Thailand should just accept that South is different

Only way to bring the violent struggle to an end would be to listen to and acknowledge the Malays of Patani

Don Pathan
The Nation

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak came to Thailand with a clear message: the Malay-speaking region in the country's southernmost provinces was an integral part of the Kingdom.

While respecting Thailand's territorial integrity, Najib also reminded the government that the region had different characteristics that would need special attention. Historical grievances and aspirations of the Malays of Patani must be addressed if the conflicts are to end, he warned.

However, perhaps as a move to show that he is a good sport, Najib backed away from the "autonomy" idea, and instead endorsed Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's "decentralisation" approach.

Amid the spate of bomb attacks against security forces, the two leaders were reminded that where they go from here will not be easy, because behind these bombings was the message: what's acceptable to the two countries may not necessarily be acceptable to the Patani Malays or the separatist movements.

Nevertheless, the cordial atmosphere was an indication that the two countries had moved beyond recent history when Thaksin Shinawatra's arrogance brought bilateral relations to its knee.

Today, that kind of microphone diplomacy is not applied, but that doesn't mean it won't happen again. Thailand's culture of impunity in the restive region could very well have forced Malaysia and other Muslim countries to break their silence.

Apparently, some ill-intentioned people in the restive region don't like the fact that the two countries are moving closer. Posters and banners saying, "Patani is a part of Malaysia" were scattered all over the region, while local residents think some ultra-Thai nationalists looking to distort the significance of the visit might have been behind the incidents.

As pointed out by Senator Warawit Baru, a respected academic from the region, the insurgents don't relate to Malaysia as a nation-state, instead they feel distanced from the Thai state.

It's an open secret that hardliners think Abhisit is giving away too much political capital by allowing Kuala Lumpur to move closer to what they deem as domestic problems. In their mind, a good insurgent is a dead insurgent, so when things such as the banners surfaced, these hardliners in the security community came to mind.

In fact, if one were to go deep enough into the back roads of this restive region, one would see "Patani Merdeka" written all over the place. It means "Free Patani" - free from Thailand and free from Malaysia.

Locals said they were reminded of last year's hoax when a group of ethnic Malays, in fake moustaches and beards, declared an end to insurgency. They called themselves the "Southern Thai Muslims". People with half a brain can figure out who wrote the script. Never in the history of this restive region have the militants called themselves "Southern Thai".

The deep South is undergoing an ethno-nationalistic dispute, one that challenges the Thai state's legitimacy there. Resolving this would require a great deal of sophistication and sensitivity because it centres on national pride, history and the dignity of all the affected parties.

Unfortunately, we never hear the words "human dignity" coming out of either leader's mouth. All we heard were the usual sound bites of how development would cure all. If the past six years are any indication, the billions of baht spent have not really won the state that many hearts. This is not because a big chunk of it is being skimmed off the top, but because handouts do not mean empowerment. They do nothing to enhance one's sense of ownership.

Bangkok will have to let go of its "I know better" attitude and give the Patani Malays enough political space to talk about their grievances, resentments and aspirations.

We may not like the fact that the Thai-Patani history is full of blood, but acknowledging history for what it is can help all sides come to terms with the past and move forward as a united country. Surely the two leaders understand how disturbing an ethno-nationalist struggle can be. After all, they both studied in Britain.

Sadly though, both Abhisit and Najib have been unable to go beyond their narrow mindset of a nation-state. Patani should not be reduced to a footnote in Thailand's nationhood. It has its own myths, legends and tales that are not related to Thailand's history. And if this point is not taken into consideration, any political model, a development scheme or a peace process put forward is doomed to fail.

Anupong's remarks may add fuel to the fire in the South

By DON PATHAN
THE NATION

Published on June 17, 2009

For a man who is known for choosing his words carefully, Army chief General Anupong Paochinda has over this past week sounded more like a buck private who couldn't bribe his way out of an army draft.

Knowing that tension would be high in the aftermath of the massacre of 11 Muslims attending an evening prayer at a village mosque in Narathiwat's Joh I Rong district, Anupong concluded prematurely that it was the work of insurgents.

