Oh Malaysia (With Lyrics)...Anneke Gronloh

New Village

Foochow people(福州人)

Fuzhou(福州) also seen as Foochow, Fuchow, Fuh-chau, Fuh-Chow, Hock Chew or Hokchew in earlier Western documents, is the capital and the largest municipality of Fujian (福建) province, People's Republic of China. The city is also referred to as Rongcheng (榕城 or Ṳ̀ng-siàng) which means "city of banyan trees".

Along with the many counties of Ningde(宁德), those of Fuzhou are considered to constitute the Mindong (闽东, literally East of Fujian) linguistic and cultural area.

Fuzhou's core counties lie on the north (or left) bank of the estuary of Fujian's largest river, the Min River(闽江). All along its northern border lies Ningde(宁德), and Ningde's Gutian County(古田县) lies upriver. Fuzhou's counties south of the Min border on Putian莆田, Quanzhou泉州, Sanming三明 and Nanping南平 municipalities.

Fuzhou People福州人

The people of Fuzhou (福州人), also known as Foochowese and Hokchewese, usually refers to people who originate from Fuzhou region and adjacent Gutian County, Pingnan County in Fujian province of the People's Republic of China and in Matsu Islands of the Republic of China. Majority of native Foochowese are Han Chinese and are a part of Min-speaking group, who speaks Eastern Min language or specifically Fuzhou dialect. There is also a significant overseas Foochowese population, particularly distributed in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, United States, Japan, United Kingdom, etc.

Some of the famous Fuzhou people are:
1. Lin Zexu (林则徐, 1785—1850), Chinese scholar and official, considered a national hero for his strong opposition to the trade of opium before the First Anglo-Chinese War
2. Bing Xin (冰心, 1900—1999), female Chinese writer
3. Watchman Nee (倪柝声, 1903—1972), Chinese Christian author and church leader

In Malaysia Fuzhou people are referred to as "Hockchiu". There are significant numbers of Fuzhou people in Malaysia, mainly in Sibu, Sarawak; Sitiawan, Perak; and Sri Jaya, Pahang. In fact, there is a saying that Sibu is the “small Hock Chew province”, Sitiawan is the “small Sibu” and Sri Jaya is the “small Sitiawan”.

Many politician, ministers and great enterpreneurs in Malaysia are from Hock Chew people:

1. Chin Peng, former OBE[1] (Traditional Chinese: 陳平, Simplified Chinese: 陈平, Mandarin Chén Píng) (born 1924), was born Ong Boon Hua (Mandarin: Wang Yonghua or Wang Wenhua Chinese: 王文華) in Sitiawan, and was a long-time leader of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP). A determined anti-colonialist, he was notorious for leading the party's guerrilla insurgency in the Malayan Emergency and beyond. 陈平在1924年生于马来西亚霹雳州实兆远，籍贯在中国福建省福州的福清Fuqing-shi。父亲王声标，是霹雳州的商人

2. Robert Kuok Hock Nien (郭鹤年) (born 6 October 1923, in Johor Bahru, Johor), is an influential Malaysian Chinese businessman. His ancestral land is 中国福建省福州市盖山.

According to Forbes his net worth is estimated to be around $10 billion on May 2008, making him the richest person in Southeast Asia.

Kuok is media shy and discreet; most of his businesses are privately held by him or his family. Apart from a multitude of businesses in Malaysia, his companies have investments in many countries throughout Asia. His business interests range from sugarcane plantations (Perlis Plantations Bhd), sugar refineries, flour milling, animal feed, oil, mining, finance, hotels, properties, trading, freight and publishing. He was a student from the prestigious school Raffles Institution.

3. Tan Sri Datuk Tiong Hiew King (张晓卿) is the Malaysian Chinese founder and chairman of the Rimbunan Hijau Group, a timber company founded in 1975. Its overseas timber operations in Papua New Guinea is the largest in that country. He also has interests in logging operations in Russia.

Mr Tiong resides in Sibu, a town in Sarawak, of Borneo island that belongs to Malaysia. He is ancestor is from Foozhou Minqing-xian(福州闽清).

With a reported net worth of about US$1.1 billion, Tiong is ranked by Forbes as the 840th richest person in the world. Tiong's Rimbunan Hijau Group also controls Sin Chew Jit Poh and Guang Ming Daily, two of the major Chinese national dailies in Malaysia, The National Daily in Papua New Guinea and Ming Pao Holdings Ltd in Hong Kong. He is forging a global Chinese publishing group with his Ming Pao Enterprises; Ming Pao newspaper is also available in San Francisco (no longer in business since Feb. 15, 2009), New York, Vancouver and Toronto

4. Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik, former Minister of Transport

5. Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Ting Chew Peh, former Minister of Housing

Malaysian Foozhou Association

The Malaysian Foozhou are represented by THE FEDERATION OF FOOCHOW ASSOCIATIONS OF MALAYSIA(马来西亚福州社团联合总会)

Foozhou Associations in Malaysia

Kedah
Kedah Foochow Association
785, Jalan Langgar
05460 Alor Setar
Kedah, Malaysia
Tel: 04-7321729

Perak
The Foochow Association Taiping
196-198, Cross Street. No.8
34000 Taiping
Perak, Malaysia.
Tel: 05-8073358

Persatuan Foochow Dinding
No.22, 1st Floor, Tmn Wong Beng Hea, Kampung Koh
32000 Sitiawan
Perak, Malaysia

South Perak Foochow Associaition
67, Jalan Pasar
36000 Teluk Intan
Perak, Malaysia
Tel: 05-6224457, 62211704

Selangor
Persatuan Foochow Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur
18M, Lorong Thambi Dua, Pudu
55100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-2412051
Fax: 03-2412030

Coastal Foo Chew Ten District Association
39, Lorong Tingkat, 1st Floor
41000 Kelang
Selangor, Malaysia

Negeri Sembilan
Foochow Association of Negeri Sembilan
76, Temiang
70200 Seremban
Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.

Johor
Hock Chew Association Yong Peng
7, Jalan Templer
83700 Yong Peng
Johor, Malaysia

Persatuan Rong Lian dan Fu Zhou Sepuluh, Kawasan Skudai, Johor
40A, Jln Temenggong 9
Taman Ungku Tun Aminah
81300 Skudai
Johor, Malaysia

Pahang
Persatuan Foochow Pahang
E-2272/2274, 2nd Floor, Jalan Wong Ah Jang
25100 Kuantan
Pahang, Malaysia
Tel: 09-5142657, 5139498

Penang

Foo Chow Hoay Kuan Penang(槟城福州会馆)
N0.36, Jalan Argyll,
10050 Pulau Pinang

The Foochow Coffee Shop Owners'Association
160 Jalan Gurdwara,
10300 Pulau Pinang

Sarawak
Persatuan Foochow Kuching马来西亚福州古晋公会
16-20, Jalan Chan Chin Ann
93100 Kuching
Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: 082-240653, 240781
Fax: 082-240653

Sibu Foochow Association诗巫福州公会
8-10, Central Road
P.O. Box 1697
96008 Sibu
Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: 084-320445
Fax: 084-324427

Persatuan Foochow Miri马来西亚美里福州公会,
Lot 893, 3rd Floor, Waterfront,
Jalan Permaisuri
98000 Miri
Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: 085-431443
Fax: 085-432529

沙罗越古田公会
，97, Jln Pedada,
96000 Sibu, S
arawak, Malaysia.
Tel: 084-330925

巴都尼亚福州公会
Batu Niah Foochow Association
Lot 583, Batu Niah Town,
Rxtension,
98200 Batu Nine,
Miri Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6085-736 799 /737 789 /+6019-854 8948 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +6019-854 8948      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +6019-854 8948      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +6019-854 8948      end_of_the_skype_highlighting/+6019-854 8948
传真：+6085-736 779 /737 789
电邮：lonplny@yahoo.com.sg

巴南福州公会
Baram Foo Chow Association
Lot 29, Jalan Kapitan Lim Ching Kiat,
98050 Marudi,
Baram, Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6085-755 717
传真：+6085-755 333

加那逸福州公会
Kanowit Foochow Association
3, Main Bazaar,
Kanowit, P.O.Box 78,
96707 Kanowit,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-752 409

老越福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Lawas Sarawak
1st Floor, Lot No 9,
Jalan Muhibbah,
98850 Lawas,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.

