Can Thailand’s southern crisis really be understood in terms of cultural and linguistic difference?
This is the question that was left hanging in the air at last weeks ANU-hosted seminar on “The Crisis in Southern Thailand: Cultural Policy, Gender Issues and Reconciliation Prospects“. As the title suggests, the discussion was primarily on cultural issues. Considerable emphasis was placed on the potential for appropriately designed bi-lingual education as a longer term solution to the southern crisis. A variety of causes of the conflict were briefly canvassed, but the key emphasis was on the barriers to effective communication between the Malay speaking population in the south and the Thai speaking national majority. The Thai state’s insensitive imposition of Thai-language education was identified as an important underlying contributor to the conflict. To some extent, these linguistic issues were placed in the broader context of economic marginalisation and there were calls for addressing health and welfare deficiencies in the south. There were also, inevitably I suppose, references to the “sufficiency lifestyle” of residents of the southernmost provinces. This lifestyle, we were led to believe, is under threat from capitalism and consumerism, as the desire for mobile phones swamps traditional Islamic values.
The most interesting discussion came in the brief question period. One audience member asked why other culturally and economically marginal minority populations in Thailand (such as the “hill tribes” in the north) had not reacted in the same way as the south. The answer was that, whatever their religious or cultural differences, the “hill tribes” did succeed in various forms of integration with the majority population. This was not the case in the south where cultural differences were more profound. In my question I referred to the argument put by McCargo that key dimensions of the southern conflict could be understand in terms of the conflict between Thaksin and the “network monarchy,” with Privy Councillor Prem playing a key role. Specifically I asked about the views of Prem and the monarch on proposals for bilingual education. The answer avoided the issue, merely restating the importance of an alternative linguistic approach to education. There was however a very brief passing comment that perhaps Prem’s opposition to the use of Malay as a “working language” was based on a misunderstanding. During question time there was also some comment about the violence perpetrated by the large number of paramilitary Rangers who had been posted to the south. That was about as close as the seminar got to talking about politics!
Of course cultural factors are important. But framing the southern conflict primarily in terms of cultural difference is an overly safe option that avoids addressing some of the trickier political issues. We all recognise that a delegation such as this has some constraints on what they can say, but when the issues are as important as this a little more departure from the accepted script would have been very welcome.
32 responses so far ↓
1 nganadeeleg // May 14, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Was there any mention of the elephant in the room? (the influence of fundamental islamists, global jihad, even possible ethnic cleansing?)
Despite the mishandling of the issue under Thaksin (and continuing), somehow I think the beheadings are a result of something more than mere cultural & linguistic differences.
2 Andrew Walker // May 14, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Nganadeeleg, I don’t recall any discussion of this at all.
3 bangkokpundit // May 14, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Nganadeeleg, surely you are not surprised it was not mentioned? As long as no one sees the elephant, talks about the elephant, or hears the elephant, the elephant doesn’t really exist. Dare I say, this is not an uncommon view and one that permeates academia and elements of the Thai bureaucracy.
I don’t think Prem’s opposition was based on a misunderstanding. It was based on politics. He said in direct response to the NRC’s recommendation to make Yawi “working language” that it was for Yawi to be an “official language”. Prem knew the nationalists would be outraged even if Yawi was made a working language as it would be construed as making Yawi an official language. Here is what he said:
“We won’t solve this problem through language. What is needed is love and understanding throughout the country.”
Yes, Prem the hippy! Love and understanding will solve everything.
He also stated:
“We cannot accept that [proposal] as we are Thai. The country is Thai and the language is Thai. So we have to make efforts to learn Thai and [everyone should have a uniform] command with the rest of the Kingdom,” he said.
…
“We have to be proud to be Thai and have the Thai language as the sole national language,” Prem told locals at the gathering.
___
There is no misunderstanding. This is no out-of-context quote. Prem did anything when he was PM for 8 years to make Malay a working language either so it is not as if we only have the above quotes to go on.
On the economic situation, well, sorry for the shameless self-plug, but the economic situation improved in the South in the two decades when there was no violence. The percentage of residents in the 3 southern border provinces living below the poverty line dropped from 37% in 2000 to 18% in 2004. Yet, the intensity of the violence increased in 2004. Yes, the residents of the southern border provinces aren’t the richest in Thailand, but given the choice of subjects some students study, whose fault is that?
