WI: Pattani region as part of British Malaya (and consequently, Malaysia)

[ramones1986]

The map of southern Thailand, especially the Pattani region
(provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat)​

The conflict in Southern Thailand escalated in 2004 (though the violence persisted on the earlier decades). One of the root cause of the insurgency is the 1909 Treaty between Thailand and Great Britain.

The Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909 was signed on the 10th March of that year in Bangkok between the British government and Siamese (now Thai) government. The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged in London on 9th of July.

The agreement effectively divided the northern Malay states into two regions; the Pattani region (now provinces of Pattani, Yala ang Narathiwat), as well as Satun and southernmost part of Songhkla province remained under Thai control, while Bangkok relinquished its claims over Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu. The only defect is the Malay people were not represented in that treaty.

Because of the treaty, it defined the Thai-Malaysian border.

So, what if the Pattani region (historically the Sultanate of Pattani) were given to British Malaya instead of remaining Thai? Will it affect the relationship between Thailand and Malaysia? Will the conflict in the Pattani region never happen like in OTL? And additionaly, if Satun became part of British Malaya, will it merge with Perlis?

 

[ramones1986]

Bumping...

Is anybody interested?

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Is anybody interested?

I don't think it is a lack of interest, but more a lack of knowledge, very few people on here have much specialization in Southeast Asian history, though the one fellow who does has a focus more on the Indian Subcontinent and such.

As for my two cents, I can see this being a serious trouble spot between Thailand and Malaysia. Sure the Pattani region is majority Malay, but it won't make its loss to the Malaysian government any more bitter of a pill for the Thai government to swallow. It isn't hard to imagine this sort of thing becoming a protracted territorial dispute where Thailand blatantly funds separatists who wish to rejoin Thailand and Malaysia quietly ignores it for fear of igniting a regional conflict.

In short, it probably puts Thai-Malaysian relations on a significantly bad note to the point where it may well turn the two of them into belligerents in a Cold War conflict.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

What was the value of the Pattani region? Why did the Thais want to annex it in the first place?

 

[Jack Bauers Beard]

Assuming the area (Former Sultanate of Pattani) to be part of Malaysia I doubt there would be any insurgency, but it would be a relatively lawless place. Perhaps a bit like N/W Pakistan. The southern Thai insurgency is religiously inspired but the various factions are also criminal organizations as far as I know.

 

[ramones1986]

What was the value of the Pattani region? Why did the Thais want to annex it in the first place?

The former Sultanate of Pattani (Pattani region) was a tributary state of Thailand.

 

[Simon]

Hhmm, well assuming that the British decide to keep the Sultanate of Pattani about as a useful sub-ruler that means we get a tenth Malay state in modern day Malaysia. Being a part of Malaysia should mostly derail the insurgency since it seems to be mainly an ethnicity based, but as Jack Bauers Beard said it could still be a bit lawless since a factor of the insurgency does seem to also be tribal or criminal enterprise based. Of course you could still see a similar yet much smaller problem if the Sultanate is made up of of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat whilst Songkhla stays with Thailand. Not sure if it would have much effect on things in 1941 when Japan invaded, whilst it shortens the land border somewhat the Japanese landed Songkhla to capture the port and also Kota Bharu further south.

 

[ramones1986]

Hhmm, well assuming that the British decide to keep the Sultanate of Pattani about as a useful sub-ruler that means we get a tenth Malay state in modern day Malaysia.

From what I read, the northern Malay states (Perlis, Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah) immediately joined the Unfederated Malay States. If Pattani became part of British Malaya as part of ATL version of Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909, it will automatically join the UMS (my acronym for the Unfederated Malay States, obviously! )

Being a part of Malaysia should mostly derail the insurgency since it seems to be mainly an ethnicity based, but as Jack Bauers Beard said it could still be a bit lawless since a factor of the insurgency does seem to also be tribal or criminal enterprise based.

You're right, because in the Southern Thailand insurgency, groups like Jemaah Islamiyah is also involved.

 

[ramones1986]

The southern Thai insurgency is religiously inspired but the various factions are also criminal organizations as far as I know.

Because in OTL, the Jemaah Islamiyah is also participating in the conflict.

 

[Flocculencio]

With a pod of the 1909 treaty I doubt there would be major tensions. After all, it's not like the loss of Kedah et al led to any tensions.

 

[ramones1986]

it's not like the loss of Kedah et al

Loss of Kedah and other areas? What really happened?

 

[Flocculencio]

Loss of Kedah and other areas? What really happened?

Kedah was a Siamese possession and was only transferred in 1909. If Britain was a bit pushier and managed to get Pattani too I doubt the Thais would really mind too much later on.