林梦福州公会
Limbang Foo Chow Association
Lot 1347, Kampung Bangkita,
97000 Limbang,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6085-212 273

马拉端福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Meradong Sarawak
Meradong Foochow Association Sarawak
Jalan Ted Kui Ngo,
Bintangor,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-692 594
传真：+6084-692 594

民丹莪福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Bintangor
21, C-D , Jalan Teo Kui Ngo,
96500 Bintangor,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-692 594
传真：+6084-692 595

沐胶福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Mukah
Foo Chow Association Mukah
Oya Road,
P.O.Box 97,
96400 Mukah,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-871

泗里街福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Sarikei
Sarikei Foochow Association
No.8, 2nd Floor,
Jalan Tok Tok,
96100 Sarikei,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-652 751
传真：+6084-652 751

Sabah
FOOCHOW ASSOCIATION KOTA KINABALU SABAH MALAYSIA(沙巴亚庇福州公会)
BANGUNAN PERSATUAN FOOCHOW KOTA KINABALU,
3.5KM, JALAN KOLAM, BUKIT PADANG, LUYANG,
88100 KOTA KINABALU, SABAH,MALAYSIA
TEL : 088-246442, 088-240028
FAX : 088-240029

Persatuan Foochow Sarawak-Sabah, Malaysia砂沙福州同乡会（西马）
B-16-5, Megan Avenue 2,
No.12, Jalan Yap Kwan Seng,
50450 Kuala Lumpur
http://www.sasafoochow.com/

Kota Gelanggi

Kota Gelanggi is an archaeological site reported in 2005 as potentially the first capital of the ancient Malay Empire of Srivijaya ca. 650-900 and one of the oldest pre-Islamic Malay Kingdoms on the Malay Peninsula.

That the city was part of the "Ayuthia Kingdom" (Ancient Siam now known as Thailand) & may be the unidentified Naksat city of the Siamese folklore. Hence, the the word "Gelanggi" could be a mispronounciation of the Thai word "Ghlong-Keow" meaning box of emeralds or treasury of jewels.

The Malay annal, "Sejarah Melayu" (meaning History of Malay) has mentioned that the main fort of Kota Gelanggi was made of black stone & was named "Kota Batu Hitam" in Malay meaning "Black Rock City". Sejarah Melayu is a 17th Century Malay text.

Ancient Tamil inscriptions otherwise inform us that during the era of south Indian Chola Dynasty in 1025, after destroying the Malay Kingdom, Gangga Nagara.

The 12th Naksat Cities - the lost city

Kota Gelanggi was also reported to be the 12th city, the lost city of The Naksat Cities. The Naksat cities are a chain of twelve inter-linked cities or muangs of the ancient Malay Kingdom of Tambralinga(today capital city of province Nakorn Si Thammarat). The cities acted as an outer shield, surrounding the capital Nakorn Si Thammarat, and were connected by land so that help could be sent from one city to another in the event of surprise attacks.

The term Naksat refers to the Lunar calendar system, the Naksat Pi, which is based on a duodenary cycle of years, with each year being associated with a particular animal.

Eleven of the twelve cities have been identified and are all located on the Malay Peninsula. The eleven cities with their associated animal "years" are Narathiwat (Rat), Pattani (Ox), Kelantan (Tiger), Kedah (Big Snake), Patalung (Little Snake), Trang (Horse), Chumporn (Goat), Krabi (Monkey), Kanchanadit (Chicken), Phuket or Takuapa (Dog) and Kraburi (Pig). The missing city, Muang Pahang, is associated with the Year of the Rabbit. It has also been speculated that Kota Gelanggi is the twelfth city.

Reference to the cities appear in the chronicles of Nakorn Si Thammarat and the chronicles of the Phra Dhatu Nakorn.

The discovery of lost city

The history
The reported site of this ancient city is in the dense jungles of the southern Malaysian state of Johor Darul Takzim, near a forest reserve currently managed as a water catchment area, the Linggiu Dam, by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) of Singapore. This description locates the site somewhere within a 140 square kilometre are of the forest reserve surrounding Sungai Madek and Sungai Lenggiu.

Kota Gelanggi is referenced in the Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals, an early 17th century Malay historical text. In it, Kota Gelanggi is said to be found on the upper reaches of the Johor River. The main fort of Kota Gelanggi was reportedly made of black stone (or Kota Batu Hitam in Malay). Its name 'Kota Gelanggi' was apparently derived from the Malay mispronunciation of the Thai word 'Ghlong-Keow' or 'Box of Emeralds', hence in Malay, 'Perbendaharaan Permata' ('Treasury of Jewels'). Some scholars believe that the city formed part of the Ayutthaya Kingdom, and may thus be the unidentified 12th Naksat city of ancient Siamese folklore. Ancient Tamil inscriptions inform us that the city was raided by the Chola conqueror Rajendra Chola I, of the South Indian Chola Dynasty in 1025, after he had destroyed the Malay Kingdom of Gangga Negara. The latter is generally equated with the ruins and ancient tombs which still can be seen in the district of Beruas, Perak Darul Ridzuan. Old European maps of the Malay Peninsula further show the location of a city known as 'Polepi' (i.e. 'Gelanggi') at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula (see Sebastian Munster's (1614) Map of Taprobana).

References to Kota Gelanggi were reported in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by colonial scholar-administrators including Dudley Francis Amelius Hervey (1849-1911); who published eyewitness reports of the city in 1881; and Sir Richard Olof Winstedt (1878-1966); who stated that an Orang Asli was prepared to take people to the site in the late 1920s. The ancient city was also known to the adventurer-explorer Gerald Gardner (1884-1964), who discovered the ruins of Johore Lama while searching for Kota Gelanggi.

The discovery

Raimy Che-Ross published "The 'Lost City' of Kota Gelanggi: An Exploratory Essay Based on Textual Evidence and an Excursion into 'Aerial Archaeology'" in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.

That article announced the discovery of a pre-Malaccan city in the forests of Johore. Since then, the "Lost City" was featured in the press and has become the subject of intense discussion and speculation by academics, heritage-enthusiasts and the general public.

News of the discovery attracted the notice of international media. The Malaysian Cabinet has now designated it a national priority, with a formal expedition into the jungles being planned. Verification of the discovery will have a great impact on regional history and archaeology, not to mention the potential significance for the tourism industry.

Raimy Che Ross
RAIMY CHE-ROSS was a Malay Tutor at the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (1994), a Graduate Intern at the National Gallery of Australia (1998) and a Visiting Scholar with the Malaysian Commonwealth Studies Centre at Trinity College, Cambridge (2003).

His latest publications include studies on Munshi Abdullah's manuscripts and lithographs, the Jewish Diaspora in pre-WWII Penang, the Private Papers of Baginda Omar, IXth Sultan of Terengganu, and rare Jawi and Javanese letters from Raffles discovered in the New South Wales State Library. Raimy is now working on a catalogue of the Cambridge University Library Malay Manuscripts Collection, a monograph on Royal Malay letters and artefacts at the Royal Archives in Windsor Castle, and exploring pre-Malacca sites in Perak.
(source: http://habitatnews.nus.edu.sg/index.php?entry=/talks/20050318-lostcitytalk.txt)

The site's existence was announced dramatically as a 'discovery' by the Malaysian Press on 3 February 2005.

Recent evidence of the city's existence and approximate location was presented as the result of a decade-long research project based on Malay manuscripts, cartographical and topographical surveys, aerial inspections and assessing local folklore. A preliminary discussion on the subject based on these sources was published as a lengthy academic paper entitled The "Lost City" of Kota Gelanggi (JMBRAS, Vol. 77 Pt. 2, pp.27-58) in 2004. Prior to that, its author, Raimy Che-Ross, an independent researcher, had tabled and discussed his findings with experts at the Asia Research Institute (ARI), National University of Singapore, the Johor Chapter of Badan Warisan Malaysia (Malaysian Heritage Trust) and to archaeologists at the Jabatan Muzium dan Antikuiti Malaysia (Museums and Antiquities Department of Malaysia), between January-June 2004.

The paper was given wide coverage by the Malaysian Media, who prematurely reported the introductory article as the announcement of a major 'discovery'. This prompted the then Minister for Heritage, Culture and the Arts to himself announce ambitious plans to 'discover' the city by selected museum and government officials.

On April 28th 2006, the Malaysian National News Service (Bernama) reported that the "Lost City does not exist". Khalid Syed Ali, the Curator of Archaeology in the Department's Research and Development Division, said a team of government appointed researchers carried out a study over a month in July last year [2005] but found no trace of the "Lost City".

However, Khalid later added that 'the Heritage Department (Jabatan Warisan) does not categorically deny that it exists, only that research carried out until now [over the month of July] has not shown any proof that can verify the existence of the ancient city of Linggiu ' (Azahari Ibrahim, 'Kota Purba Linggiu: Antara Realiti dan Ilusi', Sejarah Malaysia, July-August 2006, p.37). When pressed for details, he revealed that Che-Ross was not involved in the museum's search team for the lost city.

Three elder Orang Asli headmen from the Linggiu Dam area nonetheless insist that the city indeed exists. According to Tuk Batin Abdul Rahman, 85, 'the city is very large, I have seen it myself because it was located near my village. I estimate its fort to be approximately forty feet square, with three holes like windows along its walls'. He added that the area was formerly inhabited by him and fifty Orang Asli families, before being moved by the British due to the Communist threat in the late 1940s-50s. He further said that he had first stumbled across the fort in the 1930s, while foraging for jungle produce. Tuk Batin Abdul Rahman's statements were independently verified by Tuk Batin Daud, 60 and Tuk Batin Adong, 58, who added that their people had visited the site on numerous occasions before, and had seen the black stone walls themselves (Amad Bahri Mardi, 'Kota Gelanggi hanya wujud pada nama', Berita Harian, Sunday, 20 February 2005, p.18). Two old manuscript drawings believed to depict the ruins are in the possession of Tuk Batin Adong. The rough outline coloured sketches show a large building surrounding a steep hill. Two circular apertures are found on the walls on each side of the entrance into this structure.