Internationally, some scholars are sceptical of the links between poverty and terrorism. See this Working Paper at SSRN (which unfortunately you have to pay for). The authors wrote this piece at TNR which is freely available and the paper was discussed in this Becker-Posner post. From the TNR Piece:
“Falsely connecting terrorism to poverty serves only to deflect attention from the real roots of terrorism.”
Finally, on one hand, terrorism is blamed on poverty and economical marginalisation, but on the other hand when the government puts in more money, it will then be blamed for creating a culture of consumerism and capitalism. The government can’t win really.
4 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // May 14, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Was there any mention of the elephant in the room? (the influence of fundamental islamists, global jihad, even possible ethnic cleansing?)
I didn’t attended the seminar, but I can tell you answer…of course not! From what I see, it was an al-taqqiya fest, plain and simple.
And all the time, I’m sure many in the audience were content to sit and lap up the panelists’ pernicious dissimulation, while wearing smug, sanctimonious smiles as they congratulated themselves on how “tolerant” they all are. Most people would rather continue to speak and act in ignorance than admit that perhaps the “Religion of Peace tm” has elements that predispose believers to violence, and that such elements are inherent within it.
Of course, to draw a comparison between the situation in the South of Thailand to that of many Hispanic Americans* who also are dealing with a form of linguisitic imperalism and also advocate bilingual education, and yet do not engage in violent insurgency and genocide, would be politik verboten. I mean, what are you, some kind of Islamophobe?
*[Except for José Padilla, of course.
]
5 Republican // May 14, 2007 at 10:04 pm
“…elephant in the room …”? I thought you were talking about the royal white elephant. Of course no one mentions that elephant. Yes, discussion of the involvement of the monarchy and its “network” in the south would be most interesting; see McCargo and Askew’s recent papers. But if you’re talking about bigoted misrepresetation of Muslims and Islam, these elephants roam around Thailand freely and in large numbers, especially in Bangkok.
6 Lleij Schwartz // May 15, 2007 at 1:07 am
Re: Sawarin> ps., Islam is a great religion which has contributed so much to the world. People who never bother to study it shouldn’t speak, directly or indirectly, ill of it. Thanks.
Actually, I have studied it, both the Quran and the Hadith of both Bhukari and Muslim. Where’s your thinly-veiled ad hominem attack now?
But indeed, let’s discuss Islam’s contributions to the world. I’m especially interested in Islam’s contribution to the South of Thailand, in light of Quran 8:39, 8:67, 9:5, 9:29, 9:33 and Sirat Rasul Allah pages 367, and 463-4 (the Alfred Guillaume translation)? And since you imply that you are such a great scholar of Islam, Sawarin, I trust that you won’t have to look up these passages.
As far as I know, Sawarin, in Thailand, it is perfectly legal to speak ill, directly or indirectly of Islam whether one had studied it or not. I will not allow you to pressure me into acting like a subdued dhimmi. Thanks.
Re: Republican> I have great respect for your passionate and erudite comments on Thai politics and culture; however, if in your zeal for liberty, you blame the monarchy more than Islamist ideology for the Southern insurgency, then, in all due respect, you, sir, need to get off your Lockean hobbyhorse.
I’m a Zen Buddhist, and as such, I endevor for sammaditthi (Right View); that is, seeing the world for what it is, not as one would wish it to be. If you feel that either I or nganadeeleg have incorrectly represented Islam, then please provide detailed counter-examples. Don’t think that you can stifle debate through name-calling. I’ll admit to a mistake due to ignorance of facts, but merely stating unpleasant, “inconvenient truths” is not bigotry.
Indeed, I see no white elephants in the room, my friend, but I see a lot of sacred cows heading to slaughter. Care for a steak?
7 Republican // May 15, 2007 at 1:59 am
Excellent post Sawarin. Agree that it’s an extraordinarily complex situation, and can not be reduced to simple models. Actually it would make a good case study of the failure of social science to make much sense of what’s going on, at least in a way that might offer some policy alternatives.
