Why Are They Fighting Down South...?

[james24]

I use to live in Phuket and never found the reason for all the fighting down south.

Some say its Malaysians, some say its Muslims vs Buddhists, some say its yellows vs reds, some say its militants against a ruling family.... can anyone give a 'clear' explanation of what they are fighting for.....?

[mrtoad]

Think they are fighting for Independence - I'm pretty sure at one point that some of the bordering provinces where part of Malaysia, and that there was some for of land deals done between Siam and Malaya. Anyway, I'm no expert, but there are a few people here that post that have much more knowledge on the Southern provinces.

[Livinginexile]

Muslim seperatists want independance from Thailand.

I think that's it really.

[james24]

Muslim seperatists want independance from Thailand.

I think that's it really.

So the separists want to be part of Malaysia or have their own state....???

Edited May 14, 2011 by james24

[HeavyDrinker]

It's a deep issue with many layers but I'll try to nutshell it here.

It basically dates back to when the British handed over the 4 northernmost states of what was then Malaya to Siam in return for control over several Malay states in the Bangkok treaty of 1909.

There was no relocation or representation of the indigenous Malay people and to this day many there identify more with the Malay ethnicity than the Thai ethnicity and there is a lot of resentment which has been exploited by various organisations over the years - currently the best known of these is Jemaah Islamiyah.

It really runs so much deeper and further back in history than this though but the Bangkok Treaty of 1909 is seen as the Watershed moment by Modern Historians.

[simon43]

Many say that the issue of autonomy/independance for the 3 southern provinces is simply an old excuse for the current troubles, and that the real reasons are more to do with local drug barons and mafia groups fighting each other for the rewards of their criminal activities

Simon

[JurgenG]

Many say that the issue of autonomy/independance for the 3 southern provinces is simply an old excuse for the current troubles, and that the real reasons are more to do with local drug barons and mafia groups fighting each other for the rewards of their criminal activities

Simon

Absolutely agree with that.

In Europe we have the same problem in Spain and Ireland. It has nothing to do with politic or religion, it's just mafia, drug runners. The only solution is to get rid of these people, by any means.

Edited May 14, 2011 by JurgenG

[Thongkorn]

The people that live in between Malaysia and Thailand don't class themselves as either Thai or Malaysian, thats why they want autonomy, Malaysia use to Finnish right up to Nakonsitamarat. also the Muslims are acting up , they kill Buddhist, Christians, and anybody Else , they kill children in schools and kill the teachers.its been going on for years.

[StreetCowboy]

Many say that the issue of autonomy/independance for the 3 southern provinces is simply an old excuse for the current troubles, and that the real reasons are more to do with local drug barons and mafia groups fighting each other for the rewards of their criminal activities

Simon

Absolutely agree with that.

In Europe we have the same problem in Spain and Ireland. It has nothing to do with politic or religion, it's just mafia, drug runners. The only solution is to get rid of these people, by any means.

Personally, I've been in favour of the rule of law; supporting the rule of law undermines support for terrorism whereas violence encourages terrorism.

The people that live in between Malaysia and Thailand don't class themselves as either Thai or Malaysian, thats why they want autonomy, Malaysia use to Finnish right up to Nakonsitamarat. also the Muslims are acting up , they kill Buddhist, Christians, and anybody Else , they kill children in schools and kill the teachers.its been going on for years.

I think it may be worth checking your historical geography. Malaysia is a relatively new country, and other than the loss of Singapore, I don't think that the boundaries have changed significantly since independence. Anyway, I don't know enough to offer any definitive comment, and I'd not like to speculate on the religion of the gangsters involved. I think the phrase "...Muslims are acting up" would be better read as "...separatist terrorists and local gangsters are acting up"; Muslims are no more to blame for the problems in the deep South than Christians are to blame for the problems that beset Ireland until recently.

SC

[smokie36]

I suspect Thai nationalism, greed and lack of regional autonomy over the last decades is at the heart of the troubles. An injection of democracy and localised prosperity would do much to help heal the wounds.

Don't expect much to change in the foreseeable future.

[DP25]

Many say that the issue of autonomy/independance for the 3 southern provinces is simply an old excuse for the current troubles, and that the real reasons are more to do with local drug barons and mafia groups fighting each other for the rewards of their criminal activities

Simon

That's what many tell themselves to avoid the reality of a permanent religious extremist based separatist movement that has no solution in sight.

Releasing the provinces is impossible as the non Muslims would be killed or driven out and the moderate Muslims would suffer under extremists. Completely getting rid of the extremists seems to be near impossible as well.