He, along with deputy premier Suthep Thaugsuban, the so-called security tzar, was dispatched to the deep South immediately after the massacre at the Al Pukon mosque in Narathiwat's Joh I Rong district.

Instead of buying more time and looking for ways to ease the tension, the two security bigwigs made things worse. They prematurely dismissed any suggestion that the attackers could be anybody else other than Malay Muslim insurgents.

For local Muslims, their position drove in a bigger wedge between their community and the rest of the country. Few thought the mistrust could go any lower after a controversial court ruling on May 29 that cleared security officials of the Tak Bai massacre of 2004.

Sunai Phasuk of Human Rights Watch noted a worrying trend over the past five years that has seen rogue elements in the volunteer and regular security units attacking mosque, Islamic schools and teashops in retaliation for the killings of Buddhist officials and civilians.

"This is a worrying trend that has fuelled communal tension and worsened the conflict in the South over the past five years," Sunai said. "The widespread suspicion in the Muslim community after the Al Pukon mosque massacre shows how the failure to hold the perpetrators accountable has led to deep distrust of the government," Sunai added.

While it may have crossed their minds that the massacre could have been the work of some rogue outfit, retaliating for a week-long mayhem that included brutal killings, beheadings, car bombs and an attack on a passenger bus full of Buddhists, Suthep and Anupong just did not want to confront other possibilities. Embracing old habits could be comforting.

If anything, the position taken by the two men became a much-needed comfort zone for officials who did not want to debate why a group of Malay Muslim insurgents would want to indiscriminately gun down people from an area where they probably received the most support.

In spite of a track record of abuses and extra-judicial killings, it is still unthinkable for the country's top political leaders to come to terms with the notion that one of their own may have committed such a thing.

Some of the security spin-doctors reiterated this half-baked but long-standing explanation that blamed the insurgents for all the atrocities because they want to raise the profile of the issue and draw the attention of the international community, such as the UN and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC). Killing their own people was supposed to be the best way of attracting international sympathy.

In Bangkok, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva saw the deep South drifting further away from the kingdom, and tried to do some damage control.

He warned against reaching premature conclusions and added that "an attack on a mosque is unusual and not the style of separatists".

For the militants, it was payback time. Assoc Professor Srisompob Jitpiromsri of the Prince of Songkhla University in Pattani said the clock could be turned back to the scale of the violence in 2007 when collateral damage was also high - 164 public schools came under arson attack, a big jump from 43 in 2006.

Naturally, the security agencies take credit for the significant drop in 2008 that saw only 14 public schools coming under arson attacks.

But local residents say the real reason has more to do with the fact that the insurgents are losing support at the grass-roots level. In spite of the historical mistrust and dislike of state institutions, such as public school, essentially, a Siamese education for their children is better than no education at all, they said.

In spite of the unprecedented nature of these past two weeks, few want to make the connection between the spike in violence and the court verdict on May 29 that cleared soldiers, police and paramilitary rangers involved in dealing with the Tak Bai protest. The incident ended in the death of 85 Malay Muslims protesters, 78 from suffocation when they were stacked one on top of another, up to four, on the back of military trucks.

What complicated the situation further was that local media only picked up on Anupong's statement about not negotiating with the separatists. Few noted that the statement contradicted Abhisit who did not rule out the idea of talking to separatists.

What Abhisit said was that at the policy level the government does not have such a position but added that at the operational level a channel of communication with separatist groups is already in place.

But keeping the dialogue at the operation level may not be enough as security and intelligence personnel don't have the political will to go further than collect data and go after insurgents and kill them.

A number of professional mediators, including retired military top brass familiar with insurgency in the deep South and neighbouring countries, have been knocking on Abhisit's door asking him for permission to do the mediating job.

So far, Abhisit has not given anybody the much-sought-after mandate. Given the uncertain nature of the current political situation, as well as the fact that such a move will be costly in political terms, it may be a very long time before Abhisit puts all his eggs in anybody's basket.

