Tuesday 13 June 2023

Hint of ‘self-determination’ in Thai south rankles

Calls for a referendum gauging support for independence in the Muslim-majority region spark panic

By ASMADEE BUEHENG
Asia Times

A map of Thailand's southernmost border provinces. Image: Wikimedia

PATTANI, Thailand – A recent seminar on rights to self-determination by a newly formed student movement in Thailand’s Malay-speaking south got people running for cover after the Thai Army threatened legal action against a mock vote asking the participants whether they would support a referendum that could pave the way toward a separate state for the Muslim-majority region.

The plebiscite would ask: “Do you agree with the ‘right to self-determination’ as the underlying principle behind a referendum that would allow the voice of the Patani people to be heard so they can vote for independence through legal means?“

The army was offended and is thinking about taking legal action. Most Thai officials equate “right to self-determination” in the Muslim-majority far south to separatism.

More than 7,300 people have died from insurgency-related violence since January 2004 and the end is still nowhere in sight in spite of a series of peace talks that have yet to move beyond confidence-building measures.  

The deputy leader of the Prachachat Party, Worawit Baru, one of the speakers at last week’s seminar, was quick to distance himself from any call for a referendum, saying he was only speaking about such rights in general terms.

Other parties also ran for cover. Particularly disappointing to many participants was the leader of the Fair Party, Pitipong Temcharoen, whose party campaigns heavily in the far south, playing up local identity, freedom of speech, justice and equality for the Malay people and their cultural narrative. 

Instead of supporting free speech and freedom of expression, Pitipong’s first move was to save his own skin. He posted on Facebook that his party does not support separatism and anybody who embraces such ideas or engaged in such activities should face disciplinary action. 

Fair Party deputy secretary general Hakim Pongtigor, an ethnic Malay in the far south and a strong supporter of the right to self-determination who spoke at the event, has been under heavy pressure from his supporters to leave the party because of what Pitipong posted. 

“Declaring Patani an independent state is a crime, but talking about it should not be,” Hakim said. (The term “Patani,” spelled in English without the double “t,” refers to Deep South region of Thailand.)

Artef Sohko, president of The Patani political movement and one of the speakers at the seminar, said the aftermath of the event was a moment of truth for all the so-called pro-democracy political parties currently trying to form a coalition government.

“Instead of standing up to the right-wing media and the government’s information operation as it tries to twist the seminar into some sort of a criminal event, some of these political figures were quick to distance themselves from the event for fear of being labeled as pro-separatist. All the students were asking is whether there should be a referendum for on the right to self-determination. They didn’t call for a separate state,” Artef said.

Seeds of separatist sentiment

Obviously, the student movement that organized the seminar was pushing that line. Given the new political atmosphere in the country, they felt the need to test the waters.

As people who grew up with the constant threat of martial law and emergency decrees, legislation that former prime minister Anand Panyaranchun once called a “license to kill,” these students have observed the changing political landscape in Thailand and believe important issues such as the right to self-determination and referenda should no longer be discussed in the dark.

They also know that declaring independence for any region is a crime under Thai law.

But judging from the reaction from the Fourth Army Area, the command that oversees the day-to-day security situation in the far south, it appeared that the military will not let the new political landscape take over without a fight. 

Indeed, the battle has always been over narratives. On one side, the Malay-speaking far south is an integral part of Thailand. On the other side, the Patani region belongs to the Malays and that the Muslims here have the moral obligation to liberate this historical homeland from the invaders. 

One of the speakers at the event, Associate Professor Mark Tamthai, who spoke via video streaming from Chiang Mai, said both sides have always claimed that the people are with them. But there is no concrete evidence, such as a referendum, to support their claim.

Tamthai was the chief negotiator for the southern peace negotiation during the Abhisit Vejjajiva government.

The recently concluded Thai general election saw democracy and Malay nationalism came up quite prominently in the Patani region. But politicians had their priorities elsewhere; Patani nationalism and talks of a peace process don’t win votes.

