NATION BUILDING IN THAILAND:

Domination Ethnicity and Ethnic Nationalism in Southern Thailand

submitted as final project of

Southeast Asia: Politics and Governments

Lecturer:

Drs. Riza Noer Arfani, M.A

By:

Ezka Amalia

09/283366/SP/23675

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

FACULTY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2012

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Thailand is one of the countries located in Southeast Asia region and directly

adjacent to Malaysia, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar. Before 1932’s coup, Thailand was

a kingdom called Siam. Thailand, which means land of liberty, is the only Southeast

Asian country amongst others that has never been colonized, although the areas around

Thailand were ruled by Britain and France. As a modern society, Thailand populations

consist of more than 30 ethnics1. It is estimated that Thailand is populated by 66.720.153

peoples, one third of the population is Thais – including Lao –, 14% is Chinese minority,

11% is others, for example Malay, Khmer, Mon, Vietnamese, Hmong, Karen, and Mein.2

The religions that adhered by people of Thailand itself are Buddhist (93% - 94%), Islam

(5% - 4%), Christian (1%), and others (Hindu, Brahmin, etc).3 As a multicultural,

multiethnic country, surely it will be a challenge for Thailand to be a nation. Thailand’s

government should make policies to ensure that their country is not just a state, but also a

nation.

Since King Vajiravudh or Rama VI, Thailand had made a policy to build Thailand

as a nation. King Vajiravudh developed “Thai-ism”, a guideline of how person become a

Thai people. Thai-ism itself consists of Chat (the Thai people), Satsana (Buddhism), and

Pramahakasat (the Monarchy). According to this idea of nationalism, Thai people share a

common language, a common religion –namely Buddhism–, and demanded a

renunciation of competing national obligation. This Thai-ism is a means to unify the Thai

people under the same national identity.

Unfortunately, the way Thai government build one national identity and how they

implemented that policy is now become one of major conflict sources in Southern

1 Advameg, Inc., “Thailand – Ethnic groups”, Encyclopedia of the Nations (online), 2011, <http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Thailand-ETHNIC-GROUPS.html#b>, accessed 1 December 2011.

2  K. Szczepanski, “Thailand – Facts and History”, About.com (online), 2011, <http://asianhistory.about.com/od/thailand/p/ThailandProfile.htm>, accessed 1 December 2011.

3 U. S. Department of State, “Background Note: Thailand”, U.S. Department of State (online), 28 January 2011, <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2814.htm>, accessed 1 December 2011.

1

Thailand. Southern Thailand is a region which consists of Muslim people. Therefore,

writer will analyze the reason beyond the separatism action in Southern Thailand based

on the nation building’s policy that implemented by Thai’s government since the Thai-

ism, founded by Rama VI.

B. Research Question

How can nation’s building policy that developed by Rama VI lead to separatism

actions in Southern Thailand?

C. Conceptual / Theoretical Frameworks

1. “Domination Ethnicity” / Ethnocracy

This concept is one of Jan Nederveen Pieterse’s models of ethnic conflict.

According to Pieterse, cultural relations can be divided into four types based on

the level of competition over the control of the national culture. Domination

ethnicity or ethnocracy as one of the types refers to the cultural despotism

exercised by one group over the rest of the population in a given nation-state. In

other words, the culture of the dominant group is defined as the national culture

and all other cultures are forcefully repressed.4

2. Ethnic Nationalism

This concept based on the emergence of ethno-nation sentiment mobilized by

ethnic’s sovereignty. The aims are to get recognition for that group, to get

autonomy, to change ethnic’s region borders and especially to get independence.

Constructive approach is one of approaches that used in explaining minority

problems. In this approach, ethnic nationalism formed not only by the inequality

experiences but also constructive, politic and political leadership’s factors which

is making a social construction through using primordial heritage and culture,

economic, political and social setting. Indicators in this approach are the level of

acceptance of the role of traditional leaders, level of acceptance of the social order

established in the group, the level of overt conflict in groups, and so forth.

4 O. F. von Feigenblatt, “The Thai Ethnocracy Unravels: A Critical Cultural Analysis of Thailand’s Socio-Political Unrest”, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3, 2009, p. 587.

2

D. Hypothesis

Without overriding others factors that lead to separatism in Southern Thailand,

nation building’s policy that implemented by Thai’s government is become one of the

major sources for that action. The nation building’s policy itself is based on the dominant

culture in Thai. Then, it leads to ethnic nationalism which is the Malay in Southern

Thailand wants government to recognize them as an ethnic that has different culture,

language and religion.