8 nganadeeleg // May 15, 2007 at 8:24 am
ps., Islam is a great religion which has contributed so much to the world. People who never bother to study it shouldn’t speak, directly or indirectly, ill of it.
Sawarin, in case that was directed at me, just letting you know that I did not raise the topic to attack Islam.
I was merely trying to find out if the issue had again been ignored, because even though the resolution of cultural & linguistic differences is needed, there will still be a problem unless the fundamentalists are weeded out (hopefully by the moderates).
IMO the latest spate of protest/blockades suggest there is a long way to go, and the southern population still mistrusts the authorities due to past (continuing?) abuses, or the radicals have cowed the moderates (or even worse, the moderates are being radicalised)
9 Jon Fernquest // May 15, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“…why other culturally and economically marginal minority populations in Thailand (such as the “hill tribes” in the north) had not reacted in the same way as the south. The answer was that, whatever their religious or cultural differences, the “hill tribes” did succeed in various forms of integration with the majority population. This was not the case in the south where cultural differences were more profound….
“During question time there was also some comment about the violence perpetrated by the large number of paramilitary Rangers who had been posted to the south. That was about as close as the seminar got to talking about politics!”
Militia Redux by Desmond Ball and David Scott Mathieson (2007) on the paramilitary
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IE11Ae01.html
Is the only the only book that I’ve seen recently that attempts to rigorously sift through the data from the bottom up rather than impose a priori hypotheses on the conflict.
Supposing that the southern Muslim does face a similar situation as the Akha in Chiang Rai. You would then have to conclude that we (the academics) really know nothing about the real situation on the ground at all, because the work of Mathew McDaniel for one, revealed that people really didn’t know the Inthiphon Meud of Akha land very well at all.
Furthermore, supporting this contention are the vapid ritualistic conversations I experienced with the dean of our university department (not), where everyone mindlessly echos sentiments of regret and sorrow. Sorrow and regret are legitimate expressions, but this simply does not explain anything, to explain you need to ask hard challenging questions and pull up the curtain a little and see what is going on inside. That is what a real scholars in a real university (not a ritualized simulcra) would do.
10 Republican // May 15, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I find the claim that no-one is talking about Islamic fundamentalism, extremism, and terrorism in the South extraordinary. Haven’t you been following the news headlines, the seminars, the books, the articles, the websites, the government reports, the government’s security policies? This “elephant” is everywhere. If you ask Joe Average about the reason for the violence in the south, they will inevitably answer, “Muslim terrorists”. Straight out of the George W. Bush textbook on the war on terror.
“dhimmi” is a category of status for non-Muslims that belongs to premodern Muslim states. It has no relevance to modern Muslim states, where non-Muslim citizens have formal equal status as citizens. It is a bit unfair to use this premodern term in debate to imply that you are being treated like a second class citizen as a non-Muslim.
And to pick out a selection of verses from the Qur’an and talk about them as representing Islam’s “contribution to the world” is unfortunate. One could do the same with the Bible, the Torah and no doubt any other major religious scripture (even those of the Buddhists).
This Zen Buddhist concept of seeing the “world as it is” is interesting. So the rest of us non-Buddhists do not see the world “as it is”?
11 jeru // May 15, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I usually steer clear of religious debates but here goes.
While I was a boy of 14 I witnessed extremism first hand. Two older boys in my neighborhood went at each other with knives not only because of mutual animosity and intolerance but also because both would not listen to their own (and other’s’ offerred) common sense.
Sawarin suggests that people who never bothered to understand the great religion would be ill-equipped to understand the ‘root of the problem’. Sawarin and Republican echo the same lament that non-academics should buzz off and let gurus continue on with their reasoned debate and eventually the Southern fire will burn itself off.
Bull!
If only those young (and deperate older men) would realize that religion was only meant to give divine inspiration and not to substitute for common sense, there would be less militancy and terrorism in the world. Common sense is the essence of moderation . . . and why won’t the moderates of Islam scream out their common sense?
12 Republican // May 15, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Please elaborate your theory of “common sense”.