Note that the Kota Gelanggi of Johor Darul Takzim is different from the Kota Gelanggi Caves near Jerantut in Pahang Darul Makmur. The Kota Gelanggi Caves of Jerantut hold Neolithic sites, with no evidence of substantial habitation beyond that period having been found despite extensive archaeological digs in its caverns by the museums department.

Late in May 2008, the Malaysian Press reported the discovery of an ancient bronze vessel or Kendi near a river close to Mentakab, Pahang Darul Makmur that may be connected to the ancient city of Kota Gelanggi in Johor Darul Takzim. Both sites are linked by a network of rivers once believed to form a trans-peninsular trading route cutting across the Malay Peninsula.

(source: Wikipedia)

It's amazing that a federal Minister of Culture announced that the government will do everything possible to bring out the lost city. It was excitement and even the mass media published widely on the issue. But suddenly the issue and the lost city, was all really lost in silence. Gone were the excitement of the government and the mass media......

Look at the amount of money Indonesia makes from Borobudur, and Cambodia makes from Angkor Wat, the ancient city of Kota Gelanggi should be great for Malaysia. It will be Angkor Wat of Malaysia, and a tourism potential for tourist dollars. Like Bujang Valley, the lost city was a Srivijayan Hindu/Buddhist kingdom. Is the lost city reveal too much history that the authority cannot accept the fact, as it is too sensitive to disclose it at the moment for the political reality; or it was all falsified historical news?.....something fishy is happening, and the truth is not reveal....

I hope some external independent party will continue research on the lost city; may be some day some hero will reveal some shocking news, that ......and the lost city will never be forever lost.....

.....and hope that the history is not covered up or altered for the sake of politic ..... historical fact must be the truth of the past, not the falsified data to meet the political agenda of the time.... whatsoever the historical truth, the mature Malaysian are prepared to accept the historical fact.

Ligor or Nakhon Si Thammarat(洛坤)

Ligor is now called Nakhon Si Thammarat, which is the Thai rendition of its original name Nagara Sri Dhammaraja. Ligor used to be a powerful Malay kingdom in its time. It had close links with Prey Nokor, i.e. the Angkorian Khmer kingdom.

Unlike Kedah and Pattani, however, Ligor did not fully convert to Islam. Although quite a large number of its citizens became Muslim, Ligor is believed to have remained as a mainly Buddhist kingdom until it was eventually invaded and conquered by Sukhotai.

Map of Nakhon Si Thammarat

View Larger Map

Tambralinga

Tambralinga was an ancient kingdom located on the Malay Peninsula that at one time came under the influence of Srivijaya. The name had been forgotten until scholars recognized Tambralinga as Nagara Sri Dharmaraja. Early records are scarce while estimations range from the seventh to fourteenth century. The kingdom ceased to exist around 700.

By the end of the twelfth century, Tambralinga became independent of Srivijaya as the empire suffered a decline in prestige. At its height between the thirteenth century and the beginning of fourteenth century, Tambralinga had occupied most of the Malay Peninsula and become one of the dominant Southeast Asian states. By the end of the fourteenth century, Tambralinga was recorded in Siamese history as Nagara Sri Dharmaraja Kingdom.

Tambralinga first sent tribute to the emperor of the Tang dynasty in 616. In Sanskrit, tambra means "red" and linga means "Siva" or "phallus".

LIGOR (NAGARA SRI DHARMARAJA) IN 11TH CENTURY

Introduction

A Chinese text recorded that at the end of the tenth century, a Srivijayan ambassador sent to the court of China reported the attack from Java and requested protection. During the winter of 992, it was learned from Canto that this ambassador, who had left the capital of China two years before, had learnt that his country had been invaded by She-po (Java) and as a consequence, had remained in Canton for a year. In the spring of 992, the ambassador went to Champa with his ship, but since he did not hear any good new there, he returned to China and requested that an imperial decree be promulgated placing San-fo-chi under the protection of China. About the same time, the Chinese court received Javanese envoys that brought corroborative information to China. They reported that their country was continually at war with San-fo-chi, but what they did not say was that the aggression came from them.

In 995, the geographer Masudi spoke in grandiloquent terms of the "kingdom of the Maharaja", king of the islands of Zabag; among theirs exploits were Kalah (Kedah) and Sribuza (Srivijaya).

At 999 it appears that a Sri Vijaya king had moved his court to Vijaya court at Prey Nokor (i.e. Angkor) by judging from his incomplete coronation name "Yang Pu ku Vijaya Sri" found in an inscription of the region. This “movement” is believed to refer to the “relocation“ of his throne from Ligor to Lavo. This Srivijayan king is believed to be Sujitaraja, also titled Jayaviravarman, Preah Botomvaravamsa n also Sri Kshetraindraditya. He was King of Nagara Sri Dharmaraja (Ligor). He was a Ligorian Malay prince with Srivijayan blood. He also married a Khmer princess. At that time, the Srivijayan realm had sort of split into 2 sub-realms, i.e. the mainlandic Angkorian realm n the islandic realm. Nagara Sri Dharmaraja (Ligor) as well as Kedah had then become a sort of bridge connecting the 2 sub-realms. Looked at in another way, they had also become contested territory, sort of a battleground, between Angkor n Palembang, with the Chola Tamils n their Javanese allies also coming in as interested, competing outsiders.

Sri Vijaya's attack on the Cakravartin (Angkorian) Empire
At the same time, the Mon tradition recalled the conflict between Lavo and Haripunjaya. The story is reported in various Pali chronicles composed in Chiangmai. The Chamadevivamsa, written at the beginning of the fifteenth century, and the Jinakalamali, finished in 1516, contain the following account:

"A king of Haripunjaya named Atrasataka went to attack Lavo where Ucchittachakravatti reigned. At the moment when the two sovereigns prepared for battle, a king of Sri-dhammanagara named Sujita arrived at Lavo with a considerable army and fleet. Confronted by this surprise attack, the two adversaries fled in the direction of Haripunjaya. Ucchita arrived first, married the queen and proclaimed himself king.

Sujita, the king of Ligor, established himself as master of Lavo. At the end of three years, his successor, or perhaps his son, Kambojaraja, went to attack Ucchita again at Haripunjaya, but was defeated."

The conflict between Lavo and Haripunjaya mirrors the feud between the Javanese and the Sri Vijaya that grew in a bigger scale to become the dynastic crisis of the Cakravaltin establishment. Under the Javanese attack, the Srivijaya was obviously looking for an escape and in a twist of destiny, the Angkorian site became their target.

Scholars have mistaken this attack as a conquest of the mighty Angkorian Empire over its weaker neighboring states, Lavo and Haripunjaya. On the contrary, it was the Angkorian court that was under attack since the story clearly indicates that the conqueror was from Sri Dhammaraja or Ligor.

The ruler of Lavo, Ucchittachakravatti, was quoted as a Chakravati, a reference to the Angkorian Monarch of the time. He was either Jayavarman IV or a successor of him. As Lavo was the military command post of the Cakravatin Empire, the control of Lavo resulted in the capture of the Angkorian throne.

The Viravamsa Dynasty
After the reign of Jayavarman V, inscriptions appear to show three kings, Udayadityavarman, Jayaviravarman and Suryavarman were reigning concurrently at the Angkorian site. Scholars speculated that they were contending over the Angkorian Throne.

While in fact, they were all belonged to the Ligor court and were joined in their fight to take control of the mainland. A passage of the Khmer chronicle (RPNK: Botomvaravamsa) shed some light to the enigma.

There was a nephew of Maharaja who, arranged by Prah Dhammavidhi rsiphatta, wedded the late queen and ascended the throne under the name of Botomvaravamsa. He commissioned Virauraja as his Obyuvaraja and Udayaraja as his Obraja. After the death of Botomvaravamsa, Prah Virauraja who was Obyuvaraja ascended the throne. After the reign of Virauraja, Prah Udayaraja who was commissioned as Mahaobjraja ascended the throne.

According to the passage, arrangement had been established by the Angkorian high priest to accommodate the new leadership. Jayaviravarman (Preah Botomvaravamsa) who was the nephew of the late Angkorian King and was set to ascend the Angkorian throne while Suryavarman (king Virauraja) became his Obyuvaraja (second king) and Udayadityavarman (Udayaraja) became his Obraja (army marshal).