CHAPTER II

SUBSTANCE

3

A. Ethnic Malay, Patani and Thailand in History

Ethnic Malay in Thailand comprises around 5% of Thailand’s population. They,

primarily, concentrated in the southern region of Thailand, more precisely in the four

southernmost provinces of Yala, Narathiwat, Satun and Pattani. Though it just comprises

5% in whole population of Thailand, Malay comprises more than 70% of total population

in southern province of Thailand and close to 90% in Pattani.5 Though some of them live

around Bangkok, most of Malay Muslim in Thailand lives near the border of Malaysia.

According to Stephen I. Alpern, their language is Malay, and most of them cannot

communicate in Thai.6

The Muslim Malay in Thailand originally was part of the Malay Kingdom of

Patani. Established in the early 14th century, Patani as the rest of Malay states in Malay

Peninsula was obliged to send Bunga Mas or the flower of gold to Ayutthaya as a sign of

tribute and loyalty.7 Patani was also required to provide military aid when Siam make

request.8 Under Sultan Mudhaffar Syah, Patani broke away from Siam and under Raja

Hijau refused to acknowledge Prawat Thong as the King of Siam. But Siam kept trying to

bring Patani under its control by attacking Patani. The Kingdom of Siam was however

able to exert at various times some degree of control over the northern part of the

peninsula from about the sixteenth century. This for the most part did not directly affect

Malay Muslim population who were ruled by local leaders. This changed dramatically

after 1902, when what was then known as Pattani was formally annexed as part of Siam.

Later, Pattani was divided up into the provinces, Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala.

In Ayutthaya period (1351 – 1767), Siam tried to expand more of its territorial to

the Malay Peninsula, though when Siam called Sukothai Kingdom in 1238 its territory

already extended farther southward along to the Malay Peninsula and its neighboring

areas9. But Ayutthaya’s effort, in order to play a larger role in the profitable trading on

5 Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities (online), <http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5600&tmpl=printpage>, accessed 23 November 2011.

6 S. I. Alpern, “The Thai Muslims”, Asian Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 4, Mar. – Apr. 1974, p. 246.

7 Patani Malay Human Rights Organization, The Malays of Patani: ITS RISE AND DEMISE (online), <http://www.pmhro.net/?S=ReadPatani&ID=6>, accessed 23 November 2011.

8 Patani Malay Human Rights Organization, The Malays of Patani: ITS RISE AND DEMISE (online), accessed 23 November 2011.

9 D. A. Philips, Thailand, Chelsea House, New York, 2007, p. 27

4

the Strait of Malaka, is failed.10 The defeat of Ayutthaya at the Burmese hands in 1767

gave Patani a brief opportunity to assert independence. But then in 1785, Siam under

Rama I attacked Patani during his campaign against Burmese. The submission of Patani

under Siam made Patani not as a tributary state but as a province in Southern Siam under

Nakornsithammarat’s administration. Then in 1791, Patani was placed under the newly

established centre of Songkhla, another Siamese province bordering Patani. This period

of forcible annexation had nourished a deep resentment among the Malays and resulted in

several abortive anti-Siamese uprisings during 1789 – 1799.

Under Rama III (1824 – 1851), finally Siam consolidated control over land in the

Malay Peninsula.11 It was because after adopting a policy and applying it in southern

provinces, including Patani, Rama III realized that it was no use to be obtained from

governing as a Siamese province a distant state whose inhabitants were resolved not to

submit to alien rule, and then he applied a reverse policy. The policy itself applied by

sending Siamese officials to rule Kedah and Patani directly and proved to be effective in

reducing discontent and disorders in the region.12 Besides, Rama III also allowed the

nomination of indigenous elite as Governors in the seven provinces and the re-

instatement of the ex-sultan of Kedah in 1842. Those efforts brought political stability in

the Malay tributary states.

