of the Sultan of Setul. See Singapore Free Press, 14 April 1948.

^{page 216 note 119} Malaya Tribune, 27 April 1948.

^{page 216 note 120} The Straits Times, 29 April 1948. The Malays at Dusun Nyor village where the incident occurred denied the attack. They, in turn, charged that the Thai police first opened fire on them while they were having a feast at the village. The police, the villagers stated, suspected them as they had just re-entered Thailand after staying for nearly a year in Malaya. The Malayan police launched an anti-bandit drive at that time, and the fear of being mistaken as bandits motivated their moving back to the village.

According to Tengku Mahyiddin who claimed to have been told the real story by a special messenger on 28 April, verified from one of the evacuees of the village, there had been a party of about 60–80 Dusun Nyor people when the police attacked them by surprise. “The people unexpectedly rushed at the police who threw down their arms and ran away back to Tanjong Mas where they reported seeing about 1,000 guerillas having a meeting to revolt. This was to ‘save face’ for running away.“ Anyhow, the incident became more serious when the people of the surrounding villages came, the following day, to join the Dusun Nyor group as the rumours were going round that the Thai police were coming in strength to exterminate all the Malays. Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 4 May 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 216 note 121} Reuter reported that the British authorities had offered the Thai Government their assistance and co-operation if required to restore peace and order in the frontier district. See The Straits Times, 30 April 1948.

^{page 217 note 122} The Government decided to grant immediately the Muslim request to make Friday an official holiday in the four provinces and, it was said, Haji Sulong was also released on bail. See Straits Echo, 1 May 1948; and Malay Mail, 2 May 1948.

^{page 217 note 123} Malaya Tribune, 3 May 1948.

^{page 217 note 124} Straits Echo, 16 May 1948.

^{page 217 note 125} The Straits Times, 19 May 1948.

^{page 217 note 126} Indian Daily Mail, 19 May 1948.

^{page 217 note 127} Straits Echo, 5 and 15 May 1948.

^{page 217 note 128} Singapore Free Press, 18 May 1948.

^{page 217 note 129} The Straits Times, 8 May 1948.

^{page 217 note 130} Ibid., 27 May 1948.

^{page 218 note 131} A newspaper from across the border reported that the GAMPAR had issued a communique urging the Malays in South Thailand to continue the fight against Thai injustice. But the news was later denied by the Secretary of that organization. See Straits Echo, 17 May 1948; and The Straits Times, 23 May 1948.

^{page 218 note 132} The Straits Times, 29 May 1948.

^{page 218 note 133} The Straits Times, 6 June 1948.

^{page 218 note 134} Haji Sulong charged the Governor of Pattani with having taken revenge on him for not helping the latter in the January 1948 election. He stated: “When he (the Khaluang) was in Bangkok he wrote to me asking my help to influence the people of Pattani to elect him as their representative in the parliament in Bangkok. I was his close friend when he was the Commissioner of Pattani 18 years ago. But I have no opportunity to help him because Khun Charoen Subsaeng, one of my closest friends, also wanted to be the representative of Pattani. Since I could not help him, he had a grudge against me and arrested me later.” See article in Suara Siswa, cited in fn. 61.

^{page 218 note 135} Straits Echo, 12 June 1948. His case was defended by lawyers from the opposition party free of charge. Tengku Mahyiddin alleged injustice at the trial. He charged the prosecutor of using forged evidence and several false witnesses (e.g. a letter from him to instruct Haji Sulong to get ready to rise, etc.). He expressed his fear that, although lawyers were optimistic, Phibul might overrule laws, and that the trial be dragged on indefinitely to cook up evidence. He also complained that appeals sent to the Malay Rulers for loans to defend Sulong were all refused. Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 4 July 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 218 note 136} Malay Mail, 6 June 1948. Thailand was particularly attacked in an article published in this paper entitled “Fairyland of Malaya Appeals for Justice“ written by Miss B.W. Jones. Her previous article, “Pattani Appeals to UNO“, which appeared in April 1948 in the Eastern World in London, had already created a strong reaction among the Thai newspapers. In reply to her Eastern World article, Seriphap (la Liberte) of 29 May 1948 accused the writer of having made statements which were far from being the truth, and giving a wrong image of Thai administration in the South. It stated that: “The Siamese Government never prohibited them (the Malays) to publish a newspaper in Pattani. As to the people of Pattani not having freedom to gather together, ‘Eastern World’ itself has admitted that they do gather inSurau (Mosque) without being restrained. This shows ‘Eastern World’ contradicts its own statement and is a lie…” La Liberte, Editorial, 1 and 2 June 1948.