Edited May 14, 2011 by DP25

[StreetCowboy]

Many say that the issue of autonomy/independance for the 3 southern provinces is simply an old excuse for the current troubles, and that the real reasons are more to do with local drug barons and mafia groups fighting each other for the rewards of their criminal activities

Simon

That's what many tell themselves to avoid the reality of a permanent religious extremist based separatist movement that has no solution in sight.

Releasing the provinces is impossible as the non Muslims would be killed or driven out and the moderate Muslims would suffer under extremists. Completely getting rid of the extremists seems to be near impossible as well.

One alternative might be to implement repressive policies that fuelled the terrorist violence to the extent that ethnic cleansing became seen as the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, there will be namby-pamby liberals who object to that sort of thing, though fortunately they are mostly foreigners, and therefore irrelevant. However, this sort of policy could have devastating impact on the moral integrity of the state, which could affect the rest of the nation.

Another alternative would be to achieve long-term prosperity and education, thus undermining the poverty, ignorance and resentment on which gangsters and terrorists thrive. Unfortunately, this looks like 'pandering to terrorists', and undermines the image of strong and manly government, and a 'hard as boots' military.

SC

[zzaa09]

It's a deep issue with many layers but I'll try to nutshell it here.

It basically dates back to when the British handed over the 4 northernmost states of what was then Malaya to Siam in return for control over several Malay states in the Bangkok treaty of 1909.

There was no relocation or representation of the indigenous Malay people and to this day many there identify more with the Malay ethnicity than the Thai ethnicity and there is a lot of resentment which has been exploited by various organisations over the years - currently the best known of these is Jemaah Islamiyah.

It really runs so much deeper and further back in history than this though but the Bangkok Treaty of 1909 is seen as the Watershed moment by Modern Historians.

Nice, HD. As most have been left clueless about the historic reasoning behind the troubled south - this vacancy includes the historians that find it necessary to rewrite and revise how we absorb historiography. It would benefit those to gather related {real} Siamese historic material and find how everything fits into place, naturally not to the benign benefit of the historic propaganda which is repeated over and again. Naturally, the historic and present-day boogieman are never the ones we would suspect.

Edited May 14, 2011 by zzaa09

[MiG16]

James

its a long long story, with too many possible reasons

some of which have already been listed here by other members

some others discussed in various other threads in the past. some threads had a lot of interesting info, but I cant remember what they were titled under so couldnt help you with the search.

but here is one:

my limited knowledge of history:

the present deep south, consisting of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, and some other districts nearby (possibly) were previously an independent Kingdom, called Patani (notice the different spelling to the current Thai province of Pattani).

it was never a part of Malaysia. some parts of what is now modern Kelantan state in Malaysia was part of the Kingdom.

At some point in histor, Siam (thailand at the time) wanted to expand its territory, but mostly open up trade routes with the west. Patani was a major trading port with many from the west (and middle east too I think). So Siam sent a note demanding Patani to start paying taxes (whatever it was called in those days). to Siam administration once the Patani kingdom agreed to pay these taxes, they took it as a sign of the Kingdom also accepting governance over the state. The Patani state however looked at it more as a business transaction. There was no issue raised over this unspoken misunderstanding ofcourse, since in those days with distance and travel being so difficult, Siam didnt really care to interfere with the administration. they were just happy to recieve taxes. the King of Patani continued to rule and govern.

At some point things changed (possibly what others have referred to as the time period when all the neighbouring countries were being colonised by western powers and the likes). now this is where my history lesson became hazy long story short - we are somehow left with modern day Thailand. Patani Kingdom vanished.

Population however, is very different to the rest of the upper part of south thailand and central thailand.

There have been periodics 'insurgencies' - at some point there was also elements of communism, at some point it was more prominent on religious and ethnic issues. POssibly the latest violence was in the late 70s, early 80s?(before this current one which has been on-going since the beginning of 2004)

in that last spade there was a lot of talk of separatist movement -- the most prominent group at the time was possibly the PULO (Patani United Liberation Organisation), but the leader then fled to Sweden, and things died down.

this 'fresh' round of violence - using the term fresh when I should in fact say 'stale' - this is where things are no longer clear.

initially everyone thought it was yet another attempt to cause disruption along similar lines of separation. grievances against central administration on discrimination against the muslim population - no support structure, no economic opportunity, including no official recognition of the local dialect.

add to this: talks about the problem being one of business agenda of two competing countries along the border - getting foreign investment and such

add to this: talks about local power struggles (officials, and drug dealers)

and as the years go by, there is now more and more talk of another element.

but I will leave that for another place, another time.