Trigger-happy troops not the solution

Abhisit cannot win Malay hearts with more guns pointing at heads in the strife-torn South

Editorial
By The Nation

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said on Thursday that he would send an additional 4,000 troops to the plagued deep South to help quell the ongoing insurgency to which there seems no end in sight. Abhisit said the extra paramilitary rangers would work to improve relations between the authorities and the Malay-speaking South, where historical mistrust runs high.
"They will work towards a better understanding with the residents," Abhisit explained, after meeting with top military officials on Thursday.

The PM said the authorities could only maintain the status quo at present. However, he added that this was not enough because there were enough militants around who could still induce a climate of fear in the region.

While it is clear that the insurgents continue to have a capacity to inflict terror among the local population and the authorities, the suggestion that the authorities have succeeded in containing the violence to one geographical area is a bit of a stretch.

It's one thing to say that the militants don't have the capacity, or the desire, to expand their campaign of violence outside the Malay-speaking areas. But it is entirely another to suggest that the troops have been doing such a great job in containing the insurgents to a geographical area.

There are about 60,000 security officials in this highly contested region that was once a Malay homeland before Siam annexed it over a century ago. How will another 4,000 paramilitary rangers help the situation?

If anything, it seems as if Abhisit was just filling the blanks in an unspoken contract created by the Army. A new lease on life has been given to the nearly defunct Internal Security Operation Command (Isoc), and now it is time to make do. The 4,000 rangers, it seems, were just the latest item to go on the dotted line.

Yet how long must we continue this? Didn't Abisit himself once say that the military was not the solution to the trouble in the deep South?

He started off his administration nicely, talking about the return to civilian supremacy by setting up a bureau to administer the Army and the civilians. This bureau was supposed to take its directives from a mini-Cabinet of relevant ministries.

Moreover, the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre (SBPAC) was supposed to be given a legal basis so it didn't have to go through Isoc for funding to carry out projects.

Abhisit also dispatched a high-level delegation that included Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya and Thai envoys to Malaysia and Indonesia, in order to touch base with clerics, local officials and youth. During the visit, Kasit explained why it was important for the foreign ministry to get involved and become part of the solution. He urged one and all to give this administration a chance and vowed to follow through with more visits to a region that has placed the Kingdom in the spotlight, albeit an unwanted one.

No doubt the first few weeks did indeed bring a breath of fresh air. After listening to the Army's quirky explanation and all sorts of conspiracy theories for the past five years, the initial messages from the new administration were refreshing.

Today, however, some three months into Abhisit's leadership, nobody is talking about a civilian-led bureau, nor has there been an update as to when SBPAC will be let off the Army's leash.

So when we get reports about more troops being sent to the deep South, one can't help but wonder how this is going to win the hearts and minds of the Malays who continue to question the legitimacy of Thai rule in their historical homeland.

Authorities often argue that including more ethnic Malays in these ranger units could ease the tension because they are fluent in the language and culture. Are they expected to feel grateful for this employment opportunity, or is it some kind of sick joke?

Don't our officials know that most of the victims in the deep South are ethnic Malays killed by Malay insurgents who suspect them of spying for Thailand?

As former US president George W Bush once said: "You are either with us or against us." Sadly, this unspoken policy is employed by both the Thai State and the insurgents.

This policy manifested itself in the State employing local Malay Muslims for Bt4,500 a month to serve as their eyes and ears, and then they get told that they should be grateful for what they get? Never mind that 80 per cent of the bureaucrats in the deep South are Buddhists hailing from other parts of the country.

So when the so-called "eyes and ears" get shot in the head, the State is quick to tell the media that so-and-so was killed because he or she was spying for them. See? These Malay Muslim victims are on the side of the State, or so the authorities would like the public to believe.

Are the authorities that desperate for brownie points, or do they just not care about the safety and well being of the victims' families?

The initiatives have not become any more sophisticated, partly because the Thai military personnel and security planners are not the most sophisticated people in the world. Perhaps it's time to bring in people with fresh ideas, not poorly trained rangers with a reputation for being trigger-happy.

It is also time to give the local Malays a real stake in their country, so they too can feel like citizens and not just colonial subjects.

Dear Prime Minister, have you ever heard of social mobility? Try that for a change.