13 nganadeeleg // May 15, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Republican: “I find the claim that no-one is talking about Islamic fundamentalism, extremism, and terrorism in the South extraordinary”
I refer you to AW’s post #2 above.
I know it’s a sensitive subject, but it cannot be ignored.
It does need to be handled carefully (and IMHO there is at least one member of the royal family who should bear that in mind.)
14 Jon Fernquest // May 15, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“I find the claim that no-one is talking about Islamic fundamentalism, extremism, and terrorism in the South extraordinary.”
Who is claiming that?
I am claiming ***specifically*** that no external unbiased observer (what an ideal academic could be) is observing what is actually going on. From today’s editorial:
“…neither this government nor the previous one ever clearly identified those behind the spate of killings that has taken about 2,000 lives since 2004.”
Some of these killings have a tit for tat feud like character to them.
Talking about something over and over again without any new data will just result in what is known as “confirmation bias” namely seeing all the theories running around in your head, after the fact, in the data, see Taleb’s Black Swan book, summarized in this podcast:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/04/taleb_on_black.html
15 Johpa // May 15, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I am not sure about in a room, but in the forest, an elephant is surprisingly difficult to spot.
In regards to comparing the situation in the South with minorities in the north, the social-linguistic analogy does not hold water in any respect. The Southern Malay/Yawi speakers do not represent scattered minority villages as do the northern hilltribe folks. Instead, they represent the dominant group at the provincial level. The local elites are either fellow Yawi speakers or Thai-Chinese who are just as likely to speak a Chinese language as to speak a Tai language. Moreover, they have a viable alternative elite in Malaysia, speaking a shared language not to mention a shared culture.
Up north, the only elite to look up to are the Thais, be they ethnic Thais or Sino-Thais. Ain’t nobody looking up to the Burmese or Lao elites, not even the Lao in Isaan look up towards the Lao elite. Most of the hill folks I know up north are bilingual (often multi-lingual) and conversant in Thai. Those who “tok doi” and go to live in towns speak only Thai and try to assimilate to the only society they know to “look up to.” Parents want their children to speak Thai and the government program up north to teach preschoolers Thai language and culture through the schools run by the Social Welfare Department has been, in my humble opinion, fairly successful in all of their intents (they were originally funded by the CIA to reduce insurgency up north and were inspired by the Head Start programs in the US geared towards pre-school children in very poor urban black neighborhoods in the mid-1960s)
One is forced to ask why any Malay speaker in the border provinces would be impressed by the government in Bangkok when one can easily argue that the Malaysian government has been more adept and more successful in the modern world. Certainly on a personnel level Mahathir was a jerk, certain to offend the “Dhimmi” world, but fellow Dhimmi economists like Steiglitz find him quite admirable in his handling of the Malay economy. Malaysia is slowly moving forward in the modern world where as Thailand stagnates.
So the people down south are unlikely to ever be content with Thai domination regardless of money invested or language policy, or any other social program as they will always be able to look over the border at people just like themselves who live in a country that entices with a more viable, and dare I say, more democratic option. Thailand can not compete.
And all this adds up to a fertile ground down south for the perverted ideas of the Islamic fundamentalists. Now I don’t see the Wahabism/Salafism disappearing as long as the Wahabi continue to be one of the prime beneficiaries of petro-dollars and those good folks from Texas don’t want to alter that equation. So I think the Thais ought to toss out all the social scientists as nothing they are suggesting to alleviate the situation is going to work and bite the bullet and sell the irredentist border provinces to Malaysia thus nipping in the bud the increasing power of the Salafists in the region. The multifaceted battle against this Islamic fundamentalism, which represents the dark side of the force as Yoda would say, is not the battle for Thailand to fight unilaterally.
And to finish my little rant, just what the heck does the crisis in the South have to do with gender issues?
16 Lleij Schwartz // May 15, 2007 at 4:23 pm
My dear Republican, please allow me a rebuttal.
