Malaysia's The Star newspaper published a particularly fallacious view of Patani sent by a Jinmei Morinae on September 30, 2012.
A rebuttal was promptly e-mailed to the publication the next day, on October 1, 2012.
The rebuttal was never published and an e-mail inquiry did not receive a reply.
A subsequent tweet to the editor, Wong Chun Wai on November 2, 2012 did not generate a response as well.
So much for "freedom of thought" and the "right to rebut" in this partisan ethnic-Chinese controlled tabloid.
I don’t quite understand the issue raised by Jinmae Morinae (Patani not a ‘Malay’ state; Sept 30, 2012).
In her letter, she admitted that “[i]t is true that Patani was once a separate kingdom before being annexed by Thailand” and “[i]t is also true that the state’s population is primarily Malay-Muslim.” Yet, she deemed it improper for the Patani Region (modern-day Thai provinces of Pattani, Narathiwat, Yala and four districts in Songkhla) to be referred as “a Malay part of southern Thailand.”
Why is this so?
The Malay race is not restricted to the borders of Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and Brunei. Ethnic Malays make up 85% of the three million population of Thailand’s Patani Region plus the majority in neighbouring Setul (Satun) province bordering Kedah/Perlis on the west coast. The Patani Region traces its rich history to the ancient Malay kingdom of Langkasuka (2nd-14th century AD) centered near present-day Binjai Lima (Yarang) in Pattani province, Thailand.
Worldwide, ethnic groups tend to overlap international boundaries. Of course, historically, national borders realign endlessly over time but socio-cultural groups remain in their respective geographies irrespective of ruling polity. Unless, of course, there happens to be ethnic-cleansing, in which case, a predominant population is crowded out by another group. Today, you will still find a large ethnic-Russian population in eastern Ukraine; an ethnic-German majority in Italy’s South Tyrol/Alto Adige; ethnic-Hungarians in north-central Romania; ethnic-Kurds dominate where Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran meet; and ethnic-Koreans are prominent in parts of northeastern China.
As for the Patani Region, yes it is politically within Thailand, but it is Malay in ethnicity, history, heritage, language and culture. You can still be a Malay in Thailand just as one can be a “Thai” of Isaan, Lanna, Khmer, Shan or Chinese extraction. Note that “Thai” in this context is more of a nationality than a distinct race or ethno-religious group. It is equivalent to the term “Malaysian” to denote Malaysia's citizens. The inhabitants of the Patani Region are hence ethnic-Malays holding Thai nationality. No contradiction there.
“Thai Muslim” is a misnomer since it encompasses all Muslim citizens of Thailand, from Chiengmai’s Haw minority to Bangkok’s Pathans to the Malays of the Deep South. These disparate groups have nothing in common apart from a shared faith.
Jinmei’s point that “[b]y emphasising the ethnicity of Patani’s dominant population, you are trivialising Thailand’s diversity” is oxymoronic at best. How can you celebrate diversity if you suppress the distinctiveness (in this case ethnicity) that forms the basis of that diversity in the first place?
In her letter, she admitted that “[i]t is true that Patani was once a separate kingdom before being annexed by Thailand” and “[i]t is also true that the state’s population is primarily Malay-Muslim.” Yet, she deemed it improper for the Patani Region (modern-day Thai provinces of Pattani, Narathiwat, Yala and four districts in Songkhla) to be referred as “a Malay part of southern Thailand.”
Why is this so?
The Malay race is not restricted to the borders of Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and Brunei. Ethnic Malays make up 85% of the three million population of Thailand’s Patani Region plus the majority in neighbouring Setul (Satun) province bordering Kedah/Perlis on the west coast. The Patani Region traces its rich history to the ancient Malay kingdom of Langkasuka (2nd-14th century AD) centered near present-day Binjai Lima (Yarang) in Pattani province, Thailand.
Worldwide, ethnic groups tend to overlap international boundaries. Of course, historically, national borders realign endlessly over time but socio-cultural groups remain in their respective geographies irrespective of ruling polity. Unless, of course, there happens to be ethnic-cleansing, in which case, a predominant population is crowded out by another group. Today, you will still find a large ethnic-Russian population in eastern Ukraine; an ethnic-German majority in Italy’s South Tyrol/Alto Adige; ethnic-Hungarians in north-central Romania; ethnic-Kurds dominate where Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran meet; and ethnic-Koreans are prominent in parts of northeastern China.
As for the Patani Region, yes it is politically within Thailand, but it is Malay in ethnicity, history, heritage, language and culture. You can still be a Malay in Thailand just as one can be a “Thai” of Isaan, Lanna, Khmer, Shan or Chinese extraction. Note that “Thai” in this context is more of a nationality than a distinct race or ethno-religious group. It is equivalent to the term “Malaysian” to denote Malaysia's citizens. The inhabitants of the Patani Region are hence ethnic-Malays holding Thai nationality. No contradiction there.
“Thai Muslim” is a misnomer since it encompasses all Muslim citizens of Thailand, from Chiengmai’s Haw minority to Bangkok’s Pathans to the Malays of the Deep South. These disparate groups have nothing in common apart from a shared faith.
Jinmei’s point that “[b]y emphasising the ethnicity of Patani’s dominant population, you are trivialising Thailand’s diversity” is oxymoronic at best. How can you celebrate diversity if you suppress the distinctiveness (in this case ethnicity) that forms the basis of that diversity in the first place?
Posts