[HeavyDrinker]

Well I tried to nutshell things as this is such a deep issue however Simon is (for once) is way off the mark.

Mig is bouncing around in guesswork with far too many 'possiblys' in his post.

The only way to really understand the issue is to talk to ethnic Malays in the South and to really hack through the historical relationship between Britain and Siam.

Starting with Henry Burney may be a better bet. Much of his early involvement in that region can be found in Hall.

Edited May 14, 2011 by HeavyDrinker

[MiG16]

Heavydrinker - 'possibly because my 'history lesson' was before the 1909 period you referred to?

Talking to ethnic Malays in the area as you pointed - will give some views as to the last 3 rounds ie the late 60s, late 70s/ early 80s, plus the 2004 to current.

The 2004 round will get you a myriad of amswers - most prominent is the one I did not want to mention. And still don't

I will say one thing more. As the year goes by I believe in the demand for separation less and less. The supposed militants - whoever they are- no doubt have managed to get the attention of the Thai govt. If they had demands it should have been put forward by now. For a short time, there was a hoo-haa about a meeting between the govt (through military rep) with 6 key organizations that the government said had influence over the local population. Never heard anything from those 'negotiations'. That must have been either 2008/2008?

I qualify my posts with possibly cos: I'm writing all this from memory, from recollection, from things I've read, news I've watched and people I've talked to over the years. Not had time/patience to do a net search to back up my memory. Wouldnt want to go wrong on the historical aspects. The recent events I can talk with more certainty. Cos I've been around have watched read observed and plus some are opinions I've formed

[StreetCowboy]

It's a deep issue with many layers but I'll try to nutshell it here.

It basically dates back to when the British handed over the 4 northernmost states of what was then Malaya to Siam in return for control over several Malay states in the Bangkok treaty of 1909.

There was no relocation or representation of the indigenous Malay people and to this day many there identify more with the Malay ethnicity than the Thai ethnicity and there is a lot of resentment which has been exploited by various organisations over the years - currently the best known of these is Jemaah Islamiyah.

It really runs so much deeper and further back in history than this though but the Bangkok Treaty of 1909 is seen as the Watershed moment by Modern Historians.

So to summarise:

Your point is that the Malay inhabitants of the deep southern provinces of Thailand feel hard done by, since the British crown abandoned them to the Thais, yet managed to wrest from Thai Control to sovereigny under the protection of Edward VII for their neighbours in the provinces to the South? In that respect, they probably have a fair grievance, as they would surely have been better treated in a British jurisdiction and its descendent administrations, blessed as they are by the Common Law and pluralistic principles, but sadly, we could not universally exercise authority over Johnny Foreigner. The Malay residents feel hard done by, insofar as they are treated as second class citizens by their national majority. Perhaps they could explain this point clearly to their bumiputra neighbours, perhaps using Indian Malaysians as an analogy for ease of understanding.

Is my understanding correct?

SC

[HeavyDrinker]

Well SC you need to understand a few key points about how the British colonised Malaysia.

It wasn't by force but by money.

They basically bought out the Sultanates and showered them with money and a Cambridge education for all the kids.

There was no resistance. The Chinese and Indians were introduced to hold important posts and the native Malays were pretty much ignored for they were taught from the egg to be loyal to their Sultan.

The Malays were truly the underclass during the British colonial period.

At the time of the Treaty, those with influence i.e. the Indians and the Chinese were all offered a relocation option. The Malays - who were deemed unimportant - were offered nothing.

Edited May 14, 2011 by HeavyDrinker

[MiG16]

SC

Bear in mind that there are no laws that discriminate though. Unlke the affirmative action NEP in practice in Malaysia.

And remember that in the deep south the ethnic Malays form the majority of the population. This essentially means various local govt positions are held by local erhinic people. And in more recent years this includes senior posts in governance, police force too. When I say recent I'm thinking roughly 15 to 20 years?

Elected representatives to national parliament as well.

[MiG16]

. The Chinese and Indians were introduced to hold important posts

Are you sure? From what I know the Indians at least were brought out mostly as low skilled labour. They mainly worked in rubber plantations.lived within them. Grew up, lived, got married, had children, who went to school - all within the plantations. Received little education thiugh And hence the major cause of their current circumstances to date - poverty, limited education, no job opportunities etc etc.