^{page 219 note 137} Singapore Free Press, 14 June, 1948. Reports reaching Bangkok earlier that month seemed to confirm the statement. They said that descendants of former Sultans of South Thailand and Kelantan were among the 400 who attended a secret meeting which was held to help free the Malays in southern Thai provinces. The meeting was organized by a Muslim society called“For Freedom of Siamese Muslims", with headquarters at Kota Bahru. The principal aims of the society were: the unity of Malays throughout the Peninsula; justice and progress for all Malays in accord with other people of the world; and the promotion of education among Malays. See The Straits Times, 6 June 1948.

^{page 219 note 138} Reports of a discussion between the Governments of Thailand and the Federation on conditions in the southern Thai provinces and in the North Malayan State of Kelantan indicated Thai concern to pacify the Muslims. It was further said that the Thai Deputy Minister of the Interior, Phraya Chindarak, was studying the Malayan methods of administration to see if any of them could be applied to the four provinces. See The Straits Times, 16 June 1948.

^{page 219 note 139} Malay Mail, 21 and 23 June 1948. The anti-Communist State of Emergency was proclaimed in Malaya at about this time.

^{page 219 note 140} The insurgents grouped at Dusun Nyor village were reported to have been joined by Haji Duramae, leader in the April disorders who escaped to Perak in Malaya. See Singapore Free Press, 28 July 1948.

^{page 219 note 141} The Straits Times, 26 August 1948.

^{page 219 note 142} ibid., 6 September 1948.

^{page 219 note 143} Utusan Melayu, quoted in The Straits Times, 6 September 1948.

^{page 220 note 144} Eighteen Pattani Malays who fled into northern Malaya expressed the same opinion as the Malayan paper that the Malays, and not the Communists, would be the target of the Thai in border actions. They also asserted that a new phase in the persecution of Malays in the four provinces had begun. See The Times, 10 September 1948; and Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 17 November 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 220 note 145} Singapore Free Press, 18 November 1948.

^{page 220 note 146} The special concessions regarding education for Muslim children in Thailand had been announced earlier in July, and a nine-man committee was appointed to implement the agreement which was reached after two days of meetings with representatives of South Thailand's Muslims. See The Straits Times, 16 July 1948.

Tengku Mahyiddin expressed his opinion on the announcement of Thai Ministry of Education that:“It will remain on paper only…” —Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 23 July 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 220 note 147} Singapore Free Press, 23 November 1948.

^{page 220 note 148} ibid, 14 December 1948.

^{page 220 note 149} Utusan Melayu, 16 December 1948.

^{page 221 note 150} Indian Daily Mail, 20 November 1948.

^{page 221 note 151} The Straits Times, 26 and 27 November 1948.

^{page 221 note 152} Indian Daily Mail, 17 December 1948.

^{page 221 note 153} WartaNegara, 30 November 1948.

^{page 221 note 154} Utusan Melayu, quoted in The Straits Times, 9 December 1948.

^{page 221 note 155} ibid, 16 December 1948.

^{page 221 note 156} Actually, their policies seemed to differ greatly from one another. The civil servants always gave frowning looks to all inspiration and action that“will jeopardise the friendly relations with a neighbouring country which is doing all it can to help us to suppress the terrorists.” Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 17 November 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 221 note 157} The Straits Times, 10 January 1949.

^{page 221 note 158} The British investigators arrested a Singapore engraver who admitted manufacturing 5,000 of the badges. Indian Daily Mail, 17 December 1948.

^{page 222 note 159} Some officials in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States had repeatedly urged the necessity of extending the British protection to the Thai Malay States in the North of the Peninsula; and Straits Settlements Governors like Sir Frederick Weld and Sir Frank Swettenham, had been ardent advocates of a British forward policy during 1880–1904. See Thio, Eunice, “A Turning Point in Britain's Malayan Policy,” The Historical Annual, No. 3 (University of Malaya: Historical Society, 1957), pp. 6–17.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 160} As the Thai Government took over the collection of revenue and introduced the Thesaphiban system of provincial administration in the Seven Provinces, the Rajas of Pattani, Ra-ngae, and Saiburi complained to the authorities in Singapore against the tightening up of Thai control and asked for British protection. They quickly met sympathetic friends in the Straits Settlements, particularly in its Governor. When Raja Abdul Kadir was arrested for contemplating rebellion and removed to Phitsanuloke where he was kept for more than two years, Swettenham strongly suggested to the British Government to intervene for the release of the Raja of Pattani. In fact, the British Foreign Office received quite often Bangkok's protests about Swettenham's activities in the Thai Malay States. See CO. 273/274, Swettenham to Chamberlain, Confidential, 3 September 1901; F.O. 69/236, Swettenham to Lucas, 19 and 20 March 1902; and CO. 273/304, Landsdowne to Paget, 19 January 1904, Public Record Office, London.