Your reply to my comment contained two of the most common Islamic apologia when confronted with criticism. The first trope that you employed was the “dhimmi doesn’t exist, it’s a relic of the past/Islam believes in the equality of all men, don’t ya know?” feint. You are sadly, sadly mistaken. Why don’t you ask a Filipino or Thai laborer who spent some time in Saudi Arabia, what life was like? Can you build a church, wat, mandir in Saudi Arabia? Is it not true that the penalty for missionary work in Saudi Arabia is death? What is the rate of Qisas (Blood Money) paid for the death of a Muslim man [hint: 100000 riyals]? What’s the rate Qisas for the death of a Hindu woman? [hint:3,333 riyals] And what of oh-so-moderate-Malaysia? The bhumiputra laws? The tearing down of that “teapot” church, because it “offended” Islam?
Do you realize that Christians in Iraq are being forced to pay jiyza to various Muslim militias (both Sunni and Shiite)? Do you remember the Bangkok Post reporting, about 3 to 4 months ago that Southern insurgents were offering Buddhists in the South, the opportunity to pay jiyza in exchange for a green cloth to hang ones doorpost, which would signify dhimmi (i.e. protected status?) Can you name one major school of Islamic jurisprudence that has ruled that the concept of dhimmi has been abrogated?
You know, as a defender and scholar of liberty, that many people in the Islamic world are treated as second-class citizens. You know that dhimmitude is alive and well. Such willful ignorance on your part is dangerous. Do I have to remind you of what’s going on in Sudan? Or do you only identify injustice with the sakdina system?
To address your other point, considering the massive geo-political clout Muslims have in the post-modern era due to an accident of geology, the dhimmi concept of subservience has entered academica, journalism, and the general public; where one must be careful not to mention things like current examples jihad and dhimmitude for fear upsetting the ethos of cultural relativism that serves as a civil religion in many universities and media outlets today.
As for the second trope “Well, you can just cherry-pick quotes from any religious text to support violence! Nyah, nyah, nyah!” I have several comments. The first being, “Did you actually read the passages I mentioned?” If so, why don’t you actually reply to my arguments instead of resorting to vague retorts and insinuations. If not, I suggest you do your homework before coming to class! (As an aside, you still haven’t said anything substantial about my point with linguistic imperialism Hispanic-Americans and their relative lack of violence. What you could have done is brought up the counter-example of Basque nationalists, who also suffer from linguistic imperialism and have been known to use violence for their irredentist goals. That’s how gentlemen and scholars argue, Republican, not through name-calling and insinuation.)
Secondly, violent passages from the Bible or the Tibetan Buddhist Canon are irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is violent. That’s a tu quoque fallacy, and you’re better than that, Republican.
Thirdly, the violent passages in the Bible or other religious texts that I have read do not act as a standing proclamation of war against the whole world. Unlike the Quran, other religious texts (the Torah, the Bible, the Tipitaka, The Vedas, etc) are huge collections of documents, written by different people in different historical contexts. This allows for a great amount of hermeneutic methodologies. The Quran, however, comes exclusively from one source, i.e. Muhammad. All Quranic exegesis can only be understood through the life and deeds of Muhammad. His wars, sexual conquests, and killings are both a reflection and a guide to the meaning of the Quran Added to this, the strict literalism of all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence leaves no room for interpretation for its violent injunctions. In short, all schools of Islam teach that Muhammad was al-isna al-kamil (the perfect man), whose example and teachings are to be followed until the end of time.
Contrast this to other religions. Are Israeli special forces currently hunting down the descendants of Amalek? When was the last time Pope Benedict XVI donned armor (a la Pope Julius II) and rode off to battle for the Papal States?
Finally, why is it when someone like Irshad Manji says the same thing that I did, people of your ilk lap it up like mewling kittens; however, if I call for ijthihad it’s “bigoted misinterpretation”?
As always, I bow to the Buddha in you.
P.S.> I, as a Buddhist, believe that followers of all religions can attain right view if they are truly devoted to a spiritual path. The Lord Buddha defined a valid religion as one that teaches its followers to “do good, avoid evil, and purify the mind.” I do believe, however, that the Eightfold path is the most expeditious path to enlightenment. I also believe the Eightfold path is the only way to Nirvana.
