There's A Secret War In Thailand No One's Talking About

[Arkady]

Another little known fact about the history of the Deep South is that soon after the end of the Second World War a delegation of Pattani Malay Muslims arrived in London to petition the British government to free them from the hated Siamese colonial yolk and annex them as a British protectorate. This was an opportune moment because the British were preparing to force Thailand to return the adjoining four Malay states of Kedah, Kelantan, Tregganu and Perlis the Japanese had handed them in the war as well as the Shan States of Burma that had been invaded by Thai troops and annexed. The proposal received traction from certain quarters in the British establishment since the Pattani Malays had given considerable support to British intelligence and covert operations against the Japanese in defiance of the Bangkok government and there was a strong feeling in Britain that Thailand needed to be punished for its collaboration with Japan in the war. Some even urged the annexation of the entire Kingdom of Thailand.

What made the proposal crash and burn was twofold. The British colonial establishment was bitter towards the Malays in the British Malay States who, in contrast to the Pattani Malays, had largely collaborated with the Japanese occupiers. The US was already eying Thailand as a important base for the growth of the influence it was planning to develop in Asia to replace the weakened European colonial powers and put great pressure on Britain and France not to annex any more Thai territory than they had held prior to the Thai expansion starting in 1941. The US intervention proved decisive. Without that there would be no problem in Thailand's Deep South today because the border would be at Songkla.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Arkady

[Arkady]

It was a protectorate ceded to Thailand by the British. So clearly closer links to Malaysia than to Thailand.

Interesting information here from the Malaysian point of view.

http://www.malaysiak...m/letters/27712

It was a protectorate of Thailand, one of the sultanates ceded to Thailand by the British.

In 1909, Britain, which had taken over the states of the Pahang-Johor-Riau empire in the peninsula, acquired Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu as its protectorates. Siam and Britain had an agreement whereby in return for Britain acquiring the above four states, Siam was allowed to keep Patani.

By that definition, it should be neither Thailand's or Malaysia's.

IIRC, I read an article linked to earlier in the thread that Thailand (Siam) at one stage controlled most of the peninsula. And of course, the Khmer's controlled it at one stage too.

The problem with using the "but it was ours/theirs" argument is that "it was ours/theirs" at a particular point in time. Before that, it probably wasn't. When do you draw the line?

Agreed. The Malaysian point of view is interesting, as they feel it should be a separate country.

Yes, the Malaysians don't want Pattani now. If it had come as part of the package when Britain got the other four Malay states back from Thailand in 1946, it would have not been a problem but it's way too late. Malaysia doesn't want to sour its good relations with Thailand by asking for it and would anyway have to offer something very large to Thailand to pay for the land and massive loss of face (Britain financed King Chulalongkorn's railway through the South in return for the four Malay States in 1909). On getting the territory Malaysia would then have to police it and doesn't want to deal with the Islamic militants any more than Thailand does. Economically the provinces have been systematically neglected by the Thai government for 100 years and Malaysia would have to pump in billions to develop them. Then they would have to deal with the Buddhist and Christian minorities who would be extremely pissed off at becoming minorities and Thailand would make Malaysia guarantee their rights in some way.

Under the current constitution and whatever follows it no Thai government would dare propose offering any square centimetre of what is regarded as Thai soil to another country, as they would be tied up in law suits as individuals for the rest of their lives. Currently the only viable solution is local autonomy.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Arkady

[tmd5855]

My observations on Islam and the behaviour of muslims are at a working level. Worked between Jakarta and Matak island for a couple of years 2004-2006.

Quite a few of the people I worked with, were as secular a practising muslim could be. This attitude were a result of them traveling abroad and being exposed to different cultures.

But??

It is what they all agreed on that gave me food for thought, basically they said that Christianity and Islam were the same, came from the same place/source, had the same dogma etc?? But, Christianity had the reformation, the Christians then had theology students who looked again at the bible for re-interpretation in a more 'modern' world. This resulted in offshoots of offshoot from the Catholic church to Protestant theology.

My Islamic work colleagues said Islam teaching has already split into two main camps, Shia - Sunni with more offshoots?

What is scary is what he said next. Islam has never had a reformation, a re-examination of its creed, philosphy or dogma.

To do so, would be to question the words of the Prophet, Muhamed (sic)

Anyone who does question the teachings may find themselves declared an 'apostate', under Sharia law his killer would not face punishment.

That is why I were told, you will only find (If you are lucky) moderate Imman's, you will not find anything else.

Scary??