But, under Chulalongkorn (Rama V), the introduction of Thesaphiban System

which is exerting more direct-control from Bangkok over subordinate areas, including the

Malay provinces, so as to lessen pressure from Britain and France to take over the

outlying regions, ended the peaceful atmosphere in Malay provinces of Patani. In the

same time, British power was growing in the Malay Peninsula and German and American

were also seeking concession in the Malay states. That’s why an effort was made to

clarify the position by remedying the situation in Anglo-Siamese Secret Convention of

1897. Siam also issued the ‘Regulations Concerning the Administration of the Area of the

Seven Provinces’ in 1901 that put the “seven states” of Patani under one administrative

10 Philips, Thailand, p. 29.

11 E. London, THAILAND CONDENSED: 2000 Years of History and Culture, Marshall Cavendish Editions, Singapore, 2008, p. 41.

12 Patani Malay Human Rights Organization, The Malays of Patani: ITS RISE AND DEMISE (online), accessed 23 November 2011.

5

unit called Boriwen Chet Huamuang and placed under Area Commissioner. The

regulations were aimed at increased centralized control over the Malay states. Yet, the

regulations brought another protest since the new system forcibly deprived them of their

traditional power of taxation and appointment, the Commissioner had taken over the

opium and spirit exercise, the Raja’s authority in Patani was whistled away, and there

were efforts from Siamese officials to violate Muslim religious convictions.13 

After several letters of protest from Patani, measures were taken by Siam

government in order to tighten its control over Saiburi and Rangae – two states of Patani

– and ordered an immediate use of force. Besides, Siam also replaced some Raja’s in

seven states. In the 1902, the seven states were dissolved and amalgamated into one new

unit called Mothon Patani and divided into four provinces, Patani, Narathiwat, Yala and

Setul. Yet, they were still reluctance to be one of Siamese administrative. Then, finally,

Siam lost its control over Malay Peninsula after being forced to give up their claims to

Malay Peninsula in 1909 with Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909. The treaty between Great

Britain and Kingdom of Siam itself effectively dissected northern Malay states into two

parts. The British Government had all rights in Kelantan Terengganu, Kedah, Perlis and

adjacent islands and Siam had all rights in Patani and Setul. After 1938, Thai authorities

adopted policies forcing the adoption of Thai names and the assimilation of the Malay

minority by making the Thai language the exclusive language in all schools and

government business.

B. Nation Building Efforts in Thailand

Nation building is the process of collective identity formation with a view to

legitimize public power within a given territory.14 In Thailand itself, nation building aims

to gain loyalty and commitment to the central state authority through a common culture. 15

13 Patani Malay Human Rights Organization, The Malays of Patani: ITS RISE AND DEMISE (online), accessed 23 November 2011.

14 A. von Bogdandy, S. Häußler, F. Hanschmann and R. Utz, “State-Building, Nation-Building, and Constitutional Politics in Post-Conflict Situations: Conceptual Clarifications and an Appraisal of Different Approaches”, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, 2005, <http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/bogdandyua_9_579_613.pdf>, accessed 23 November 2011, p. 585.

15 G. Aryan, “Thai Monarchy”, Idea.int (online), <http://www.idea.int/news/upload/Nepal%20-%20Thai%20monarchy%20paper%20-%20Gothom%20Aryan.pdf>, accessed 12 October 2011, p. 3.

6

Nation building process in Thailand started by King Chulalongkorn (Rama V), the father

of King Vajiravudh. He tried to assimilate various autochthonous ethnic groups into Thai

identity ideologically. He encouraged nationalism through text book called

Thammachariya series, written by Chaophraya Thammasakmontri. Though most of the

series talking about engaging Thailand in world economy, but the series also talking

about state as the vessel for cultural community – the nation – which furnished the

fundamental identity of those who living within its jurisdiction.16

“Remember that muang Thai is our fatherland [ban kird muang

non] and we have to love it very much. We have to love it more

than the school where we study. Moreover, we have to love our

fellow Thais, in other words our nation. This is because we are

born Thai and belong to the same group of people. We are of the

same nation and speak the same language, so how can we not love

each other more than we love other people who belong to other

nations and speak other languages? If someone speaks untruly and

criticizes muang Thai by saying that it is not good in such and such

a way, we cannot bear to listen because it hurts as though

somebody stabs our heart with a sharp knife.”17

Besides, the Thammachariya also defines national boundaries: those living in

Thai soil but speaking other languages and not accepting Buddhism are excluded from

Thai nation. Furthermore, the new educational system in Thailand during King

Chulalongkorn’s reign treated Buddhism as an element of national identity though did not

explicitly propagate the values of Buddhist philosophy.18 King Chulalongkorn also

defined nationalism as loyalty to the king, stemmed from the fact that in pre-modern time

local nobility controlled the uses of manpower and blurred the image of the monarchy.

Under King Chulalongkorn, the monarch contributed to the happiness and well-being of

16 K. K. Mead, The Rise and Decline of Thai Absolutism, RoutledgeCurzon, Oxfordshire, 2004, p. 88.

17 Mead, The Rise and Decline of Thai Absolutism, p. 88 – 89.

18 Mead, The Rise and Decline of Thai Absolutism, p. 90.

7

the country and its people, and at the same time, the people should feel gratitude and be

loyal to him in return.19

King Chulalongkorn also implemented the ideas of nation, unified nation state,

nationality and national identity through centralized governing bureaucracy and

modernization. He replaced traditional semi-autonomous tributary state into modern

administration called changwat (province) and amphoe (district).20 It surely affects Malay

Muslim tradition since they used term kampoeng to call their region. King Chulalongkorn

also abolished the sharia or Islamic law. Introduced in Bangkok in 1902, the Islamic law

is replaced by Thai secular law, except for family and inheritance cases.21 Even, a Muslim

judge’s decision was not final until it was agreed by the sitting Thai judge.

The ideas of nation building formed by King Chulalongkorn, then enhanced by

his son, King Vajiravudh. Rama VI developed “official nationalism” in order to defend

absolutism. The ideas consists of Chat (the Thai people), Satsana (Buddhism), and

Pramahakasat (the Monarchy) are fully worked out at the beginning of his reign in a

series of lectures, given between 26 May to 4 July 1911.22 Those three elements were

inextricably bound together.23 His ideas of nationalism to build Thai nation was

influenced by British nationalistic trinity of “God, King and Country”. Soon after Rama

VI accepting the reign from his father, his government began to emphasize the use of

Thai language and to be told there was a concerted attempt to educate the Malays in

Thai.24 Then, the government under Rama VI also promulgated the Primary Education

Act in 1921. The act itself necessitated Malay children to attend Thai primary schools.

King Vrajiravudh also introduced the tri-colored flag, called “trirong”. This tri-colored

flag has red, white and blue to symbolize his Thai-nation motto, “nation-religion-

monarchy”.

19 Mead, The Rise and Decline of Thai Absolutism, p. 91.

20 S. Thananithichot, “Imagined Thai: The Politics of Constructed National Identity in Thailand”, in A. Kalaitzidis (ed.), Global Politics in the Dawn of 21st Century, Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER), Athens, 2009, p. 324.

21 W. K. Che Man, “The Thai Government and Islamic Institutions in the Four Southern Muslim Provinces of Thailand”, Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, vol. 5, no. 2, August 1990, p. 256.

22 Mead, The Rise and Decline of Thai Absolutism, p. 135.

23 Thananithichot, “Imagined Thai: The Politics of Constructed National Identity in Thailand”, p. 324.

24 S. P. Harish, “Ethnic or Religious Cleavage? Investigating the Nature of the Conflict in Southern Thailand”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 28, no. 1, Aprik 2006, p. 51.

8

After 1932 coup, when absolute monarchy replaced by constitutional monarchy,

under Field Marshal Phibunsongkhram’s leadership there are two critical things for the

contruction of Thai national identity. First, they changed the country’s name Siam to

Thailand in 1939. The reasons behind that change are Siam is the word use by Chinese

and Cambodian to call people living in the Chao Phraya River Plain and excluded people

in other parts of the country, the word Thailand means the land of Thais consisting of not

only Siamese-Thai, but also Mon-Thai, Cambodian-Thai, Malay-Thai and so forth living

together in this area, and the word Thai means independence so it creates a sense of

nationalism by giving pride to Thais as a people who have never been subservient to any

power.25 Second, Phibun also established National Culture Commission in 1942 to define

and disseminate Thai culture. Besides, Phibun also required all Thais to adopt Western

dress and to change many of their traditional social practices. He extended compulsory

Thai-language education.26 With the Thai Custom Decree, Phibun banned wearing

sarongs, and prohibited the use of the Malay language, Malay names and Sharia Law,

especially related to family and inheritance.

After Phibun, Dr. Pridi Phanomyong promulgated new constitution and repealed

Phibun’s assimilation policy and reinstated the special provisions for Muslims in the area

of Islamic lawa concerning family and inheritance. Under Field Marshal Sarit

Dhanarajata’s government, the construction of national identity continued by reviving the

roles of Monarchy. Though after Phibun there are several efforts from Bangkok

government to make assimilation more acceptable for Malay Muslim in southern

Thailand, still the years that they experienced when their traditional and Islamic way of

life repressed by government became one of sources that lead to insurgency.

C. Analysis: Southern Thailand Conflict

State’s political legitimacy could be established and enhanced through nation-

building strategies. Through nation-building policies or assimilation’s policies, states

sought to secure their territories and borders, expand the administrative reach of their

25 Thananithichot, “Imagined Thai: The Politics of Constructed National Identity in Thailand”, p. 325.

26 C. Mahakanjana, “Decentralization, Local Government, and Social-political Conflict in Southern Thailand”, East-West Center Washington Working Papers, no. 5, 2006, p. 7.

9

institutions and acquire the loyalty and obedience of their citizens.27 But, sometimes the

assimilation’s policies can lead to insurgency when the minorities feel threatened, like

what happen in Southern Thailand. Though some expert said that the reason beyond

insurgency in Southern Thailand is economic problem, we cannot override other reason,

especially historical reason.

Before the insurgency in 2004, Southern Thailand, especially three southernmost

provinces – Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat – had been experience the uprisings long ago,

during 1940 and 1980. If we drew back when Thailand still an absolute monarchy Siam,

the Malay Muslims revolt against Siam between 1630 and 1633, and they did it again in

1767 when Burmese ransacked the Siamese capital of Ayutthaya.28 During 1789-1791,

under Raja Tengku Lamidin, they revolted again when central government under Rama I

sidelined the existing rulers of Patani and replaced it with loyalist. But, Malay Muslim’s

rebellion around that time – when Thailand was an absolute monarchy – was a quest for

political independence or autonomy.

If we analyze the nation-building policies that issued by Thai’s government, the

revolt began when King Vajiravudh emphasized the use of Thai language after 1910 and

there was a concerted attempt to educate the Malay Muslims in Thai. Moreover the

introduction of three elements “Chat – Satsana – Pramahakasat” led to periodic protest

in southern provinces. Though when his father, King Chulalongkorn, claimed the reign,

there had been intense feelings of hostility amongst Malay Muslims of Patani when Rama

V introduced the bill for abolition of Sharia law. The major rebellion took an event in

1922 when Siamese government promulgated the 1921 Primary Education Act which

required and more precisely necessitated Malay Muslim children to attend Thai primary

schools.29 This rebellion was orchestrated by Tengku Abdul Kadir from Kelantan, to

27 United Nations Development Programme, “Building Multicultural Democracies”, Human Development Report, 2004, <http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr04_chapter_3.pdf>, accessed 14 October 2011, p. 48.

28 S. P. Harish, “Ethnic or Religious Cleavage? Investigating the Nature of the Conflict in Southern Thailand”, p. 50.

29 S. P. Harish, “Ethnic or Religious Cleavage? Investigating the Nature of the Conflict in Southern Thailand”, p. 52.

10

where he moved there in 1915, and lasted until 192330.31 The rebellion could minimized

when Free Thai government came into power in 1944 and reversed many of the

restrictive policies under Phibul Songkhram and pledged religious freedom for the

Muslims.32

In 1947-1948, the insurgency rise again when the dissatisfaction with the Thai

authorities increased. Then around 1960s and 1970s, there were small-scale skirmishes

between bands of insurgents and the Thai army and police.33 This lead by the action took

by Thai government in encouraging landless Thai Buddhists to migrate into southern

region and offering incentives such as land.34 But in 1990s, thanks to Gen Prem

Tinsulanonda, the insurgency fell quit until Thaksin Shinawatra became the Prime

Minister. This was because the Thai governments reversed its assimilation policy and

supported cultural rights and economic development in the historically marginalized

region.35

When we take a look into assimilation’s policies by Thai government, either in

absolute monarchy era or constitutional monarchy era, most of them are constructed by

government. The government itself was Thai ethnics. This means that ethnic or religion

conflict in Southern Thailand is because of the domination of one culture in Thailand

which is Thai culture and Buddhism and become the nation culture in which other

cultures such as Malay Muslim culture repressed. Like Jan Nederveen Pieterse’s models

of ethnic conflict. When there are cultural despotism exercised by one group over the rest

of the population in a given nation-state, there will be any conflict between ethnics that

being repressed and dominant ethnic. This is what happens in Thailand. Most of nation-

30 J. Laiq, “Ethnopolitical Issues in Southeast Asia”, Economic and Political Weekly, vol 23, no. 18, 30 April 1988, p. 909.

31 S. P. Harish, “Ethnic or Religious Cleavage? Investigating the Nature of the Conflict in Southern Thailand”, p. 52.

32 S. P. Harish, “Ethnic or Religious Cleavage? Investigating the Nature of the Conflict in Southern Thailand”, p. 55.

33 J. Laiq, “Ethnopolitical Issues in Southeast Asia”, p. 909.

34 C. Mahakanjana, “Decentralization, Local Government, and Social-political Conflict in Southern Thailand”, p. 9.

35 J. Bajoria, The Muslim Insurgency in Southern Thailand, 10 September 2008, <http://www.cfr.org/thailand/muslim-insurgency-southern-thailand/p12531>, accessed 2 November 2011.

11

building efforts through policies of assimilation or integration that targeted to Malay

Muslim are very different from their own cultures and Islamic tradition.

The Malay Muslims speak Malay, use Islamic law or Sharia law as their guidance

of life, and ruled by a Malay Raja. But, after Patani became Pattani and one of provinces

in Thailand, the central government in Bangkok applied policies to integrate them in Thai

nation by introducing cultures and traditions that different and incompatible with Malay

Muslim cultures and traditions. For example, under King Vajiravudh, the Malay children

who usually attending pondok to get an Islamic education must attend the Thai primary

school in which there were no Malay language lesson and Islamic lesson. Moreover,

when Pibun took a place as Prime Minister, the cultures of Malay Muslim such as

wearing sarongs, using Malay language, Malay names and Sharia law were banned. The

cultures that permitted to be implemented and carried out were Thai cultures – using Thai

language, Thai law and Thai names – in order to be a Thai nation.

This domination ethnicity in Thailand resulted from policies of assimilation and

integration issued by Thai government lead to ethnic conflict in Southern Thailand,

especially Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat. Because the Malay Muslims was being repressed

by Thai government, as one of minorities’ ethnic in Thailand, they want to get

recognition for their traditions, cultures and law that different from their counterpart or

Thai ethnic. Ethnic nationalism appeared among Malay Muslims in Southernmost

provinces of Thailand because of the inequality experiences such as the abolition of

Sharia law, the ban of Malay language, Malay names to sarongs.

The insurgency in southernmost provinces of Thailand that based on the

emergence of ethno-nation sentiment formed by social construction by politic, political

leadership’s that using such as primordial heritage and culture. Using constructive

approach, in the southern Thailand’s conflict, there were some indicators that lead to the

conflict. First, the indicator is the level of acceptance of the role of traditional leaders. As

we know, during Siamese absolute monarchy, the role of traditional leaders in

southernmost provinces was sidelined and replaced by loyalist. Whereas, the role of

traditional leaders, in Malay is raja, is important for Malay Muslims. Second’s indicator

is level of acceptance of the social order established in the group. Most of Malay Muslim

could not accept that they were under Siam’s administrative, whereas other Malay

12

Muslims living in other Malay Peninsula region such as Kelantan are under British’s

administrative and they are close to other Malay Muslim in the Federation of Malaysia.

The third indicator is the level of overt conflict in groups. During Siam absolute

monarchy and Thailand constitutional monarchy, there were a lot of overt conflicts in

Thailand regarding to southernmost provinces. Most of the conflicts are reaction toward

assimilation’s policies issued by Thai government that Malay Muslims felt repressed

them.

From all of the points above, we can see that, most of nation building efforts by

Thailand government are constructed by Thai ethnics in order to integrate or assimilate

Malay Muslims into Thai nation. These policies are a form of domination of Thai ethnic

in Thailand in order to become one Thai nation. Unfortunately, when there are minorities

being repressed, usually there are resistance movements from them. This is because the

minorities also want to get recognition from government that they have different cultures,

traditions, and laws. This leads to ethno nationalism by Malay Muslims in Thailand since

they were being repressed by Thai government through their nation-building efforts.

CHAPTER III

CONCLUSION

13

Thailand is multicultural and multiethnic country in Southeast Asia. The Malay

ethnic is the second biggest minority in Thailand. Comprises around 5-6% of total

population in Thailand, most of them are living in southernmost provinces of Thailand,

Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala. In 2004, there were uprisings in those three provinces.

According to some expert, the uprising is due to economic reasons. But, we cannot forget

that before 2004’s insurgency, the southernmost provinces of Thailand had already

experienced some revolt against the central government due to nation-building efforts

that repressed them.

The nation-building efforts by Thai government are intended for assimilating

other ethnics in Thailand, especially in this case are for Malay Muslims, into Thai nation.

Unfortunately, these efforts are conducted by repressing Malay cultures, such as banning

wearing sarongs, Malay names, Malay language, and even abolishing Sharia law. The

Malay children must attend Thai primary school. The Malay must speak in Thai. These

policies indicated that there were any tendency that Thai dominate the nation culture of

Siam or Thailand in order to build Siam or Thailand as one nation and to enhance and

establish state’s political legitimacy. Thus, ethno nationalism among Malay Muslim

appeared and they – Malay Muslims – who sought to get recognition from central

government revolt against government and lead to separatism action.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

14

Books

Kalaitzidis, A. (ed.), Global Politics in the Dawn of 21st Century, Athens Institute for

Education and Research (ATINER), Athens, 2009.

London, Ellen, THAILAND CONDENSED: 2000 Years of History and Culture, Marshall

Cavendish Editions, Singapore, 2008.

Mead, Kullada Kesboonchoo, The Rise and Decline of Thai Absolutism,

RoutledgeCurzon, Oxfordshire, 2004.

Philips, Douglas A., Thailand, Chelsea House, New York, 2007.

Journals

Alpern, Stephen I., “The Thai Muslims”, Asian Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 4, Mar. – Apr. 1974.

Che Man, W. K., “The Thai Government and Islamic Institutions in the Four Southern

Muslim Provinces of Thailand”, Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia,

vol. 5, no. 2, August 1990.

Feigenblatt, Otto F. von, “The Thai Ethnocracy Unravels: A Critical Cultural Analysis of

Thailand’s Socio-Political Unrest”, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social

Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3, 2009.

Harish, S. P., “Ethnic or Religious Cleavage? Investigating the Nature of the Conflict in

Southern Thailand”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 28, no. 1, Aprik 2006.

Laiq, Jawid, “Ethnopolitical Issues in Southeast Asia”, Economic and Political Weekly,

vol 23, no. 18, 30 April 1988.

Mahakanjana, Chandra-nuj, “Decentralization, Local Government, and Social-political

Conflict in Southern Thailand”, East-West Center Washington Working Papers, no. 5,

2006.

Online Articles

Advameg, Inc., “Thailand – Ethnic groups”, Encyclopedia of the Nations (online), 2011,

<http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Thailand-ETHNIC-

GROUPS.html#b>, accessed 1 December 2011.

Aryan, Gothom, “Thai Monarchy”, Idea.int (online),

<http://www.idea.int/news/upload/Nepal%20-%20Thai%20monarchy%20paper%20-

%20Gothom%20Aryan.pdf>, accessed 12 October 2011, p. 3.

15

Bajoria, Jayshree The Muslim Insurgency in Southern Thailand, 10 September 2008,

<http://www.cfr.org/thailand/muslim-insurgency-southern-thailand/p12531>,

accessed 2 November 2011.

Bogdandy, Armin von, S. Häußler, F. Hanschmann and R. Utz, “State-Building, Nation-

Building, and Constitutional Politics in Post-Conflict Situations: Conceptual

Clarifications and an Appraisal of Different Approaches”, Max Planck Institute for

Comparative Public Law and International Law, 2005,

<http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/bogdandyua_9_579_613.pdf>,

accessed 23 November 2011.

Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities (online),

<http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5600&tmpl=printpage>, accessed 23 November

2011.

Patani Malay Human Rights Organization, The Malays of Patani: ITS RISE AND

DEMISE (online), <http://www.pmhro.net/?S=ReadPatani&ID=6>, accessed 23

November 2011.

Szczepanski, Kallie, “Thailand – Facts and History”, About.com (online), 2011,

<http://asianhistory.about.com/od/thailand/p/ThailandProfile.htm>, accessed 1

December 2011.

U. S. Department of State, “Background Note: Thailand”, U.S. Department of State

(online), 28 January 2011, <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2814.htm>, accessed 1

December 2011.

United Nations Development Programme, “Building Multicultural Democracies”, Human

Development Report, 2004, <http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr04_chapter_3.pdf>,

accessed 14 October 2011.

16