17 athiest // May 15, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Just finished Dawkin’s “the God Delusion”. It poors scorn and reason on arguments proclaiming any wisdom in religion. It is in English so please read and a translation into Yawi is needed. Religion sucks and we should not be afraid to say it. Islam and Christianity are religions of peace and tolerance- what a joke
18 Pig Latin // May 15, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Dawkins is GOD! … a middle aged man who has too many books with fantastic covers to be considered a mere mortal in the football game of world politics.
19 Republican // May 15, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Reply to #17. We are far apart on many issues, but let me just make a few comments:
You are confusing “dhimmi”, a form of legal status for non-Muslim subjects in premodern Muslim states, and modern day racial discrimination.
My understanding of the situation in Iraq is that, whether under the old Saddam regime or the new Constitution post-Saddam citizens of all religions have equal legal status. If militias are calling for protection money from non-Muslims then such bigotry would therefore be illegal.
Saudi Arabia is admittedly an exceptional case and there is legalized discrimination on a religious basis. But I was careful to say “modern” Muslim states and in terms of social and political development Saudi hardly falls into that category. But even then, many of the Thais and Filipinos who are discriminated against in Saudi are Muslim. So this is racial discrimination – not religious.
The situation in Sudan (put very simplistically) is Arab Muslims persecuting African Muslims. Again, racial discrimination.
“Bumiputra” is a racial category in Malaysia, and the justification of the policy of special treatment (affirmative action to some, discrimination to others) for those with bumiputra status makes absolutely no reference to Islamic legal arguments. Again, racial discrimination, which has emerged out of a very specific historical context, not Islamic legal thinking.
It’s a pity you didn’t go next door to Indonesia, the country with the world’s largest Muslim population, where again, citizens of all religions have equal legal status.
Far be it for me to claim any expertise in Islamic Studies, but I do know that there is an immense amount of scholarship of all hues out there debating these issues, but the only views we hear about in the media are these medieval, scriptural based ones like the one you brought up to represent Islam’s “contribution to the world” – unfairly in my view.
20 roger p // May 15, 2007 at 9:51 pm
interesting digressions, all of them; I would like to make just one point: the Basques have certainly suffered Spanish “linguistic imperialism” in the recent past, but not any more -now the autonmy of the government of the Basque Country in educational matters is quite important, and Basque has actually become the “imperialist” language in the region. In my opinion the political situation there is at least as complicated as that in Southern Thailand
21 Tosakan // May 16, 2007 at 4:12 am
There is another elephant in the room that nobody has brought up: The mafia.
The South has always been a hotbed of illegal activities, notably the drug trade, gun running, petro smuggling, and other sorts of things that have to do with making lots of money and breaking the law.
Thai police and military in cahoots with corrupt politicians in the South have always been knee deep in all that criminality.
.
From my own experience dealing with Muslim problems in Central Europe and Palestine, there always seems to be an element to terrorism that has do with things other than fighting for an international caliphate and/or killing the infidels.
When you look at places at Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or Kosova and Chechnya, a lot of the terrorism is not spawned because of their hatred for the infidel, but because those countries are corrupt and are run like mafia states.
A lot of the fighting in Iraq is about controlling economic and political “resources” more than religion.
Also, one has to look at how Bangkok has treated its peripheral provinces. The Chakris used to drag the Malays and Lao to Bangkok and make them their slaves. There has always been rebellion against the center from the periphery going back hundreds of years in Siam/Thailand.
And, when you look at the Philippines and Indonesia over the last 500 years, there has always been a rogue Muslim element fighting for their “freedom.”
The problems in Aceh and Mindanao are ancient problems
, so are the problems in the South.
22 Jon Fernquest // May 16, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“…I do know that there is an immense amount of scholarship of all hues out there debating these issues…”
Graham Fuller’s book “The Future of Political Islam”
http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1472/
provides a balanced assessment, acknowledging that terrorism cannot be accepted as to wage war, yet urging people to avoid the polarization and escalation of conflict that it provokes. It’s written by a former research director at the CIA.
>Islam and Christianity are religions
> of peace and tolerance- what a joke
IMHO Karen Armstrong’s “The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2000)” and her “Short History of Islam” are far more balanced and insightful. The history of the early caliphates seemed a jumble to me until I read her short history. Sufis have always been persecuted, but their writings are certainly profound and tolerant.