Trigger-happy troops not the solution

Abhisit cannot win Malay hearts with more guns pointing at heads in the strife-torn South

Editorial
By The Nation

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said on Thursday that he would send an additional 4,000 troops to the plagued deep South to help quell the ongoing insurgency to which there seems no end in sight. Abhisit said the extra paramilitary rangers would work to improve relations between the authorities and the Malay-speaking South, where historical mistrust runs high.
"They will work towards a better understanding with the residents," Abhisit explained, after meeting with top military officials on Thursday.

The PM said the authorities could only maintain the status quo at present. However, he added that this was not enough because there were enough militants around who could still induce a climate of fear in the region.

While it is clear that the insurgents continue to have a capacity to inflict terror among the local population and the authorities, the suggestion that the authorities have succeeded in containing the violence to one geographical area is a bit of a stretch.

It's one thing to say that the militants don't have the capacity, or the desire, to expand their campaign of violence outside the Malay-speaking areas. But it is entirely another to suggest that the troops have been doing such a great job in containing the insurgents to a geographical area.

There are about 60,000 security officials in this highly contested region that was once a Malay homeland before Siam annexed it over a century ago. How will another 4,000 paramilitary rangers help the situation?

If anything, it seems as if Abhisit was just filling the blanks in an unspoken contract created by the Army. A new lease on life has been given to the nearly defunct Internal Security Operation Command (Isoc), and now it is time to make do. The 4,000 rangers, it seems, were just the latest item to go on the dotted line.

Yet how long must we continue this? Didn't Abisit himself once say that the military was not the solution to the trouble in the deep South?

He started off his administration nicely, talking about the return to civilian supremacy by setting up a bureau to administer the Army and the civilians. This bureau was supposed to take its directives from a mini-Cabinet of relevant ministries.

Moreover, the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre (SBPAC) was supposed to be given a legal basis so it didn't have to go through Isoc for funding to carry out projects.

Abhisit also dispatched a high-level delegation that included Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya and Thai envoys to Malaysia and Indonesia, in order to touch base with clerics, local officials and youth. During the visit, Kasit explained why it was important for the foreign ministry to get involved and become part of the solution. He urged one and all to give this administration a chance and vowed to follow through with more visits to a region that has placed the Kingdom in the spotlight, albeit an unwanted one.

No doubt the first few weeks did indeed bring a breath of fresh air. After listening to the Army's quirky explanation and all sorts of conspiracy theories for the past five years, the initial messages from the new administration were refreshing.

Today, however, some three months into Abhisit's leadership, nobody is talking about a civilian-led bureau, nor has there been an update as to when SBPAC will be let off the Army's leash.

So when we get reports about more troops being sent to the deep South, one can't help but wonder how this is going to win the hearts and minds of the Malays who continue to question the legitimacy of Thai rule in their historical homeland.

Authorities often argue that including more ethnic Malays in these ranger units could ease the tension because they are fluent in the language and culture. Are they expected to feel grateful for this employment opportunity, or is it some kind of sick joke?

Don't our officials know that most of the victims in the deep South are ethnic Malays killed by Malay insurgents who suspect them of spying for Thailand?

As former US president George W Bush once said: "You are either with us or against us." Sadly, this unspoken policy is employed by both the Thai State and the insurgents.

This policy manifested itself in the State employing local Malay Muslims for Bt4,500 a month to serve as their eyes and ears, and then they get told that they should be grateful for what they get? Never mind that 80 per cent of the bureaucrats in the deep South are Buddhists hailing from other parts of the country.

So when the so-called "eyes and ears" get shot in the head, the State is quick to tell the media that so-and-so was killed because he or she was spying for them. See? These Malay Muslim victims are on the side of the State, or so the authorities would like the public to believe.

Are the authorities that desperate for brownie points, or do they just not care about the safety and well being of the victims' families?

The initiatives have not become any more sophisticated, partly because the Thai military personnel and security planners are not the most sophisticated people in the world. Perhaps it's time to bring in people with fresh ideas, not poorly trained rangers with a reputation for being trigger-happy.

It is also time to give the local Malays a real stake in their country, so they too can feel like citizens and not just colonial subjects.

Dear Prime Minister, have you ever heard of social mobility? Try that for a change.