But we are digressing from south Thailand now

[HeavyDrinker]

And remember that in the deep south the ethnic Malays form the majority of the population.

Well MiG there you really do have a massive point - possibly the KEY point - because they have the whole 'Thai' thing rammed down their throats....

I must sleep now but there are some excellent points here which I'll get onto tomorrow.

Nice to read posts from people who know what they're on about for once.

Thanks lads.

[HeavyDrinker]

BTW the Indians were mainly of Chettiah caste (money lender but also good admin types) and also lower labourer castes especially from Southern India...

[StreetCowboy]

Let me preface this post by noting that this is a subject about which I know very little, and therefore I appreciate any explanations; I am being argumentative for the sake of learning, and offering up my preconceptions to be corrected where necessary

Well SC you need to understand a few key points about how the British colonised Malaysia.

It wasn't by force but by money.

They basically bought out the Sultanates and showered them with money and a Cambridge education for all the kids.

There was no resistance. The Chinese and Indians were introduced to hold important posts and the native Malays were pretty much ignored for they were taught from the egg to be loyal to their Sultan.

The Malays were truly the underclass during the British colonial period.

At the time of the Treaty, those with influence i.e. the Indians and the Chinese were all offered a relocation option. The Malays - who were deemed unimportant - were offered nothing.

So the provinces which are now part of Thailand were at that time under British administration? My understanding is that the treaty effectively extended British administration, albeit defining a limit to it.

SC

Bear in mind that there are no laws that discriminate though. Unlke the affirmative action NEP in practice in Malaysia.

And remember that in the deep south the ethnic Malays form the majority of the population. This essentially means various local govt positions are held by local erhinic people. And in more recent years this includes senior posts in governance, police force too. When I say recent I'm thinking roughly 15 to 20 years?

Elected representatives to national parliament as well.

True enough. But whereas Malaysia has discriminatory laws, it is committed to a pluralistic society and (to a substantial extent) the state works within the law. I believe that there have been instances in the relatively recent past that might call into question such a claim on the part of the Thai state, which effectively plays into the hands of terrorists and trouble-makers. When an ethnic group is disproportionately under-represented in authority, the fact that it is represented at all may not be sufficient, and grievances may be raised even though there is no justification - there may be other reasons for the under-representation than some barrier to representation.

SC

[jombom]

By agreement between Britain and Siam, the Sultanate of Pattani and Kelantan were abolished (1909), and both territories were annexed. For many years both territories were allowed a large degree of autonomy, and there exists a figurehead Sultan of Kelantan in Malaysia.

In Thailand however, certain egos in Bangkok decided to basically remove all forms of autonomy, and administer the region from BKK. Schools and teachers, unfortunately, are regarded as front-line instigators of central control, hence the burning of schools etc.

In a nutshell, that's it ---- obviously reality is far more complex.

[StreetCowboy]

By agreement between Britain and Siam, the Sultanate of Pattani and Kelantan were abolished (1909), and both territories were annexed. For many years both territories were allowed a large degree of autonomy, and there exists a figurehead Sultan of Kelantan in Malaysia.

In Thailand however, certain egos in Bangkok decided to basically remove all forms of autonomy, and administer the region from BKK. Schools and teachers, unfortunately, are regarded as front-line instigators of central control, hence the burning of schools etc.

In a nutshell, that's it ---- obviously reality is far more complex.

My understanding is that this is more or less the same for the rest of the nation. Why would one allow different rules for the people of the deep south compared to other regions? Of course, a pragmatic government might pander to the aspirations of its minorities by allowing separate football associations, and their own own regional administration in some fields, but the experience from Holyrood suggests that this sort of pandering just leads to them asking for more, even when they should be able to see for themselves the damage that their own politicobuffoon class inflicts on themselves.

On an only very loosely related topic: Who else found Gerry Adams more credible when his words were spoken by an actor?

SC

[MiG16]

I think you need to re-look at the multi cultural racial harmony success story that the Malaysia government tries to paint to the outside world.

Political parties campaign along religious divide. Government ministries have posts that deal with one and only one ethnic group. Sounds almost good until you hear - no for that it's Indian problem you have to talk to so and so. (instead of ok it's an education issue, yes that's my portfolio. Or yes women issue my portfolio)

Try talking to a Chinese business man who feels hard done by cos he is forced to have a Malay on his board because 'he has 'to'. Or an Indian student with top grades but couldn't get in to the degree cos the place had been taken up by a quota for a bumiputra (son of the land).