But they can dodge the issue for only so long. At a recent press conference, Pita Limjaroenrat, the leader of the Move Forward Party and currently the frontrunner for the prime minister’s post, was put on the spot when asked if a government under his leadership would allow the far south go independent. 

Pita tried to play it safe and suggested that the conflict was rooted in the region’s livelihood, public health, and economy. His party’s anti-military stance blinded him from reaching a thorough and deeper understanding of this century-old conflict that continues to surface generation after generation.

The fact that Pita doesn’t have any Melayu (ethnic Malays) in any key position working on conflict resolution in Patani suggested that he doesn’t understand the sentiment of the people here. In this respect, Move Forward is not much different from other parties. 

The army’s critics like to point to the mistakes and atrocities committed by the state to explain the reasons for armed rebellion. But a new generation of fighters were being groomed in the 1990s when the situation was quite calm. They would surface in mid-2001 but were dismissed by the government of Thaksin Shinawatra as “sparrow bandits.”

An arms heist on January 4, 2004, from which combatants from the separatist Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) made off with more than 350 weapons, forced the government in Bangkok to acknowledge their presence. 

In fact, the narrative that ethnic Malays have a moral obligation to liberate their homeland from the invading Siamese has never died. 

The new crop of incoming Thai political leaders should know that their good intentions will not end the conflict or get the Malays to stop dreaming about Merdeka. They can be as benevolent they want. But a benevolent colonial master is still a colonial master.

While Pita’s off-the-wall statement could be excused because he is not familiar with the conflict and its complexity, Fair Party secretary general Kannavee Suebsang jolted a lot of people with his statement about the need to replace Malaysia with Indonesia as the mediator for the peace talks with BRN, the group that controls the combatants on the ground.

Textbooks on conflict studies may suggest that Malaysia is not qualified as an honest broker because its geographical proximity to Thailand’s Patani region. But nobody in Southeast Asia cares much about what the textbooks say, do they?

There is no honest broker anywhere in Southeast Asia, a region where states are fraught with overlapping claims and territorial disputes – a legacy of the colonial powers.

Whoever comes into the next Thai government should ask the people of Patani, regardless of ethnicity and race, what they really want. If they opt for independence, then the state will know that it has to work that much harder to win them over.

Who knows, the right to self-determination could be that missing term of endearment needed for peaceful co-existence. Indeed, nobody ever said governing was easy. 

An artist takes part in a graffiti event as part of the Saiburi Street Xhibit in Pattani - one of Thailand's southernmost Muslim majority provinces hit by a deadly insurgency - on February 28, 2016. Photo: AFP/Madree Tohlala 

Asmadee Bueheng is a freelance writer based in the Patani region of southern Thailand. He is the author of Rawang Thang Satta (“Along the Road of Faith”), published in March 2023.


Wednesday 7 June 2023

Potential Thai PM forced to face Deep South insurgency question

Commentary by Don Pathan 
BenarNews

Bangkok

The platforms of Thai political parties have left out the insurgency in the Deep South because solutions to the separatist conflict could require concessions that constituents likely will not accept.

The Patani's Artef Sohko and Move Forward Party
Leader, Pita Limjaroenrat,  in the far South,
April 2022 (Areefin Soh - The Patani)
And so politicians stop short of talking about the root causes – much less solutions – because these kinds of discussions require them to talk about concessions needed for a peaceful settlement.

Every now and then the questions come up, often unexpectedly, and a candidate is put on the spot and forced to think on his feet. A recent encounter between reporters and Pita Limjaroenrat, the leader of the Move Forward Party and a potential prime minister in waiting, is a case in point.

The journalists asked him if his party would allow the far south to break away from Thailand, should Move Forward succeed in forming a new government.

Pita tried to play it safe, saying the problem was rooted in the livelihoods of local people. His remarks didn’t go down well with the new generation of young local activists, many of whom voted for him.

“The incoming leader must be firm. That person must not act on rumors as it could result in misdirection. We could drift toward granting a bigger budget to the army to address the problem,” he said during a news conference at the signing ceremony of a memorandum of understanding among coalition parties on May 22.

