Global Courant
PATTANI, Thailand – A recent one seminar on the right to self-determination by a newly formed student movement in Malay-speaking southern Thailand, caused people to run for cover after the Thai military threatened legal action against a mock vote asking participants whether they would support a referendum that could pave the way for a separate state for the Muslims. 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 that they can legally vote for independence?”
The military was offended and is considering legal action. Most Thai officials equate the “right to self-determination” in the Muslim-majority Far South with separatism.
More than 7,300 people have been killed in insurgent-related violence since January 2004 and the end is nowhere in sight, despite a series of peace talks that should go beyond confidence-building measures.
The deputy leader of the Prachachat Party, Worawit Baru, one of the speakers at last week’s seminar, quickly distanced himself from any call for a referendum, saying he only spoke in general terms about such rights.
Other parties also sought cover. Particularly disappointing for 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 expression, justice and equality for the Malaysian people and their cultural story.
Instead of supporting free speech and free speech, Pitipong’s first step was to save his own skin. He posted on Facebook that his party is not in favor of separatism and that anyone espousing such ideas or engaging in such activities should face disciplinary action.
Fair Party deputy secretary-general Hakim Pongtigor, an ethnic Malay from the far south and a strong supporter of the right to self-determination who spoke at the event, is under intense pressure from his supporters to leave the party because of what Pitipong has posted.
“Declaring Patani an independent state is a crime, but talking about it shouldn’t be,” Hakim said. (The term “Patani”, spelled in English without the double “t”, refers to the deep south 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 so-called pro-democracy political parties currently trying to form a coalition government.
“Rather than stand up to the right-wing media and government information operation trying to turn the seminar into some kind of criminal event, some of these political figures quickly distanced themselves from the event for fear of being labeled as pro- separatist. The only question from the students is whether there should be a referendum on the right to self-determination. They did not call for a separate state,” Artef said.
Seeds of separatist sentiment
It is clear that the student movement that organized the seminar followed that line. Given the new political atmosphere in the country, they felt the need to test the waters.
As people who have grown 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 Thailand’s changing political landscape and believe in important issues such as the self-determination and referenda should no longer be discussed in the dark.
They also know that declaring the independence of any region is a crime under Thai law.
But judging by the reaction of the Fourth Army Area, the command that oversees the day-to-day security situation in the far south, it appears that the army will not let the new political landscape take over without a fight.
Indeed, the battle has always been about stories. On the one hand, the Malay-speaking far south is an integral part of Thailand. On the other hand, the Patani region belongs to the Malays and the Muslims here have a moral obligation to liberate this historic 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 maintained that the people are behind them. But there is no concrete evidence, such as a referendum, to support their claim.
Tamthai was the chief negotiator for the southern peace negotiations during Abhisit Vejjajiva’s government.
In the recently concluded Thai general election, democracy and Malay nationalism featured quite prominently in the Patani region. But politicians had their priorities elsewhere; Patani nationalism and talks about a peace process are not winning votes.
But they can only dodge the problem for so long. At a recent press conference, Pita Limjaroenrat, the leader of the Move Forward Party and currently the front-runner for the position of Prime Minister, Put in place when asked if a government under his leadership would allow the far south to gain independence.
Trying to play it safe, Pita suggested the conflict was rooted in the region’s livelihoods, public health and economy. His party’s anti-military stance prevented him from gaining a thorough and deeper understanding of this age-old conflict that continues to surface from generation to generation.
The fact that Pita has no Melayu (ethnic Malays) in a key position working on conflict resolution in Patani suggested that he does not understand the sentiment of the people here. In this respect, Move Forward does not differ much from other parties.
The critics of the military like to point to the mistakes and brutalities of the state to explain the reasons for the armed rebellion. But in the 1990s, when the situation was quite calm, a new generation of fighters was being prepared. They were supposed to surface in mid-2001, but were dismissed as “sparrow bandits” by the government of Thaksin Shinawatra.
A gun raid on January 4, 2004, involving separatist fighters Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) made off with more than 350 guns, forcing the government in Bangkok to acknowledge their presence.
In fact, the story that ethnic Malays have a moral obligation to free their homeland from the invading Siamese has never died out.
The new crop of new Thai political leaders must know that their good intentions will not end the conflict or stop the Malays from dreaming about Merdeka. They can be as benevolent as they want. But a benevolent colonial master remains a colonial master.
While Pita’s off-the-wall statement can be excused because he is unfamiliar with the conflict and its complexities, Fair Party Secretary General Kannavee Suebsang shocked many people with his statement on the need to replace Malaysia with Indonesia as a mediator for peace talks with BRN, the group that controls the fighters on the ground.
Conflict studies textbooks may suggest that Malaysia is not qualified as a fair broker due to its geographic proximity to Thailand’s Patani region. But no one in Southeast Asia cares much about what the textbooks say, do they?
There is no honest mediator anywhere in Southeast Asia, a region where states are fraught with overlapping claims and territorial disputes – a legacy of colonial powers.
Whoever gets into the next Thai government should ask the people of Patani, regardless of ethnicity and race, what they really want. If they choose independence, the state knows it has to work much harder to win them over.
Who knows, the right to self-determination may be that missing term of affection that is necessary for peaceful coexistence. Indeed, no one ever said governing was easy.
Similar:
Loading…