Now as to your comment about under representation in national parliament I presume? What do you suggest? Introduce a quota for ethnic groups? Certainly not something I'd want. Just the same way I don't want quotas for women in parliament or in boards. Rather do it on merit.

And when it comes to quotas for people representatives, doesn't that then defeat the purpose of a democracy? That the result of an election is pre determined in parts by this quota?

[StreetCowboy]

I think you need to re-look at the multi cultural racial harmony success story that the Malaysia government tries to paint to the outside world.

Political parties campaign along religious divide. Government ministries have posts that deal with one and only one ethnic group. Sounds almost good until you hear - no for that it's Indian problem you have to talk to so and so. (instead of ok it's an education issue, yes that's my portfolio. Or yes women issue my portfolio)

Try talking to a Chinese business man who feels hard done by cos he is forced to have a Malay on his board because 'he has 'to'. Or an Indian student with top grades but couldn't get in to the degree cos the place had been taken up by a quota for a bumiputra (son of the land).

Now as to your comment about under representation in national parliament I presume? What do you suggest? Introduce a quota for ethnic groups? Certainly not something I'd want. Just the same way I don't want quotas for women in parliament or in boards. Rather do it on merit.

And when it comes to quotas for people representatives, doesn't that then defeat the purpose of a democracy? That the result of an election is pre determined in parts by this quota?

I work in a multi-national Malay company with a multi-cultural workforce, and generally, people get on fairly well. Of course there are racial discrepancies, but successful companies get the best out of all their employees. And I don't hear any grumbling from my colleagues or friends about lack of opportunity. Of course people whinge about anything that they can get away with - Why can't I vote here when I pay tax? Why do my in-laws ask for money just because I earn ten times what they get? Why can't I get the Superleague on television?

I don't believe in positive discrimination, but, to be honest, I think most farangs' objection to positive discrimination is not based on the discrimination itself, but rather on the implicit constraints on freedom of bigotry, which the Indian and Chinese population of Malaysia do not feel. I might accept that I had to employ a darkie, but I would resent not being able to call him such.

I don't think that legislation necessarily reflects the tolerance in a society,

SC

[MiG16]

I had different experience in Malaysia. I saw those in their 60 or 70 who had genuine friendships regardless of their race. Then I see those in their early 30 who seem to have more homogeneous friends in their group.

And as to unhappiness - I talked to VERY different group of people than the ones in your circle. Those whose children could not go to school - yes even though education is free - because they didn't have money for the bus fair and it's too far to walk to school. Or the mothers worked 2 jobs to put food on the table for the kids. Kids have no education, end up on the streets, getting into petty thefts then bigger crimes as they get older. Cos their mothers are too busy working and the fathers are too busy getting drunk. Or in some cases somehow the kid manage to push themselves through school. Get good grades. Then no uni place cos of quota issue.

Not unique to Malaysia ofcourse.

[Thongkorn]

Many say that the issue of autonomy/independance for the 3 southern provinces is simply an old excuse for the current troubles, and that the real reasons are more to do with local drug barons and mafia groups fighting each other for the rewards of their criminal activities

Simon

Absolutely agree with that.

In Europe we have the same problem in Spain and Ireland. It has nothing to do with politic or religion, it's just mafia, drug runners. The only solution is to get rid of these people, by any means.

Personally, I've been in favour of the rule of law; supporting the rule of law undermines support for terrorism whereas violence encourages terrorism.

The people that live in between Malaysia and Thailand don't class themselves as either Thai or Malaysian, thats why they want autonomy, Malaysia use to Finnish right up to Nakonsitamarat. also the Muslims are acting up , they kill Buddhist, Christians, and anybody Else , they kill children in schools and kill the teachers.its been going on for years.

I think it may be worth checking your historical geography. Malaysia is a relatively new country, and other than the loss of Singapore, I don't think that the boundaries have changed significantly since independence. Anyway, I don't know enough to offer any definitive comment, and I'd not like to speculate on the religion of the gangsters involved. I think the phrase "...Muslims are acting up" would be better read as "...separatist terrorists and local gangsters are acting up"; Muslims are no more to blame for the problems in the deep South than Christians are to blame for the problems that beset Ireland until recently.

SC

My statement was a brief comment about the south of Thailand Malaysia did go as far as Nacositamarat on the east coast of Thailand many years ago, I am not blaming Muslims for all the trouble, Malaysia has alot to answer to , Its the same scenario as Thailand has with Burma.

[cdnvic]

Removed one inflammatory post.