“And the problem will never end. The reality is, the problem of the three southernmost provinces has to do with livelihood, the economy, and public health.”

As expected, the social media was flooded with all sorts of snotty remarks, accusing Pita of not being creative or bold enough.

Complex, misunderstood

But for many, the off-the-cuff statement was something that could be forgiven. After all, the conflict in the far south is complex and often misunderstood.

“Even veteran politicians like Wan Muhammed Noor Matha whose Prachachat, the so-called Malay party, chose to play it safe by claiming most people in this historically contested region don’t want an independent state,” said Artef Sohko, president of The Patani, a political action group advocating for the right of self-determination for the people of Thailand’s southern border region.

Of course, no Thai government had ever carried out a referendum to gauge what locals want. The closest was a research project headed by Mark Tamthai, an academic from Chiang Mai’s Payap University who specializes in peace and conflict studies. 

In the “Weaving Patani’s Dream Non-violently: An Analysis of Conversations for a New Imagination (2019),” he asked 1,000 pro-independence people in the region why they embraced this cause. A vast majority said it was their “sacred value.” 

Mark was Thailand’s chief negotiator for the southern peace process during the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. 

For Malay Muslims in the border region, democracy and nationalism featured prominently during the 2023 general election.

“It was obvious that the priorities of the political parties were elsewhere as democracy and nationalism in the Patani region were not properly addressed during the election campaign,” said Asmadee Bueheng, author of “Rawang Thang Sata” (“Along the Road of Faith”), published in March.

No one wanted to have a frank discussion about the historical grievances or why the ethnic Malays rejected Thailand’s policy of assimilation. Malays say it comes at the expense of their ethno-religious identity. 

The Thai state, on the other hand, sees the rejection as undermining its nationhood.

Muslim men and women shop at a market in Pattani province in Thailand’s Deep South region, March 16, 2019. [Panu Wongcha-um/Reuters]

While the current wave of insurgency in the Muslim-majority, Malay-speaking south began in 2004 and more than 7,300 people have since died because of related violence, a critical mass outside the region was never generated.

One reason is because successive governments didn’t want to engage in critical discussion about the Malays’ grievances for fear that such discussions would legitimize the uprising.

Moreover, for many of the past 19 years, regardless of whether the government was democratically elected or came to power through a coup, peace initiatives came and went and none generated enough traction to move the talks beyond a confidence-building measure, or CBM. Military options were always on the table.

Peace process

If Pita and Move Forward can form a government with a coalition of other parties, they will inherit a peace process that has not moved beyond a talk shop. 

But if Move Forward has the political will that it said it has, then conflict resolution for the far south could see a turning point. Meaningful concessions could very well be made and the local Malays, as well as the rebel group Barisan Revolusi Nasional, could be forced to respond.

Pita might have shot himself in the foot with the statement about livelihood being the cause of the conflict. But this is nothing compared to the wrath from Thai nationalists, as well as army hardliners that he and rookie politicians could face if his party is seen as being too lenient on the majority-Malay population in the far south. 

Thai people have long associated Thainess, or kwam pen Thai, with the state-constructed identity and narrative and could be extremely unkind to people who challenge these constructs. Kwam pen Thai has provided the platform for ethnic groups in this country to call themselves Thai.

Malays in the far south, on the other hand, embraced a different narrative. Religious identity and ethnic identity are inseparable. And so, when the Thais tried to change one side, it naturally affected the other.

Regardless, even with a new government with a full mandate from the people, resolving the conflict in the far south will not be smooth sailing. 

The roadside bomb attack in Narathiwat province’s Rueso district last week that injured two paramilitary personnel – part of security details for Buddhist monks receiving alms – is a reminder of the difficult road ahead for the incoming government. 

Don Pathan is a Thailand-based security analyst who works on conflict and insurgency in the Southeast Asia region. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of BenarNews.

https://www.benarnews.org/english/commentaries/insurgency-question-06072023133152.html
https://www.benarnews.org/thai/commentary/th-06072023233831.html