Suthep said “This will be the first time that the people, the owners of the country, stood up to take back their sovereign power.” (from the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/looking-for-democracy-i...).
While this currently most famous Thai politician and his numerous supporters are calling for such a demand by gathering in a huge number, occupying several government offices, no one has ever arrested so far. In Patani, on the other hand, anyone who is dare to speak up for the rights of Malay people which have been harshly denied for more than a century by the central government will immediately be regarded as a suspect, charged, arrested then imprisoned.
As a matter of fact, what have been demanded by the Patani Malay liberation organization (or, from misled, narrow-minded and nationalistic Thai point of view, insurgents, separatists or terrorists) are in every single aspect not as drastic as those by Suthep and his supporters. The core of their demands is the concept of 'hak pertuanan Melayu' an extremely delicate term which challenges every translator. Some translate this term as ‘Malay sovereignty’, others as ‘Malay supremacy’. In my understanding, the key of this concept is the 'Malay ownership over the land of Patani'. This is very flexible concept, which can range from title deeds to independence, with administration area, autonomy and so on lying in between.
Since Patani was forced to succumbed to Siamese force in Ayutthaya Era until this time, the demand of Patani people has been consistent. Every time their rights were denied, often in a devious way by Siamese, they openly rebelled against the Siamese governance which from Malay nationalists point of view has been a colonial rule. If we look at the demands submitted by the Malay nationalist leaders, from Tengku Abdul Kadir Kamaruddin, the last Rajah of Patani, Tengku Mahmood Mahyiddeen, his son and the founder of GAMPAR (the first armed resistance organization of Patani Malay) Haji Sulong, the spiritual religious leader of Patani, and the latest one from the BRN, we will find that what has been demanded by them is acknowledgement of Malay ethnicity, Malay culture including Malay language, Islam (including Islamic law called Syariah) and autonomy based on Malay ownership over the land of Patani.
However, such moderate demands compared to escalated and extreme demands from Suthep and his supporters have inevitably regarded as rebellious, for fear of ‘losing land’ in the far south by the Siamese/Thai government. As a consequence, they have been always hysterically reacting these demands by complete denial, or, if the people submitted these demands are available, arresting them (or abducting and getting rid of them as in the case of Haji Sulong). In other words, stiff and narrow-minded attitude of Siamese governments against the moderate demands from Malay people have radicalized some local people in Patani, ending up in establishing or joining non-state armed groups (NSAG) like the BRN, the PULO and the BIPP, which survive till this moment. The ideology of the jihadized struggle for independence, in actuality, is the result of this continuous denial of the demand of Malay people.
The demands from Suthep and the supporters have confused me enough, but the attitude of the Thai government so far is no less confusing, compared to their attitude in dealing with so called the southern unrest (which, again, actually is the product of Thai state). If the government can listen to demands of a group of its own people (led by Suthep), why they can not open-minded enough to listen to others (from Malay people in the south) who also its own people? Or, are they, Malay people in the south, not qualified enough to state their demands to the state compared to the middle class elites in Bangkok?
It seems that the armed groups have decided to resume their operations again in the South. For the last few days we have to face with sad news of bombings causing deaths of soldiers. Certainly using of violence in any circumstances is unjustifiable. But it must be stressed that as long as the Thai side (referred to as Party A in the General Consensus signed on 28th February 2013) is ready to listen to the other side (Party B, not only the BRN, but those who have different opinions and ideology from the state), the violence can be reduced, if not totally stopped. In order to prevent the Southern unrest causing more unnecessary damages to all, the government must be very serious about in solving this problem, more so than before.
When Suthep and his supporters who clearly have very different ideology from the state insist they should be listened to by using unlawful ways, the government still accepts some of their demands. If the same thing is done by the supports of the BRN, what will happen? I suspect they shall immediately be arrested and charged with for the treason and rebellion. The time for using different standards for different people is over for a long time. If the government is OK with Suthep, there is no reason for denying others who demand far more moderate things.
Although the political situation in Bangkok is a serious problem, but just consider the scale of damages inflicted on the south. I believe it is no less important than the political turbulence in the capital. Do not dismiss the problem in the south as trivial, peripheral one which will never affect the centre. Such attitude only prolongs this already very long conflict in the south.