We shall see that Jayaviravarman and Udayadityavarman were brothers and were related to the court of Chrestapura (Lavo) and despise their true origin from Ligor, they were no strangers to the Angkorian court. They were the collaborators of the younger Suryavarman I, who was the son of Jayaviravarman (also called Sujita, Preah Botomvaravamsa n Sri Kshetraindraditya) who alone would be the ultimate ruler of the Angkorian throne.

Jayaviravarman (1002-1006)
He was the elder brother of Udayadityavarman and was mentioned in the inscription of Prasat Khna as Sri Narapativiravarman. His title indicates that he was then Narapati or ruler of Lavo and army marshal of Jayavarman V. The inscription of Ta Praya (Stele de ta Praya), confirms that he hold the position since 962 during the reign of Harshavarman II. The same inscription indicates that he was the brother in law of Jayavarman V and served as his army general, thus an insider of the Angkorian court. The Inscription of Prasat Trapan Run (BEFEO28: Nouvelles Inscriptions du Cambodge: La Stele du Prasat Trapan Run) introduces him as the Mala king (Maulimalaraja), connecting (i.e equating) him to the Sri Vijaya king Sujita of the Mon chronicle.

Obviously Sri Vijaya of the Malay archipelago (i.e. islandic Srivijaya) was a cardinal state of the Angkorian Empire, and as part of the Cakravatin establishment its ruler could hold an important function for the Middle country. The fact that he was himself the army general (senapati) of the Angkorian Empire explains why king Sujita had a large army at his diposition to overrun Lavo and the Angkorian throne. The part B of the inscription mentioned that he ascended the throne at 1002 and still reigning on 1006 when he granted a piece of land in Aninditpura (Dvaravati) to his master priest Kavindrapandita. The chronology set him as a contemporary king of Suryavarman I who according to many inscriptions was also reigning at 1002 AD. Other inscriptions reveal his active role in the state affair during his late reign that ended in 1006, obviously during his old age.

Suryavarman I (1002-1050)Many inscriptions attest the reign of Suryavarman, as early as at 1002 AD (Saka 924). If the date is exact, Suryavarman was crowned at the same time as king Jayaviravarman that leaded to the speculation that either the twos were contending the Angkorian throne or was only one king using different titles. We shall see that neither speculation is true. To start, the inscription of Phimanakas (BEFEO XIII, K292, P 12) make it clear that for his ascension on 1002 AD (924 caka), Suryavarman I was ascending Sri Dharmaraja throne.

"Dhati vrah pada kamraten kamtvan an cri suryavarmmadeva ta sakata svey vrah dharmarajya nu 924 caka."

The same inscription mentions that he was lined from the Suryavamsa dynasty and inherited the title of "Kamtvan", a reverence to a Kam king. It is reflecting a strong connection with the Kambojean court of Tambralinga. These evidences support the Khmer tradition that Suryavarman I (Virauraja) had served as the second king (Obyuraja) to king Jayaviravarman (Botomvaravamsa). Some sources mentioned that he was in fact the son of king Sujita or Jayaviravarman himself. While the latter was ascending the Angkorian throne in 1002 AD, Suryavarman I was anointed at the same time to rule Sri Dharmamaraja. It was only after the death of Jayaviravarman that Suryavarman I ascended the Angkorian throne, presumably on 2007 AD.

He was obviously the Kambojaraja of the Chamadevivamsa and the Jinakalamali chronicles that went out to attack the Lavo court forcing them to settle at Haripunjaya. Inscriptions of his name were more numerous in the western site that suggests his involvement in the conquest and reestablishment of Lavo. It was not clear that he received immediate support from the Angkorian court. The inscription of Ta Prom mentions his marriage to the princess Viralaksmi of Chrestapura. Descended from Yasovarman of the pre-Angkorian line, princess Viralaksmi was clearly a ticket of legitimacy to the Angkorian throne. According to the Khmer chronicle, she was the queen of the last Angkorian monarch, presumably Jayavarman V or his immediate successor whose reign was cut short by the crisis.

The inscription of Tep Pranam (JA March-Apr: Le Stele de Tep Pranam, George Coedes) contains a small addition in Khmer Language by Suryavarman to the Sanskrit part of king Yasovarman I to commemorate his involvement in the building of Saugatasramas in the royal palace (vrah Thlvain). This could be an attempt to show his support for the past Angkorian tradition and at the same time to stress on his relationship with Yasovarman I whose legitimacy over the Angkorian throne was incontestable. To command their loyalty, he had Angkorian dignitaries to sworn in the oath of allegiance, and as a reminder, he had their names engraved on the inner surface to the entrance of the Royal Palace. He received his Devaraja cult from the chaplain Jayendrapandita. His support for Buddhism earned him the posthumous name Nirvanapada at the time of his death in early 1050.

Udayadityavarman II (1050-1066)
He received his Devaraja cult from the same chaplain Jayendrapandita. His crown name indicates that he might be a direct descendent from Udayadityavarman I. His reign was particularly plagued with internal crisis. During his sixteen years reign, Udayadityavarman II had to cope with a series of uprisings. The repression of the unrest, entrusted to a General Sangrama, is recounted in epic style by a Sanskrit stele placed at the base of the Baphuon, the temple of the royal linga to which Sangrama made a gift of his booty.

The first revolt took place in 1051, in the south of the country leaded by Aravindahrada. Well trained in the archery, leader of an army of heroes, he was vanquished by Sangrama and fled to Champa. Another revolt took place at 1065 in the northwest. A valiant hero of the king named Kamvau, becoming an army general, secretly planned the attack and left the city with his troop. During the fight with Sangrama, he wounded the latter in the jaw but was killed by three arrows. The last revolt took place in the east, by two brothers named Sivat and Sidhikara with the accomplice of a third warrior named Sasantribhuvana. They were put-down by the same general Sangrama.

Harshavarman III (1066-1080)
Harshavarman III, who ascended the throne in 1066, kept himself busy with repairing the structures ruined in the wars of the preceding reigns. The inscription of Ta-Prohm (BEFEO VI, La Steles de Ta-Prohm, George Coedes) identified him as a descendant of King Bhavavarman I and the queen Kambojarajalakshmi. This connection proved his origin from Sri Dhammaraja even-though we know nothing about his relationship with either Suryavarman I and Udayaditya II. Between 1074 and 1080, he himself was involved in the quarrel with Champapura.

Through one of his inscription, the Champa king Harivarman IV claimed to have defeated the troops of Cambodia at Somesvara and seized the prince Sri Nandavarmandeva who commanded the army with the rank of Senapati. Perhaps it was during this battle that the prince Pang, younger brother of the king of Champa, and later king himself under the name of Paramabodhisatva, went to take the city of Sambhupura (Sambor). After destroying all its sanctuaries he gave the Khmer war prisoners to the various sanctuaries of Sri Isanabhadrasvara (at Mison) as servants. He received the posthumous name Sadasivapada. (ESSA:The Mahidharapura dynasty of Cambodia).

What the above is saying in outline, is that:

A Malay king of Ligor named Sujita, alternately also titled Jayaviravarman, Preah Botomvaravamsa n Sri Kshetraindraditya, actually became king of the Angkorian empire in 1002 AD, after capturing Lavo (now Lopburi in Thailand), which was like the military HQ of the Angkorian realm. He was able to achieve that incredible feat because he was then Chief Commander of the Angkorian army.

At the same time, Suryavarman I, who was his son by a Khmer princess, became King of Ligor cum Young King (Regent) of Angkor. While his younger brother, Udayadityavarman I, became the new Chief Commander of the army.

When Sujita died in 1007, Suryavarman I became the new Angkor king, while his nephew, Udayadityavarman II (grandson of Udayadityavarman I), became the new King of Ligor cum Young King (Regent) of Angkor.

When Suryavarman I died in 1050, Udayadityavarman II then moved up to become new King of Angkor.

When Udayadityavarman II died in 1066, Harshavarman III, another King of Ligor moved up to become King of Angkor.

Thus a succession of 4 Malay kings of Ligor actually became kings of mighty Angkor, and the Ligor kingship became for a while a sort of stepping stone to becoming king of Angkor.

(source: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t163209.html)

Nakhon Si Thammarat

Nakhon Si Thammarat (นครศรีธรรมราช, 那空是贪玛叻,也称洛坤) or Nakhon Sri Thammarat(from Pali Nagara Sri Dhammaraja), which is a town in southern Thailand, capital of the Nakhon Si Thammarat Province and the Nakhon Si Thammarat district. It is about 610 km (380 miles) south of Bangkok, on the east coast of the Malay Peninsula. The city was the administrative center of southern Thailand during most of its history. Originally a coastal city, silting moved the coastline away from the city. The city has a much larger north to south extension than west to east, which dates back to its original location on a flood-save dune. The modern city centre around the train station is located north of Old Town.

It is one of the most ancient cities of Thailand, previously Kingdom of Ligor, and contains many buildings and ruins of historical significance. With the fall of the Siamese capital of Ayutthaya in 1767 it regained independence, but returned to its allegiance on the founding of Bangkok. In the 17th century British, Portuguese and Dutch merchants set up factories there and carried on an extensive trade.

History
According to the inscription no.24 found at wat Hua-wieng (Hua-wieng temple) in Chaiya near to Nakhon Si Thammaraj, the ruler of Tambralinga named Chandrabhanu Sridhamaraja was the king of Patama vamsa (lotus dynasty). He began to reign in 1230, he had the Phrae Boromadhatu (chedi in Nakhon Si Thammaraj, from Sanskrit dhatu - element, component, or relic + garbha - storehouse or repository) reparation and celebration in the same year. Chandrabhanu Sridhamaraja brought Tambralinga reached the pinnacle of its power in the mid-thirteenth century. From the Sri Lankan materials, this Chandrabhanu was a Javakan king from Tambralinga who had invaded Sri Lankan in 1247. His navy launched an assault on the southern part of the island but defeated by the Sri Lankan king. However Chandrabhanu was able to establish an independent regime in the north of the island, but in 1258 he was attacked and subjugated by Pandya. In 1262 Chandrabhanu launched another attack on the south of the island, his army strengthened this time by the addition of Tamil and Sinhalese forces, only to be defeated when Pandya sided with the Sri Lankan side; Chandrabhanu himself was killed in the fighting. Chandrabhanu’s son retained control over the northern kingdom, though subservient to Pandya, but this regime too had disappeared by the end of the fourteenth century.
It is popularly believed that the advent of the first Malays to Sri Lanka took place in the middle of the thirteenth century with the invasion of Chandrabhanu, the Buddhist King of Nakhon Sri Tammarat in the Isthmus of Kra of the Malay Peninsula (presently Southern Thailand ). He landed during the eleventh year of Parakrmabahu II (AD 1236-1270). The Culavamsa states:

When the eleventh year of the reign of this King Parakramabahu II had arrived, a king of the Javakas known by the name of Chandrabhanu landed with a terrible Javaka army under the treacherous pretext that they too were followers of the Buddha. All these wicked Javaka soldiers who invaded every landing place and who with their poisoned arrows, like (sic) to terrible snakes, without ceasing harassed the people whomever they caught sight of, laid waste, raging in their fury, all Lanka. (Culavamsa LXXXIII, 36-51)

The Javaka mentioned in this source refers to the Malays of the Peninsula . Chandrabhanu's first invasion did not succeed and he tried a second time to attack the Sinhalese Kingdom with mercenaries from South India . This second campaign failed and resulted in the death of this king.

The following is the extract from "An Outline of the Past and Present of the Malays of Sri Lanka", by Melathi Saldin(B.A),University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka; http://www.mabolemalays.com/html/aboutUs.html:-

By the end of the fourteenth century, Tambralinga had been submerged by the Sumatran Melayu Kingdom which had the backing of Java. Finally, in 1365 Majapahit kingdom of Java recognized Nakorn Sri Dharmaraj as Siam. Despite its rapid rise to prominence in the thirteenth century, that is, by the following century Danmaling, or Tambralinga, the former member state of Sanfoshih – Javaka, had become a part of Siam

(source: http://www.mabolemalays.com/html/aboutUs.html)

Chandrabhanu(Ruled 1230-1270)
Chandrabhanu (died 1270?) or Chandrabhanu Sridhamaraja was the King of the Malay state of Tambralinga in present day Thailand. He was known to have ruled from during the period of 1230 until 1270. He was also known for building a well-known Buddhist stupa in southern Thailand. He spent more than 30 years in his attempt to conquer Sri Lanka. He was eventually defeated by Pandyan forces from South India in 1270.

In 1247 he sent an expedition to the island ostensibly to acquire the Buddhist relic from the island. His forces, using poison darts, were able to occupy the northern part of the island. In 1253 his forces faced an invasion of the island by Pandyan forces. In 1258 Tambralinga forces commanded by his son and two Sinhalese princes were defeated by the Pandyans. In 1270 he invaded the island once again, only to be defeated decisively by the Pandyans. The defeat was so complete that in 1290, Tambralinga was absorbed by the neighboring Thai Kingdoms.
(source: wikipedia)

After the fall of Ayutthaya, Nakorn Sri Dharmaraj enjoyed a short period of independence, but quickly subdued by King Taksin the great on his mission to reunite Siam.

With the thesaphiban reform of Prince Damrong Rajanubhab at the end of the 19th century the kingdom was finally fully absorbed into Siam. A new administrative entity named monthon (circle) was created, each supervising several provinces. Monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat, established 1896, covered those areas on the east coast of the peninsula, i.e. the provinces Songkhla, Nakhon Si Thammarat and Phatthalung.

Monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat

A new administrative entity named monthon ("Mandala") was created, each supervising several provinces. Nakorn Sri Dhamaraj mandala or monthon(มณฑลนครศรีธรรมราช), established in 1896, covered those areas on the east coast of the peninsula, i.e. the provinces Songkhla, Nakorn Sri Dhamaraj and Phatthalung. 1896-97 the administration was located in Songkhla in the present-day Songkhla national museum. 1925 Monthon Surat was incorporated into Monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat, in 1932 also Monthon Pattani. Like all remaining monthon, monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat was dismantled in 1933.

List of commissioners:

* 1896-1906 Phraya Sukhumnaiwinit (Pan Sukhum)
* 1906-1910 Phraya Chonlaburanurak (Charoen Charuchinda)
* 1910-1925 Prince Lopburi Ramet
* 1925-1933 ?

The Naksat Cities

The Naksat cities are a chain of twelve inter-linked cities or muangs of the ancient Malay Kingdom of Tambralinga.

The Naksat cities acted as an outer shield, surrounding the capital Nakorn Si Thammarat, and were connected by land so that help could be sent from one city to another in the event of surprise attacks.

The term Naksat refers to the Lunar calendar system, the Naksat Pi, which is based on a duodenary cycle of years, with each year being associated with a particular animal.
Eleven of the twelve cities have been identified and are all located on the Malay Peninsula. The eleven cities with their associated animal "years" are Narathiwat (Rat), Pattani (Ox), Kelantan (Tiger), Kedah (Big Snake), Patalung (Little Snake), Trang (Horse), Chumporn (Goat), Krabi (Monkey), Kanchanadit (Chicken), Phuket or Takuapa (Dog) and Kraburi (Pig). The missing city, Muang Pahang, is associated with the Year of the Rabbit. It has also been speculated that Kota Gelanggi is the twelfth city.

Reference to the cities appear in the chronicles of Nakorn Si Thammarat and the chronicles of the Phra Dhatu Nakorn.

Raman

Not many people know the history of Malay state? Raman?

The Raja states(Muang)

Formerly the tract of South Thailand was divided into a number of states, each of which was ruled by a chief (Siamese, Chao Muang; Malay, raja), who held his title from the king of Siam, but, subject to a few restrictions, the raja can conducted the affairs of his state in accordance with his own desires; the office of chief, moreover, was hereditary, subject always to the approval of the suzerain.

The states formed two groups: a northern, including Langsuan, Chaya, Nakhon Sri Tammarat, Songkla, Renawng, Takoapa, Pang Nga, Tongka and Trang, in which the Siamese element predominated and of which the chiefs were usually Siamese or Chinese; and a southern, including Palean, Satun (Setul), Patani, Raman, Jering, Sai (Teloban), Re Nge (Legeh), Yala (Jalor) and Nong Chik, in which the population was principally Malay and the ruler also Malay. Four other states of the southern group, Kelantan, Trengganu, Kedah and Perlis, of which the population is entirely Malay, passed from Siamese to British protection in 1909 under Anglo-Siamese Treaty.

With the gradual consolidation of the Siamese kingdom all the states of the northern group have been incorporated as ordinary provinces of Siam, the hereditary Chao Muang having died or been pensioned and replaced by officials of the Siamese Civil Service, while the states themselves now constitute provinces of the administrative divisions of Chumpon, Nakhon Sri Tammarat and Phuket.

The states of the southern group, however, retain their hereditary rulers, each of whom presides over a council and governs with the aid of a Siamese assistant commissioner and with a staff of Siamese district officials, subject to the general control of high commissioners under whom the states are grouped. This southern group, with a total area of about 7000 sq. m. and a population of 375,000, constitutes the Siamese Malay States

The seven Malay states of Nawng Chik, Patani, Jering, Yala (Jalor), Sai (Teloban), Raman and Ra-nge (Legeh) were constituted from the old state of Patani at the beginning of the 19th century. In 1906 they were reunited to form the Patani administrative division of Siam, but each state retains its Malay ruler, who governs jointly with a Siamese officer under the direction of the Siamese high commissioner, and many of the ancient privileges and customs of Malay government are preserved.

Raman(1818-?)1826-1900.
In 1909, Songkhla was formally annexed by Siam as part of Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909 negotiated with the British Empire. Songkhla was the scene of heavy fighting when the Imperial Japanese Army invaded Thailand on 8 December 1941.

The name Raman is actually the Thai corruption of Reman (Jawi: رمان), its original Malay name. Mueang Raman was one of the seven towns, into which the Sultanate of Patani was split in the beginning of the 19th century to reduce the power of the Sultan of Patani after a series of rebellions against the Siamese rulers. Tuan Mansor was appointed as the first ruler and resided in Kota Baru.

In 1917 the district was renamed from Raman to Kota Baru, the seat of the administration. In 1938 it was named back to its historical name.

The name of Raman makes its first entry in the colonial record in 1818 at a time when Penang Governor John Bannerman was endeavouring to obtain a commercial treaty with the chiefs of the Kroh district, who were subjects of a “Rajah of Raman”. John Anderson would note this Raman as part of an ill-defined “Patani Country” in 1824. Two years later Henry Burney would describe this land-locked polity in the interior of the peninsula as one of fourteen chieftainships that paid tribute to Siam via the superintending states of Nakhon Sri Thammaraat and Songkhla. To the British in Penang, the history of the polity was vague. Any concern for this subject was overshadowed by the more immediate hope that this tin-rich and strategically placed Malay negeri would soon form part of a British sphere of influence in the northern straits region.

It is evident that Raman’s emergence was tied to the disintegration of Perak authority in the upper Perak river watershed in the late eighteenth century and corresponding political disturbances in the Patani lowlands. Precisely which of these factors was more important to the emergence of Raman is unknown. Malay sources such as the Hikayat Patani tend to see the
emergence of the polity as a unilateral Siamese initiative, a product of Bangkok’s decision to dissolve the ancient polity of Patani in 1810 and replace it with a more manageable confederation of petty states under the supervision of Songkhla. According to this view, Raman was created by the stroke of a Siamese pen and the weight of its armies. It simply appears, a new polity with its capital located some twenty miles upstream from the mouth of the Patani River at Kota Bharu, where the first Raja of Raman, Raja Tuan Loh The, resided.

As early as 1780, both the Perak court and Dutch observers had noted the stirrings of an increasingly independent group of chiefs in the upper Perak valley. By the mid-1790s, the watershed region was home to an increasing number of largely autonomous settlements, many of which were established by refugees fleeing from disorders in the Patani lowlands. Precisely how Tuan Loh Teh climbed to the top of this scattered band of refugees is unclear. Early-twentieth-century oral histories described him as someone who “gathered together a body of fighting men and declared himself the independent Raja of the Upper Patani valley” in the first decade of the nineteenth century. Whether genealogical links to the Patani court facilitated his rise is unknown, but by 1808, when the Siamese started to break Patani into several states, Tuan Loh Teh already controlled the tin rich interior. Given that the Bangkok court was generally in no position to choose local leaders in the outer provinces, the Siamese most likely confirmed—rather than inaugurated—Tuan Loh The’s rule. This is an important distinction that reverses the assumed relative power imbalance between local actors and external suzerains. Rather than being a product of Patani’s demise, the emergence of Raman was probably a contributor to the declining fortunes of this once-great Malay polity, Patani Kingdom.

Consolidating Control over the Kroh Plateau
By 1818 Tuan Loh Teh was growing quite wealthy from his control of the valuable tin resources of the Kroh plateau. According to figures supplied by the Juragen Sulaiman in 1818 (an associate of Penang’s John Anderson), the Perak side of the watershed was producing around 1,500 bahar of tin a year, tin which fetched up to $54 a bahar in Penang. Tuan Loh Teh taxed tin miners at $24 a bahar and additionally demanded 50 percent of output as tax-in-kind. This tribute was then sold at the market rate in Penang.10 While the gross profit was eroded significantly by transportation costs and the division of profits amongst local officials, the tin industry provided this upstart Raja with a handsome source of income with which to consolidate power over the strategic Patani-Perak watershed.
The profits inevitably prompted interest from neighbouring polities. The Perak court’s attempts to reassert control over the Kroh mines would disrupt the industry in the late 1820s. Opportunities to exploit valuable mineral deposits suffered further due to a number of local conflicts in the 1830s. In 1831-32 and 1838-39, supporters of the deposed ex-Raja of Kedah campaigned violently against Songkhla. The development of export routes down to the coast from the watershed had the unfortunate effect of eroding the isolation that had formerly given Raman a degree of protection from lowland disturbances. The Raja of Raman’s successful manipulation of the Muda and Patani Rivers as a means to export tin and cattle invited reverse flows in the shape of invading forces. Kedah rebels engaged in campaigns against Songkhla and Nakhon in 1831-32 and 1838-9 devastated the watershed zone.11 The pillaging that was typical of local conflicts, where conscripts often measured the success of a campaign in terms of the
booty won, severely disrupted mining activity. Labourers fled southwards to the relative safety of coastal Perak and the routes that conveyed tin down to the coast became the province of bandits. Newbold’s figures for Kedah tin in the year ending 1836—probably the most peaceful of this entire decade—show that a mere 200 bahar was exported from Kuala Muda, while next door in Perak—the beneficiary of refugee flight—2,500 bahar was produced during the same period.12 Where tin mining continued, low labour supply and the general insecurity of property arising from troubles in the Kedah and Patani lowlands kept production to a minimum.
In the 1840s, the conclusion of disputes over the Kedah throne ushered in a period of relative calm. The mines returned to productivity under the watchful gaze of Toh Nang Patani, sister of the second Raja of Raman, Tuan Kundur. The mines were being worked profitability by mid-century and might have expanded much faster but for the opening up of the Larut tin fields in Perak which soaked up the limited labour supplies. In the 1860s, however, an emerging alliance between the Rajas of Raman and Penangbased Chinese miners once more ensured adequate labour for the Kroh plateau mines.
In this decade Tuan Timung (the third Raja of Raman) went into the tin business with Fong Kwi, alias Dato Chawan, a Chinese towkay from Penang. By the mid-1860s the primary mine at Klian Intan was producing 900 piculs (54,000 tonnes) per year for a profit of $30,000.13 Further expansion would be linked to events taking place on the other side of the watershed where rivals to the Penang market were also keen to exploit the wealth of the interior.

The Patani Kapitan
The ties that would develop between the tin mines of Raman and Chinese merchantadministrators
in the east coast port of Patani were intimately related to the 1838-39 attack on Songkhla led by Tengku Mohamed Sa’ad. At the time of the 1838 conflict, the governor of Songkhla was Thien Seng, a second-generation member of the Wu dynasty. During his reign, a number of Hokkien immigrants had settled in Songkhla. During the 1838 siege, one of these immigrants organised his clansmen as defence volunteers and subsequently helped to win a major engagement against besieging Kedah troops.19 As a reward for his contribution to the defence of the city, this
immigrant, named Pui Sae Tan, was appointed by the governor of Songkhla as the kapitan of the Chinese community in neighbouring Patani. Along with hundreds of kinsmen, he moved south with a new Siamese title and established a home for himself and his followers on high ground near the river mouth.
The post of kapitan opened a number of doors for an enterprising merchant like Pui Sae Tan. In Patani the kapitan held the revenue farms on opium and gambling and responsibility for collecting the Chinese poll tax. He was also responsible for sending tax revenues back to the governor of Songkhla. Pui Sae Tan was evidently so good at the latter job that he was granted several mining concessions up the Patani River, within the states of Raman and neighbouring Yala. Like the Kroh Plateau mines, these were exceedingly rich in both tin and galena (lead sulphate). Records of the ninety-acre Laboo mining leases, taken up in 1844 and 1847, estimated it contained 2.5 million cubic yards of alluvial tin ore.

The period during which Pui Sae Tan developed his concessions was a prosperous one for Patani. By 1848, the volume of shipping passing between Singapore and east coast ports like Patani and Songkhla had risen five-fold from a low point of the mid- 1830s.21 Pui Sae Tan’s family were clearly connected to this British port, for one of his daughters had married a Singaporean. But while we know the town had grown in population with many foreign businessmen settling there, specific data on the operation of mining interests in the watershed and linkages to external markets is lacking. By Pui Sae Tan’s death in 1878, however, the mines under his family’s control were thriving. Tin and lead formed Patani’s principal exports, the trade of which was controlled by the Chinese. Upon his death, Pui Sae Tan’s eldest son, Ju Meng, took control of a lucrative mining business that included the rich Tham Thalu mine in Yala. In the early 1880s Cameron estimated that Tham Thalu was one of the richest mineral deposits on
the entire Malayan peninsula. In 1883, as he drew a map that he hoped would prove British claims to the mines of Klian Intan in Raman, Hugh Low was similarly drawn to the other side of the watershed where he simply marked Tham Thalu as “The Great Mine”.

Aside from tin, Ju Meng also held the Patani opium farm, a profitable enterprise in a province where the drug was smoked to great excess. Cameron described Ju Meng as “a man of great force of character [who] exercises more power throughout the Patani provinces than any other individual”. Both he and his brother Ju Laay, alias Phrajiin Khananurak, were connected by marriage to Chao Phraya Songkhla. Although Ju Laay held the post of kapitan, both he and the Raja were subordinate to Ju Meng, a clear indication that control over the riches of the interior now surpassed that of the coastal regions. The post of kapitan was still lucrative, however. Ju Laay was the master of shipping, collector of customs and inland duties, and magistrate of the Chinese community. The position gave him real advantages in regard to importing labour and opium for the mines further upstream, and for exporting tin to Bangkok or Singapore. As late as 1957, the family still controlled their own kongsi, which managed labour
importation for the various kongsi houses on mining concessions in the watershed. Through their control of these two important posts, these two sons of Pui Sae Tan played an important role in the mining economy, from extraction through to export.

List of Raja of Raman

1. Raja Tuan Loh The,
2. Raja Tuan Kundur.
3. Raja Tuan Timung
4. Raja Tuan Jagong

The Patani Kapitan

1. Pui Sae Tan alias Luang Samretkitjakornjaangwaang.
2. Ju Meng alias Luang Sunthornsithiloha, Pui Sae Tan’s eldest son,tax farmer of opium farm and tin mine concession
3. Ju Laay alias Phrajiin Khananurak, younger brother of Ju Meng. He was the master of shipping, collector of customs and inland duties, and magistrate of the Chinese
community . Both brothers connected by marriage to Chao Phraya Songkhla, the Na Songkhla family. The Raja of Rahman has monopoly on the elephants, as royal family. The Raja entered into commercial relationship with tin miners, as the elephants will transport the tin to Penang market, a overland trip of 20km, after that it must be transport by river, from Patani River to Muda River.

Related articles:

1.

Old Street of Kuala Lumpur

Names of streets always change, some due to nationalism, the colonial names were all changed; but the new names did not reflect the history of the street or location. Old colonial English street names traced to the colonial history, whether you like it or hate it , it is still part of the national history. Nowaday, street names may be a tourist attraction, it has a lot of story to tell from the names of the streets. If we frequently changed the names of our streets, part of the history will be lost, which means tourist money......

Jalan Hang Tuah in Kuala Lumpur do no sound historical, but it will be great for Malacca. If the tourist ask what is the significance of Hang Tuah to the street in Kuala Lumpur, the tourist guide will have hard time to explain. Names cannot simply change, it must have historical significance....

List of KL Old Roads

Ampang Road - Jalan Ampang
Ampang Street - Leboh Ampang
Batu Road - Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman
Birch Road - Jalan Maharajalela
Bluff Road - Jalan Bukit Aman
Brickfields Road - Jalan Sambanthan
Campbell Road - Jalan Dang Wangi
Cecil Street - Jalan Hang Lekir
Church Street - Jalan Gereja
Clarke Street - Jalan Mahkamah Tinggi
Club Road - Jalan Parlimen
Cross Street - Jalan Silang
Dickson Street - Jalan Masjid India
Davidson Road - Jalan Hang Jebat
Foch Avenue - Jalan Cheng Lock
High Street - Jalan Bandar - Jalan Tun H S Lee
Holland Road - Jalan Mahkamah Persekutuan
Hospital Road - Jalan Chendersari
Java Street - Mountbatten Road - Jalan Tun Perak
Klyne Street - Jalan Hang Lekiu
Malacca Street - Jalan Melaka
Market Street - Leboh Pasar Besar
Old Market Square (Macao Street + Hokkien Street) - Medan Pasar
Parry Road - Jalan P Ramlee
Petaling Street - Jalan Petaling
Pudoh Street - Jalan Pudu
Rodger Street - Jalan Hang Kasturi
Shaw Road - Jalan Hang Tuah
Station Street - Jalan Balai Polis
Sultan Street - Jalan Sultan
Swettenham Road - Jalan Mahameru
Theatre Street - Jalan Panggong
Treacher Road - Jalan Sultan Ismail
Venning Road - Jalan Perdana
Victoria Avenue - Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin
Weld Road - Jalan Raja Chulan



Can you still remember the old names of the street? Where is Weld Road my friend? Remember Cold Storage?.....

Pattani Kingdom(ปัตตานี, 北大年)

Patani (Pattani) or Sultanate of Pattani is known to have been part of the ancient Srivijayan kingdom. It then covered approximately the area of the modern Thai provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat and much of the northern part of modern Malaysia. The King of Patani is believed to have been converted to Islam some time during the 11th century, the 6-7th century Hindu state of Pan Pan may or may not be related.

It is not known precisely when Patani was first founded, but evidence points to sometime in the fourteenth century. Local stories tell of a fisherman named Pak- tani who was sent by a king from the interior to survey the coast to find a place for an appropriate settlement. After he established a successful fishing outpost, other people moved to join him. The town soon grew into a prosperous trading center that continued to bear his name. The authors of the Hikayat Patani chronicle mentioned this story as untrue when they told their own tale of the king founding the city, but this latter story seems an attempt to undermine an already established tradition and gain more glory for its early rulers.

Like many of the small kingdoms in Southeast Asian history, Pattani broke away from an older ancient state. Most did not have their own written language, enjoyed only short periods of real independence and have long since disappeared.

The four southern provinces, collectively known as southern Thailand, are Patani, Narathiwat, Yala and Satun. These had their early origins under the rule of Langkasuka. The kingdom of Patani gradually replaced Langkasuka and the four provinces were incorporated into what is known as Patani Raya or Greater Patani. Tome Pires believed that the state of Patani was established as early as the 1390s. This is based on evidence of the relationship between the Siam kingdom and the Patani kingdom. One of the Thai kings of the period had married a daughter of one of the nobles of the Patani court. The fruit of this marriage was Tamagi who later became the ruler of Tumasik under Siam rule. Tamagi was later murdered by Parameswara, a Palembang prince who later became the founder of the Malay kingdom of Malacca. The news of the murder reached the King of Patani who immediately dispatched an armada to capture Parameswara. Parameswara., however, managed to escape through the Muar river and reached a place he subsequently called Malacca. Malacca was subsequently established in 1398 on the Malay Peninsula.


View Larger Map

Thus it is clear that Patani was already an established kingdom by the time Malacca was established. This fact is further corroborated by the Portuguese through the writings of one of its historians, Godinho de Eredia, in his book Declaracan de Mala e India Meridional written in 1613,:
“It is to be noted that the eastern coast of Ujontana was peopled and frequented before the other or western coast; thus the histories relate that Malayos inhabited Pattane and Pam before the foundation of Malacca. At that time the ruler of Pam governed Sycapura and the Monarch who resided in Pattane, the metropolis of the Malayos.”

The Islamization

Historians are inclined to date the coming of Islam to Patani to coincide with the coming of Islam to the whole of the Malay Archipelago i.e. at the end of the 13th century. This view is based upon the similar Islamic features of the gravestones of the King of Patani and Sultan al-Malik al-Saleh of the Pasai kingdom of northern Sumatera. This would mean that Patani had received Islam even before Malacca had been established.

Local historians put the date much earlier, as early as the 10th or the 11th century. This spread however did not occur at the level of the court, as the court only converted to Islam in 1457. Thus even though Patani received Islam much earlier than Malacca it did not become a Muslim empire due to the reluctance of the court to accept Islam at that early period.

This would mean that Patani had received Islam from missionaries from the old Malay kingdom of Langkasuka. Langkasuka in turn had received Islam from Campa which was another Muslim empire in the 11th and 12th century. The ruling families of the three kingdoms were close with intermarriage; however as regards faith, they were always separate with Patani not being a Muslim kingdom at that very early period.

The story of the conversion of the King of Patani is also recorded in the earliest record of the history of Patani, conveniently called “Tarikh al-Fatani”. The story begins with the illness of the King Paya Tunaqpa with no physician in the kingdom able to cure him. A Muslim preacher present in the town at the time decided to use the opportunity to help cure the king on condition that upon recovering, he would convert to Islam. The king agreed and upon recovering he converted to Islam and assumed the title of Sultan Ismail Syah Zillullah fi al-Alam. Thus began the reign of the Muslim kingdom of Patani in 1457.

Langkasuka 2nd century - 14th century

Langkasuka was a Hindu-Buddhist kingdom founded in the region as early as the second century. The historical record is sparse, but a Chinese Liang Dynasty record (c. 500 AD) refers to the kingdom of "Lang-ya-xiu" (Chinese: 狼牙脩) as being founded in the 1st century AD. As described in the Chinese chronicles, Langkasuka was thirty days' journey from east to west, and twenty from north to south, 24,000 li in distance from Guangzhou. Its capital was said to be surrounded by walls to form a city with double gates, towers and pavilions. The Buddhist monk Yi Jing mentioned encountering three Chinese monks who lived in Lang-chia-su.

The kingdom drew trade from Chinese, Indian, and local traders as a stopping place for ships bound for, or just arrived from, the Gulf of Thailand. Langkasuka reached its greatest economic success in the sixth and seventh centuries and afterward declined as a major trade center. Political circumstances suggest that by the eleventh century Chola invasion, Langkasuka was no longer a major port visited by merchants. However, much of the decline may be due to the silting up of its harbor, shown most poignantly today by the fact that the most substantial Langkasukan ruins rest approximately 15 kilometers from the sea.