23 jeru // May 16, 2007 at 1:06 pm
By all accounts Thailand’s South had degenerated into complete anarchy with terrorist cells, thugs and Muslim mafiosi not to mention police and army criminal elements.
But Thailand’s military generals whether before, during or after Thaksin just could not get a handle on the situation.
Damn ineptitude!
24 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // May 16, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Re:Tosakan (and others)>
When you look at places at Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or Kosova and Chechnya, a lot of the terrorism is not spawned because of their hatred for the infidel, but because those countries are corrupt and are run like mafia states.
Agreed. I mean, what is a Terrorist but a Mafiosi who’s interested in politics?
However, you can’t deny that, nowadays, the model of government these terrorists seek to establish is always a Sharia state. You don’t see call for Marxist/Arab Socialist revolution anymore. Kemalism is a uniquely Turkish institution.
What I’m interested in knowing is why Thaification was able to (somewhat) extinguish Issan/Lao irredentist movements but not Southern Islamic/Malay movements? Where does Communist ideology fail and Islamic ideology succeed in this regard?
Whatever your opinion on Islam, you have to admit that in the past decade, the Southern insurgency has taken on a religious dimension that wasn’t as explicit as before. Why? What purpose does Islam serve for the insurgency?
The Republican feels that it is unfair to judge Muslims by a “medieval, scriptural based” viewpoint, and he is correct. However, when discussing the Southern insurgency, we must be cognizant of the fact that the ustazis and their students that form the soldiers of this “new wave” insurgency spend the majority of their day reading the Quran. How does the Quranic exegesis that they have devoted their lives to guide and shape their strategy and actions concerning the insurgency? Until Thai military strategists sit down and ask themselves that question, they will go nowhere in quelling the insurgence.
For my arguments, I didn’t randomly choose violent quotes from the Quran. I chose those specific passages because I feel that in order to understand the insurgency we have to understand how the Quran shapes their worldview. Look up and read verses 8:39, 8:67, 9:5, 9:29, 9:33. Think about how they relate to events in the South. What about this new fad of beheading people? One may argue that the insurgents are merely copying the tactics of al-Qaeda. But where do they find legitimacy for doing so? Perhaps from Quran 47:4?
Until there is a major movement in Islamic jurisprudence to counter the literalist Quranic exegesis that the extremists engage in, no progress can be made in a war that is largely ideological.
25 Pig Latin // May 16, 2007 at 9:21 pm
#25 Have you been to both northern and southern Thailand? I would have thought the answer would emerge from there being a nation sitting to the south of Thailand with a dissimilar identity filtering across a border – as opposed to the populations close to the northern borders who have a cultural heritage that is more compatible with people in Thailand? Probably i’m an idiot though, paying too much attention to the power of region!
Also, where do you see all of these calls for Sharia states? I’ve seen a call for A state, but that was on the news. Sadly I don’t know any terrorists yet. You know ALL the terrorists? Wow.
(Americans and terrorism on here again! I’m terrified! )
26 Jon Fernquest // May 16, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Akhas in Kengtung on the northern border have a pretty longstanding 100 year Catholic history but the Tai state of Keng Tung goes far back, as much as 700 years which makes the Akhas recent arrivals in that area.
Chang Rai province has a fairly sizable Muslim population, many of whom are Panthay Muslims from Yunnan, I believe, but some are even Rohingyas from Burma who migrated there for the gem trade, but for the most part recent arrivals, it seems.
Pattani was an independent sultanate that goes very far back in history (like Tai rule over Kengtung). Long histories of being in a place and also being subordinate in a place that one used to call one’s own, are probably associated with “rebellion” or “forceful resistance to being governed”
This has certainly been the case with the Shans in Burma, ethnically Tai people (like central Thais) who used to be much more in control of their own territory than they are now, indirect rule under the British and tributary rule under the British kings.
[Note: I am not offering a partisan excuse or justification, merely a tentative hypothesis based on the historical data.]
27 Pig Latin // May 16, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Thanks Jon, that was a helpful summation.
28 Johpa // May 17, 2007 at 1:05 am
Lliej-What I’m interested in knowing is why Thaification was able to (somewhat) extinguish Issan/Lao irredentist movements but not Southern Islamic/Malay movements? Where does Communist ideology fail and Islamic ideology succeed in this regard?
As noted by this aging pre-postmodernist Kafir (may I recommend Keyes’ Ethnic Change) , I would venture that there was never much to grab one’s attention up in Laos, just a sleepy backwater with a sleepy monarchy and later an unattractive government. Thailand has the “in your face monarchy”, a thriving capitol, and dominates the airwaves. What was there to cause the Lao in Isaan to look over their shoulders towards Laos and, to paraphrase Anderson, imagine themselves part of that community? Methinks that if Laos had become a thriving nation and had maintained the monarchy that you would see an irredentist movement in Isaan. But it could still happen, ya never know. Kulu kalb bijiumu.
Down south there has long been, forever been, an active irredentist movement, as there has always been an attractive Malay alternative to identity. That movement had now been infused with Islamic fundamentalism, but that new religious aspect is not the creator of the separatist movement. It adds a new tantalizing flavor for the Malay participants and a very dangerous dimension for the Thai government.
Tokasan-There is another elephant in the room that nobody has brought up: The mafia.
There is mafia everywhere in Thailand. With or without the Malay issue, there would be smuggling. There is smuggling up north and even some smuggling in the southeast, and there is smuggling into China via Laos. Certainly smugglers down south will take advantage of the unrest and it makes it difficult sometimes to remember that it is only background noise to the separatist issue. Using illegal activities to fund political agendas, drugs for guns etc, is old as the hills. Touching on Southeast Asia alone, one can read about it in McCoy’s Opus, The Politics of Heroin, or research the BCCI, and for you Aussie Kafirs, the related yet still mysterious Nugan-Hand affair.
29 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // May 17, 2007 at 1:08 am
Re: Pig Latin #26>
It seems that I didn’t make myself clear, and for that I apologize. When I wrote “However, you can’t deny that, nowadays, the model of government these terrorists seek to establish is always a Sharia state” I was not refering to the Southern insurgents, but to pan-Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah.
Nevertheless, there must be a large majority of Muslims in the South of Thailand who desire Sharia law, as the introduction of Islamic law as the first recommendation to come out of the findings of Anand Panyarachun’s National Reconciliation Commission.
As to your first point, I asked why Thaification was more effective in the North than in the South, and you provided an answer, in which now I understand. Despite your sarcastic tone, I appricate the reply.
However, the anti-Americanist rhetorical cheap shot says a lot more about you than it does me.
30 roger p // May 17, 2007 at 10:31 am
Jon: “Long histories of being in a place and also being subordinate in a place that one used to call one’s own, are probably associated with “rebellion” or “forceful resistance to being governed””
You may be right, but notice how things change once you cross the (present-day) border from Kengtung and into the Sipsong Panna. Diverse factors come into play here -such as state ethnic policies
31 Jon Fernquest // May 17, 2007 at 10:13 pm
The China-Burma and Thai-Burma borders certainly seem to be dividing lines between rebellion and non-rebellion areas.
1. Sipsongpanna, China
2. Maesai, Thailand
3. Mong Yawng, Eastern Shan States, Burma
Prosperous in that order, I’d say.
Re: State Ethnic Policies: I’ve never been to Sipsongpanna but given that I am the son-in-law of a Maesai Tai Lu family, I know families that fled to Maesai from Sipsongpanna during the cultural revolution and their friends who now come to visit them from China, and assuming they started off with the same resources, the China side, the ones who remained in China during the cultural revolution have more money and seem to have integrated into their host society better, for better or worse that is. (I’m just describing what I see here, not passing judgement on it) That’s not to say most Tai Lu in Thailand don’t have a very good life, they do, but it hasn’t been so many years since they took down the “Persona Non-Grata” sign at Maesai Immigration and they still haven’t given many people ID cards, even if they’ve been there for 30 years. I don’t know how Yunnan compares in terms of integration.
32 roger p // May 18, 2007 at 11:01 am
Jon: I will be glad to continue this conversation somewhere else, maybe in another, later post on Sipsong Panna -is it possible to do so in your blog, anyway?
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.