^{page 222 note 161} An effort to make Great Britain withhold recognition of the Thai Government until it had acted favourably to its Muslim minority in the South had already been made by Tengku Mahyiddin. He cabled to Mr. Attlee, on 25 January 1948, the following message: ” In the name of humanity and justice we crave that you do not recognise the Siamese Government before thoroughly investigating the Fascist ways of administration in the four Malay States in South Siam. Our endurance under the Siamese officials’ maladministration is exhausted. We request that a plebiscite be held in the four states” (See Mahyiddin to B. W. Jones, 22 February 1948; Jones Papers).

^{page 222 note 162} See Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 21 January 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 223 note 163} Mahyiddin to B.W. Jones, 6 March 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 223 note 164} According to Tengku Mahyiddin, a British official in Malaya had come to see him to make sure whether the Pattani Malays wanted to come over to Malaya. He was asked at the same time not to take any step against Thailand, lest the Malays be regarded as Communist and were wiped out. Mahyiddin to B. W. Jones, 30 August 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 223 note 165} Some Malay nationalists under British rule were then working in concert with a number of Islamic agitators who had escaped from South Thailand after Phibul's coup of November 1947. And, in London, the supporters of a Pattani seditious movement found their champion in Miss B. W. Jones, the British journalist who formerly resided in Malaya. They tried to get the support of influential politicians in the North both in Kelantan and in Kedah so that the liberation of Pattani and its reconstruction might be linked with the cause of Malay nationalism. British opposition Members of Parliament were approached as well. B.W. Jones to Mahyiddin, 2 January, 14 February, and 2 March 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 223 note 166} This step in getting mixed up with Pridi was considered ‘unwise’ and checked by Miss B.W. Jones, for to do so would only antagonise the new regime in Bangkok,“… unless you are advised on good authority that he is well favoured in and by Singapore. And even then, what can he do for you?” B. W. Jones to Mahyiddin, 2 January 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 223 note 167} From 1947 onwards, Bangkok had always been the target of bitter criticism from outside. Several articles (such as had appeared in the Eastern World published in London, or in the Malay Mail, the Utusan Melayu, etc. in Singapore and the Federation) while sympathizing with the Pattani cause, drastically attacked Thailand. Doubtless, they aimed at creating a stir in Britain and elsewhere.

^{page 224 note 168} The suggestion was made by Miss B.W. Jones who offered her own home to be used as the Society office in London. B.W. Jones to Mahyiddin, 6 March 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 224 note 169} Jones, B.W., “Pattani Appeals to UNO,” The Eastern World, April 1948.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 170} B.W. Jones to Mahyiddin, 6 March 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 224 note 171} Failing satisfaction from Britain and Malaya, Indonesia presented Pattani with a third alternative. During his trip to Java, Mahyiddin had a talk with Soekarno. Though the Indonesian leader had listened with sympathetic interest, he remained non-committal. In a letter to Miss B.W. Jones, Mahyiddin lamented:“I myself did not do much conversing about Pattani as you know that my conviction is for Pattani to be with Malaya.… I am at a dead end how toachieve my aim. Everyone is very cold towards the project and even told me to give up the idea and concentrate on something else more useful. Many a time high officials in Malaya gave me advice not to waste my time in Pattani as there is no chance of success” (31 January 1948, Jones Papers).

^{page 224 note 172} U Tin Tut who was then Foreign Minister of the Republic of Burma had been asked if he would study the Pattani case with a view to later intervention. B.W. Jones to Mahyiddin, 2 March 1948, Jones Papers.

^{page 224 note 173} According to political etiquette, the Thai leader was firmly convinced that Britain would not support any foreign agitation from Malaya. See The Straits Times, 19 March 1948.

^{page 224 note 174} Singapore Free Press, 3 December 1948.

^{page 224 note 175} Ministry of the Interior, Matters Concerning the Southern Border Province, p. 10.

Article contents

The Problem of the Thai-Muslims in the Four Southern Provinces of Thailand* (Part One)

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests