|
|
 |
 The Malays of Patani |
|
ITS RISE AND DEMISE
The Malay Kingdom of Patani was one of the earliest Malay kingdoms in the Malay Peninsula. It is generally believed that the kingdom was established in the early 14th century as an off-shoot of the ancient Malay Kingdom of Langkasuka.(1)Langkasuka was considered one of the important commercial ports for Asian mariners, especially those who sailed directly across the Gulf of Siam from the southern tip of Vietnam to the Malay Peninsula. <>
The Hikayat Patani attributes Patani’s foundation to a ruler of an inland city of Kota Mahligai, Phraya Tu Antara, the son of Phraya Tu Kerub Mahajana. (2)The date of this event is not certain. Tome Pires, a Portuguese, who passed through Melaka in 1511 wrote of Patani as though it had been in existence before 1370. (3)On the other hand, the region was still identified by Chinese mariners as Langkasuka at the time of the voyage of Admiral Cheng-Ho around the year 1403. (4)
Patani has been held to be one of the cradles of Islam in Southeast Asia. The exact date of the Islamic conversion of the Patani region has not yet been established. However , Eredia, a Portuguese writer, speculated that Patani adopted Islam before Melaka. (5)Given the fact that in Terengganu, a neighbour of Patani, Islam was firmly established by 1386 or ‘1387 at the latest’, Wyatt and Teeuw conclude that ‘there is no reason why it should not have reached nearby Patani by that date, particularly given Patani’s repute as an early center of Islam’. (6) The Islamization of Patani created a break from the existing dominance of Hindu-Buddhist culture. The region began to gravitate away from the centre of political power of the Siamese and fostered her relations with the Malay world with Islam as the unifying factor.
Under the reign of the Inland Dynasty, Patani grew in terms of both population and prosperity. According to Ijzerman, Patani, in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, was the gateway to Eastern Asia. (7)The city-state was reported to produce large quantities of pepper and gold, and ships could obtain fresh provisions there at any season; but its real importance lay in its excellent harbour a in its position as the eastern terminus of one of the overland routes from Kedah which obviated the long sea-voyage through the Straits of Melaka. The Japanese, Tonkinese and Cambodians frequented the port and so did vessels from the Malabar and Coramandel Coasts of India. The Portuguese began trading there in 1517 and the Dutch and English established factories there in 1602 and 1612 respectively. (8)
The outbreak of a civil war in 1729 during the reign of Alung Yunus of the Kelantan Dynasty (1688-1729) set the Kingdom in chaos. Alung Yunus was killed in the civil war. (9)
Civil war dragged on for a long time and in this situation, the kingdom of Patani gradually fell under the control of the Siamese.
Annexation of Patani
There is no concrete evidence when the Siamese Kingdom began to exert her authority over Patani. Ever since its establishment, the Siamese Kingdom was said to have claimed rights over Patani, but enforcement of those rights was difficult and spasmodic, varying with the power of the Siamese Government from time to time. (10)At times Patani, as the rest of the Malay states in the Malay Peninsula, was obliged to send the Bunga Mas – the flower of gold – to Ayuthia as a sign of tribute and loyalty. They were also required to provide military aid when requested. But at times when the Kingdom of Patani became strong, it felt that this subservient status as vassal state of the Siamese Kingdom was unreasonable and intolerable. When the Siamese suffered defeat at Burmese hands in 1564, the Raja of Patani,
Sultan Mudhaffar Syah broke away fot himseld. (11)Again, early in the seventeenth century when the Siamese usurper Prawat Thong gained the throne, Patani, during the reign of Raja Hijau (1584-1616), refused to recognize him. (12) The Siamese, however, never renounced the effort to put Patani under her sovereignty. A series of efforts were made by Ayuthia to bring the state under control. During the reign of Raja Ungu (1624-1635), for instance, the Siamese attacked Patani with a force of about 50,000 to 60,000 men led by Okphya Deca, but no avail. As related in Hikayat Patani,’...with the aid of God Most High the Siamese were no longer on the winning sidie, as they suffered from starvation.’(13)Since then the Siamese never attacked Patani until the end of Aytuhia period.
The crushing defeat of Ayuthia at Burmese hands in 1767 gave the kingdom of Patani a brief opportunity to assert independence. But, the Siamese never renounced the efforts to place Patani under her suzerainty. In 1785, PAtani was again attacked by the Siamese under the leadership of Rama I during his campaign against the Burmese. (14)The campaign resulted in the submission of Patani which henceforth was not regarded as a tributary state like Laos or Cambodia, over which the Siamese interests were involved. The political relationship of Patani with her suzerain depended upon her relations with the principal province of Nakornsithammarat (Ligor), which was an administrative centre in the Southern provinces under the kalahom in Bangkok. (15)Bangkok thus exerted an indirect control over its Malay states through Nakornsithammarat. In 1791, Patani was placed under the newly established centre of Songkhla, another Siamese province bordering Patani. (16)
The forcible annexation of Patani by the Siamese had nourished a deep resentment among the Malays. Several abortive anti-Siamese uprisings broke out in Patani during 1789-1799.
(17) Having encountered semi-independence by a police of ‘divide and rule’. In 1817, Patani was consequently divided into seven small states called hua mang each with its own chief known as Chao Muang, directly appointed by Bangkok. (18)This obviously marked the end of the great Patani Kingdom.
The history of this region thus entered a new phase. The name of Patani became only one of the seven states, namely Patani (Tuan Sulung), Saiburi (Nik Dir), Nongchick (Tuan Nik), Yala (Tuan Jalor), Jambu (Nai Phai, a Buddhist), Ra-ngae (NikDah) and Reman (Tuan- Mansur).(19)These states were administered as third or fourth class provinces under the supervision of the Siamese Commisioner of Sonkhla. Thereafter, these ‘seven states’ were closely controlled and administered on the same line as the outer provinces pf Siam proper in contrast to other tributary states, viz. Kelentan and Terenggani. For every three years, when the Bunga Mas was dispatched to Bangkok, it was accompanied by the proceeds of a poll-tax levied on the inhabitants. Whereas the more remote states such as Kelantan sent only Bunga MAs and that was rarely. However, this policy did not promote political stability either. Most of Malay rajas found themselves dissatisfied and distressed under the centralized authority of Bangkok. Encouraged by disturbances in Kedah, the also a vassal state of Siam, the indigenous Patani rulers revolted against the Siamese around 1832 but were defeated.(20) Nevertheless, there was yet another revolt six years later in the region.
Shortly after Rama III became the King of Siam, a new policy was adopted towards the southern Malay states, including the Patani states, Rama III realized that ‘there was no profit to be obtained from governing as a Siamese province a distant state whose inhabitants were resolved not to submit to alien rule. The experiments had been tried for twenty years, and the only result had been a constant series of rebellions.(21) A reversal of the policy of sending Siamese officials to rule Kedah and Patani directly proved to be effective in reducing discontent and disorders in the region. The nomination of indigenous elites as Governors in the seven provinces, and the re-instatement of the ex-sultan of Kedah in 1842 further increased political stability in the Malay tributary states.(22) In the case of Patani, Tuan Besar (also known as the Chief of Kampong Laut), a member of the Kelantan royal family, was bestowed as the new ruler of Patani in 1845.(23) Tuan Besar’s family ruled the state for several decades until 1902 when the Siamese Government decided to revoke the traditional Malay governments and replaced it with the new system of administration known as Thesaphiban. Though Tuan Besar family exercised authority over only one of the smaller seven states, the Raja of Patani was looked upon as the heir to the Malay Kingdom of Patani.
The Raja or chao muang was inherited but, before assuming the position, he had to, be confirmed and granted personal title by Bangkok.(24) As these Malay provinces were geographically remote and bordered on British protected territories Bangkok, had to tolerate the indigenous rulers’ preservation of considerable autonomous power in matters concerning jurisdiction, local revenue collection and control over the personnel of government. In addition, each chao muang was supposed to send tribute to Bangkok every three years. As a result of this new policy the relationship between Bangkok and Malay provinces was good and a peaceful atmosphere prevailed for several decades.
The Thesaphiban System and the End of the Malay rule
The peaceful atmosphere in the Malay provinces of Patani however did not survive long when, in the 1890s, Chulalongkorn decided to introduce the policy of administrative centralization known as the Thesaphiban system of provincial administration. (25) This policy was aimed as 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. By these measures, it was hoped that Bangkok’s control over the provinces would be greatly strengthened.
In the period, British power was growing in the Malay Peninsula. British Advisers were stationed at Perak, Selangor and Sungai Ujung, in 1885 an Agent was stationed in Pahang; and in the view of British commercial interests in the Straits Settlements it was only a matter of time before the whole of Peninsula Malay came within British orbit. As early as 1895, the Consul-General at Bangkok drew attention to ‘the desire, which is believed to prevail in the Straits Settlements, of gradually ousting the Siamese not only from the State (viz. Terengganu) but also from Kelantan, Patani, Kedah and eventually Junk Selong and Renang’ (26) The Siamese, on the other hand, desired to extend their power in Peninsula as far as possible so as to have the maximum amount of territory with which to bargain with the British. Moreover, extension on the west would to some degree sompensate them for losses to the French in the Mekong valley on the east.
Furthermore, not only British but also American and German commercial adventurers were seeking concessions in the Malay states and there was danger that the establishment of foreign commercial interest would be fallowed sooner or later by the establishment of coaling-stations or even by annexations on the pretext of protecting trade. The Malay rulers of petty states were readily amenable to the influence of adventurers, as was shown by the case of the Duff concession in Kelantan. Since the Malay states outside the British orbit were not under effective control from Bangkok and in the case of Terengganu and Kelantan it was indeed by no means certain that the Siamese had any right of suzerainty, it was difficult to prevent such occurrences. A clarification of the position was needed.
An effort was made to remedy the situation in the Anglo-Siamese Secret Convention of 1897, whereby the Siamese undertook not to cede or alienate to any third power any rights in the territory south of Bang Tapan, on the 11th parallel of latitude, and not to grant any ‘special privilege or advantage, whether as regards land or trade’ in that territory to the subjects of any third power without the prior assent of the British Government, while the Brithish Government undertook to support Siam in resisting any attempt by a third power to acquire dominion or to establish its influence or protectorate in the same region.(27)
Fallowing this agreement, attempts were made by the Siamese to bring Patani and the rest of northern Malay states into line with other provinces in respect of administrative control. These efforts culminated in 1901 in a demand that the rulers of these states should in effect surrender their power of government. In 1901, the Siamese Government issued the ‘Regulations Concerning the Administration of the Area of the Seven Provinces’.(28) Under these new regulations, the ‘seven states’ of Patani were regrouped into one administrative unit called Boriwen Chet Huamuang ( Area of the Seven provinces) and placed under the control of the Area Commissioner, who was to reside in Patani. These regulations were apparently aimed at increased centralized control over the Malay states. Judges, a Deputy Governor and a revenue officer were appointed by Bangkok to ‘assist’ the local rulers. Tribute was no longer required by the treasuries of the area but to be handled by the Revenue Department in the same way as the rest of the Kingdom, which meant also that the revenues flowed out to the provinces to Bangkok.
As might be expected, the Malay rulers did not take kindly to the new system which forcibly deprived them of their traditional power of taxation and appointment. Despite the promised compensation and fixed income the Malay ruler remained dissatisfied. The Malay rulers clung to the belief that the tribute represented their relationship with the Siamese and therefore that taxes should be collected so that the traditional tribute might be sent to the suzerain power. In the new context, symbolic tribute had no value and the collection of a poll tax as a straight forward means of taking revenues away from the Malay rulers and shifting them to the Commissioner obviously reflected the overall change in political power.
However, the Malay rulers did not submit to their loss of autonomy without an outcry. In august 1901, the Ruler of Patani, Tengku Abdul Kadir Kamaruddin sought the aid of Sir Frank Swettenham, the Governor of the Straits Settlements, against new encroachment on his authority.(29) Tengku Abdul Kadir stated that although, five years earlier, the Siamese had appointed a Commissioner for Patani, he had no interfered to any great extend in the administration. The Commissioner had indeed taken over the opium and spirit excise, which he had farmed to a Chinese in respect of all the seven states, but that was all. When, however, Tengku Sulaiman, the ruler of Patani died in 1896, advantage was taken of the situation to impose drastic changes. The heir was at first given only provisional recognition as successor. Though two years later he was confirmed, the Raja was thus reduced to the status of a mere official. Further, the Raja’s authority was whittled away. The collection of customs dues at Patani port was taken away from him. The commissioner also took over the collection of the poll tax and salt tax.
More serious still, there were efforts by the Siamese officials to violate Muslim religious convictions: Muslims were required to do obeisanceto a picture of a King and to transport images of Gautama Buddha in processions at the time of the Chief Buddhist festivals, cases were heard in court on Friday and witnesses who failed to appear on his holy day were punished, the Raja was prevented from enforcing the Syariah laws requiring Muslims to attend the mosque on Friday and to provide for the upkeep of the mosque, which in consequence had fallen into decay. The Commissioner had even taken a dog into mosque. The Commissioner’s followers, moreover, molested Malay women. Tengku Abdul Kadir appealed for British intervention, hinting that, failing this he would turn to some other European Power.
Similar appeals were sent to Settenham by the Malay rulers of Saiburi and Reman.(30)
Swttenham replied to Tengku Abdul Kadir’s appeal by advising him to be patient and avoid violence. (31) At the same time, Swettenham also made private representations to the King of Siam, Chulalongkorn, in the hope of moderating his policy.(32) The Siamese Government, however, held that the Raja had been deliberately seeking trouble and that in this he had been instigated by interests in British Malaya.
However, since their appeal brought no action to ‘relieve them off the oppression and unjust treatment by the Siamese’, the Malay rulers began to plan on their own with Tengku Abdul Kadir Kamaruddin, the ruler of Patani, as their leader.(33) The Malay ruler hoped that, when the French heard that the Siamese were being attacked in the South, they would attack in the east and divert the Siamese’s forces from Patani. The uprising was planned to take place in October 1901, and a large supply of arms and ammunitions were acquired from a German firm in Singapore. However, while the plan was being laid, R.W.Duff, who was in Patani negotiating a mining concession in Legeh, fearing that an uprising would spread throughout the east coast of the peninsula endangering all British commercial enterprises, dissuaded the Malay rulers from an uprising would bring their own downfall, ruin hundreds of lives and also disrupt commerce. (34) Duff advised the Rajas to consult a firm of solicitors in Singapore and request them to draw a petition to the British Government on their behalf explaining their grievances and, while admitting Siamese suzerainty, appealing to Britain to ensure that their complaints were properly represented to the Siamese Government. (35) The Malay rajas agreed and once again sent petitions to Britain stating their grievances against Siam.
Though the official response to the petitions was a stern warning against an uprising accompanied by a ban of arms sales to the east coast, the petitions, accompanied by threats of violence, began to cause the British Foreign Office and Colonial Office, including Governor Swettenham, to take the complaints of the Malay Rajas seriously, The British Minister in Bankok, Paget, made informal inquiries with the Siamese Government on the situation in Patani. (36) Those inquiries, though informal, had caused the Siamese to look into the matter. In fact, Phya Sri Sahadheb, Vice Minister of the Interior, called on Duff to secure a detailed account of the Patani situation. (37) Duff explained to the Minister that the Malay Rajas had just caused for complaint and that if the complaints were not dealt with there might be trouble. He advised the Minister to go personally to Patani with force and inquire into the grievance.
On October 23, 1901, Phya Sri Sahadhebarrived in Patani and had a friendly discussion with the Raja of Patani, who was asked to freely state his entire grievance. (38) Tengku Abdul Kadirset forh his major complaint: he lacked authority and revenue because the Siamese Commissioner controlled the administration and the country. The Raja requested that Patani be administrated like Kedah with authority in the hand of the Raja, except in capital cases, with Malay laws and Malay as the official language in the states.
The next morning in Phya Sri Sahadheb returned with two documents written in Siamese and asked the Raja to sign it. The Minister explained that the letter and the copy of the letter which contained all the Raja’s wishes would be sent to Prince Damrong, the Minister for Interior, for his consideration. The latter also assured the Raja that signing the letter would not bind him to anything. When the Raja objected without a translation, Phya Sri Sahadheb produced a Malay scholar, known to the Raja, who translated the document. After getting the Raja’s signature, Phya Sri Sahadheb sailed to Singapore. However, to the Raja’s astonishment and dismay, it was found later that the letter stated the Raja’s agreement to the appointment of a government secretary, whose consultation and signature would be required in order for the Raja to promulgate any decree. (39) The proposed administrative structure would deprive the Malay Raja all authority and make them subordinate to several Siamese officers of no particular rank.
Tengku Abdul Kadir immediately sent a letter of protest to Prince Damrong. (40) In mid-December 1901, Prince Damrong replied, but he evaded the issue of authority but mentioned only that the Raja’s allowances were perhaps inadequate. (41) Enclosed with the letter was a document of a new administrative structure of the seven states.
In late 1901 and early 1902 measures were taken to tighten control further in Saiburi and Rangae through the appointment of two Siamese officers to rule in conjunction with the Malay ruler in each state. Tengku Muttalib of Saiburi and Tengku Samsuddin of Rengae took passive resistance by creating situations by which the Siamese government actions were made difficult. Sensing the potential revolt by these Malay Rajas, the Bangkok Government ordered an immediate use of force. Without prior notice, Tengku Muttalib and Tengku Samsuddin were replaced. All the Rajas, who had been displaced, were less influential than the Raja of Patani. As argued by Surin Pitsuwan:
Due to its history, its respected religious establishment and economic status, the principality of Patani had been recognized as the capital of Malay states under Siamese suzerainty. Thus Tengku Abdul Kamaruddin, the Raja of Patani, was considered (41)
On February 21, 1902, Tengku Abdul Kadir was arrested and later imprisoned in Pitsanuloke. (43) Tengku Abdul Kadir was charged for ‘gross disobedience’ against an order of the King. (44) Tengku Pitay or Kadir, the elderly uncle of the ex-Raja of Patani, was duly appointed as the new Raja of Patani. (45)
His arrest was viewed with sympathy throughout the Malay Peninsula. The Straits Settlements press, particularly the Singapore Free Press, attempted to raise an agitation, for the Siamese action was a set-back for those interest which had hoped to embody the whole Malay area in a British protectorate; but the Siamese were too firmly established to be displaced. (46) Feeling some obligation towards the Raja, since he had accepted Sir Frank Swettenham’s advice not to raise a rebellion, the British Government made a proposal in 1903 for his restoration, but the Siamese Government stated that Tengku Abdul Kadir would already have been reinstated if he had not refused to sign an undertaking to keep the peace. (47) Friends of the Raja, however, asserted that she Siamese had demdanded not only a humiliating submission but also an admission that Sir Frank Swettenham had incited him against the Government and that the Raja hade refused these terms. Tengku Abdul Kadir was, however, released two years later and was allowed to return to Patani, on signing a simple undertaking not to engage in political activities. (48) After staying in Patani for some time in 1905, Tengku Abdul Kadir and his family retired to Kelantan.
In the aftermath, the seven muangs were dissolved and amalgamated into a new unit called Monthon Patani. Monthon Patani was placed under the responsibility of a Governor. Finally it was divided into four provinces namely Patani, Yala, Narathiwat and Setul. (49)
In the remaining Malay states over which Siam still claimed authority events took an opposite course. At the same time when pressure was being brought to bear on the Patani Raja, similar demands were being made in Terengganu and Kelantan. But while a stabilization of the position there was desired by the British, there was strong reluctance to seeing these states brought under the Siamese administration. The Raja of Kelantan and Terengganu had threatened to appeal to other powers for aid if the Siamese Government pursued a similar policy as they had done in Patani. (50) A proposal to post British officers to Kelantan Terengganu and Patani was considered by the British Government, while Sir Frank Swettenham suggested the actual cession to the British of all Siamese islands of 7 degrees north so as to ensure that they should not fall into the hands of other powers. (51) The Siamese Government, accepting the principle that there was a difference of status between Patani and the other two states, declined to negotiate about the former but agreed to compromise on the latter for while they could not surrender claims in Patani without serious loss of repute in Siam generally, they could afford to make concessions in territories where their rights had always been doubtful. The upshot was the Angelo- Siamese Declaration of 1902, in which it was agreed that the Raja of Kelantan and Terengganu should be induced to accept on agreement defining their position; they were to submit their foreign relations to the control of the King of Siam and were to pay him tribute in money. (52) They were accept Advisers appointed but the King of Siam but nominated by the British Government and the King of Siam undertook no to interfere in the internal administration of the states. Thus the status of Kelantan and Terengganu was at last defined. Nominal vassalage to Siam was to be admitted but practical protectorate but Britain was to be enforced. Kelantan accepted this engagement and an Adviser was similarly appointed in Kedah in 1905, but Terengganu firmly refused.
The Anglo- Siamese Treaty of 1909
For a time, though the situation in Patani had been clarified to the advantage of the Siamese and that in Kelantan and Kedah to the advantage of the British, Terengganu still presented a problem. The purpose of the Secret convention of 1897, to ensure against any possible intervention of a third power though the grant of concessions, had not been achieved. Furthermore, the Convention operated unsatisfactorily in other ways. Although the veto power which it conferred on the British Government had been designed to prevent concessions in the area south of Bang Tapan, there was no doubt that the Treaty had some extent been utilized to block foreign commercial enterprise, and the Siamese were restive under this restriction.
The issue was settled by the Treaty of 1909, by which the Siamese Government transferred to the British Government all rights in Kelantan Terengganu, Kedah, Perlis and adjacent islands, in return for a radical modification of the Convention of 1897, so that the Siamese now had a free hand in what remained to her of peninsula Malaya, though at the same time by a separate instrument of 1909 Siam undertook not to grant concessions of a strategic value to any other power on the West coast of the Gulf of Siam. (53) No change was made in the status of Patani; to have insisted on the transfer to British Malaya of this area would have led the Siamese to abandon the negotiations altogether. (54) Setul, formerly like Perlis, a dependency of Kedah, was also recognized as belonging to Siam. Patani and Setul remained therefore the only truly Malay areas left to Siam.
INTEGRATION EFFORTS
For many years after the incorporation of Patani states into the Siamese Kingdom, no large scale revolts were reported in the provinces. It was recorded, however, that resentment among the Malays in the region persisted. (1) The Siamese authorities did realise their unpopularity with the Malays and had endeavoured to combat it by retaining the services of old ruling families in the new bureaucracy and also but not insisting upon the payment of taxes so vigorously as it had in other provinces. Despite those efforts, the Siamese officials, who were brought from Bangkok to the Malay provinces, never seriously considered the welfare of the local Malay inhabitants. These officers did not make any attempt to understand the Malay culture and the Islamic Religion. They ruled with great ease but were unconcerned with progress in those provinces except for affairs concerning their own advantage. Health, education and welfare services did not exist. Whenever the Government wanted roads to facilitate communication from one province to another, the local people were communication from one province to another; the local people were forcibly mobilized to work as labourers known locally as “kra”. (2) In the view of W.A.R.Wood, the British Consul at Songhkla:
The natives are really nothing but a gang of slaves, who cannot call their soul their own, if they made the slightest demur, they would be cast into goal. As, however, the entire revenue is sent up to Bangkok, so that there is nothing left to pay for labour, it is difficult to remedy this state of affairs. (3)
Wood did not believe that there was a single man in the state, except the few who hold office or receive emoluments from the Siamese Government, who did not view Siamese Government, who did not view Siamese rile with detestation and abhorrence. “Even the Raja of Patani”, he asserted, “informed me in almost tearful confidence that the people of Patani were suffering a great hardship.” “You will see that my mouth cannot speak some things’, he said, “but in my heart I know what people are saying, and how unhappy the peasants of Patani are now.” (4)
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