The ancient Hindu-Malay empire of Langkasuka was centered in Pattani, today's southern Thailand, which encompasses of modern Malaysia states Kelantan, Terengganu and northern Kedah, as well as modern Thai provinces of Pattani (Patani in Malay), Yala (Jala), Narathiwat (Menara), Songkhla (Singgora) and Satun (Setul). Malay legends claim that Langkasuka was founded at Kedah, and later moved to Pattani.

The kingdom's designation in Chinese records changed over time: it was known as "Lang-ya-se-chia" during the Song dynasty (960-1279); "Long-ya-si-jiao" during the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368); and "Lang-se-chia" during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), as evidenced by the Mao Kun map of Admiral Zheng He. The name "Langkasuka" was also mentioned in Malay and Javanese chronicles. Tamil sources name "Ilangasoka" as one of Rajendra Chola's conquests in his expedition against the Srivijaya empire. It was described as a kingdom that that was "undaunted in fierce battles".

In 515 AD King Bhagadatta first established relations with China, with further embassies sent in 523, 531 and 568. In the 12th century Langkasuka was a tributary to the Srivijaya empire, and around the 14th century it was replaced by the Pattani Kingdom.

Srivijaya(Hindu-Buddhist Empire)7th to 13th century

Srivijaya or Sriwijaya was an ancient Malay kingdom on the island of Sumatra, Southeast Asia which influenced much of the Southeast Asia. The earliest solid proof of its existence dates from the 7th century; a Chinese monk, I-Tsing, wrote that he visited Srivijaya in 671 for 6 months. The first inscription in which the name Srivijaya appears also dates from the 7th century, namely the Kedukan Bukit Inscription around Palembang in Sumatra, dated 683. The kingdom ceased to exist between 1200 and 1300 due to various factors, including the expansion of Majapahit.

Pattani became part of the Hindu-Buddhist Empire of Srivijaya, a maritime confederation based in Palembang. Srivijaya dominated trade in the South China Sea and exacted tolls on all traffic through the Straits of Malacca. Malay culture had substantial influence on the Khmer Empire, and the ancient city of Nakhon Pathom. Despite claims that the origins of the name Pattani means "this beach", it may been the same country known to the Chinese as Pan Pan. The kingdom adopted the name "Patani" under the rule of Sultan Ismail Shah. According to local folklore, he was finding a spot for the kingdom's new capital, and when he arrived to the place he liked best, he shouted "Pantai Ini!" which means in Malay, "This beach!" According to most accounts, this capital is thought to be today's modern Kru Se (Kampung Grisek).

Pan Pan?

Sukhothai(Siamese Kingdom)1238-1438-1583

In the 14th century, King Ramkhamhaeng the Great((c.1239 - 1317) of Sukhothai (also known as Pho Khun Ramkhamhaeng, Thai: พ่อขุนรามคำแหงมหาราช), occupied Nakhon Si Thammarat and its vassal states - including Pattani. Ramkhamhaeng’s government characterized the governance of Sukhothai kingdom – the patrocracy – in which the king is considered “father” and people “children”. He also encouraged the free trade. In 1378, the armies from Ayutthaya kingdom invaded and put Sukhothai under her tributary.

Prince Ramesuan or Somdet Phra Ramesuan Boromma Trailokanat Bopit สมเด็จพระราเมศวรบรมไตรโลกนาถบพิตร(1431-1488) was born in 1431 to King Borommaracha Thirat II or Chao Sam Phraya and his queen from the Kingdom of Sukhothai. He became the Uparaja (lit. Vice-king of crown prince) in 1438. When his cousin, Maha Dhammaracha IV (พระมหาธรรมราชาที่ 4) or Borommapan(บรมปาล)of Sukhothai who ruled from 1419 to 1438, died in 1438, Ramesuan was then technically the king of Sukhothai – though he was too young to be crowned. It was also the end of Phra Ruang Dynasty (1238-1368-1438). Upon reaching majority in 1446(?), Borommaracha II sent Ramesuan to Pitsanulok to assume the Sukhothai throne. Boormmaracha II died in 1448, Prince Ramesuan was then crowned as the king of Ayutthaya – thus a personal union between Sukhothai and Ayutthaya. The ruler of Ayutthaya also ruler of Sukhothai, he ruled from 1448-1488.

(Note: He was the ruler of Sukhothai from 1438 to 1488, ruler of Ayutthaya from 1448-1488, ruler of both from 1448-1488). In between 1448-1474, King Ramesuan's relative, a Sukhothai royalty and claimed to be the rightful king of Sukhothai. He allied with Lanna King, Tilokaraj and took Sukhothai. In 1474, King Ramesuan finally expelled the Lanna out of his kingdom,and rule Sokhothai again until 1488)

Ayutthaya(Siamese kingdom)1351-1767

The Thais conquered the isthmus during the thirteenth century. Their kingdom was a single unified state with Ayutthaya as a capital and many smaller vassal states under its control. Thus, they used a self-governing system whereby the vassal states and tributary provinces owed allegiance to the king of Ayutthaya, but otherwise ran their own affairs.

A sheikh from Kampong Pasai (presumeably a small community of traders from Pasai who lived on the outskirts of Patani) named Sa'id or Shafi'uddin, in various accounts, healed the king of a rare skin disease and after much negotiation (and recurrence of the disease), the king agreed to convert to Islam, adopting the name Sultan Ismail Shah. Afterward, all of the sultan's officials also converted. There is fragmentary evidence, however, that some local people had begun to convert prior to the king's conversion. First of all, the existence of a diasporic Pasai community near Patani shows that local people had regular, close contact with Muslims. But there are also travel reports, such as that of Ibn Battuta, and early Portuguese accounts that claimed Patani had an established Muslim community even prior to Melaka (which officially converted in 1413), which would suggest that non-courtiers, probably merchants who made contact with other emerging Muslims centers of the time, were the first to convert in the region.

During much of the fifteenth century Ayutthaya's energies were directed toward the Malay Peninsula, especially the trading port of Malacca, which fell under the rule of the Malacca Sultanate. Ayutthaya's sovereignty extended over Malacca and the Malay states south of Tambralinga (Nakorn Sri Thammarat). Ayutthaya helped to develop and stabilize the region, opening the way for the lucrative trade on the isthmus. This attracted Chinese merchants seeking specialty goods for the markets of China.

The sixteenth century witnessed the rise of Burma, which under an aggressive dynasty had overrun Chiang Mai and Laos and then made war on Ayutthaya. In 1569 Burmese forces, joined by Siamese rebels, captured and looted the city of Ayutthaya, carrying the royal family into captivity in Burma. Dhammaraja (reigned 1569-90), a Siam provincial governor who had aided the Burmese, was installed as vassal king at Ayutthaya. Thai independence was later restored by his son, King Naresuan the Great (reigned 1590-1605), who rebelled against the Burmese and by 1600 had driven them from the country.

During the massive Burmese attack from the north against the ancient Siamese kingdom of Ayutthaya, Pattani's Sultan Muzaffar Shah took this advantage and launched an attack on Ayutthaya in 1563. He however mysteriously died during battle.

Determined to prevent another act of treason like his father's, King Naresuan set about unifying the country's administration directly under the royal court at Ayutthaya. He ended the practice of nominating royal princes to govern Ayutthaya's provinces, assigning instead court officials who were expected to execute the policies handed down by the king. Thereafter, the royal princes were confined to the capital. Their power struggles continued, but were at court under the king's watchful eye. Even with King Naresuan's reforms, the power of the royal government over the next 150 years should not be overestimated. With the fall of Ayutthaya to the Burmese in 1569, Pattani had become virtually independent.

The coming of the Europeans

The coming of the Europeans, beginning with the Portuguese who had established themselves in Malacca in 1511, was used by the ruler of Pattani to gain alliance against the might of Siam. In 1517, the Portuguese, led by Quarte Coelho, came to Pattani to seek an audience with Sultan Ismail Syah. The result of such negotiations was trading rights and privileges for the Portuguese in exchange for Portuguese protection of Pattani from Siam

The port of Pattani at that time was one of the busiest and wealthiest ports in the region with trade from China, Japan, Portugal and later on the British, apart from the local traders. The materials on trade were gold, cotton, silk, spices, porcelain and pottery.

Pattani Golden Age(1584-1649/1688)

Pattani's golden age was during the reign of its four successive queens from 1584, known as Raja Hijau 1584-1616(The Green Queen), Raja Biru 1616-1624(The Blue Queen), Raja Ungu 1624-1635(The Purple Queen) and Raja Kuning 1635-1686 (The Yellow Queen), where the kingdom's economic and military strength was greatly increased and managed to fight off at least four Siamese invasions with the help of the eastern Malay kingdom of Pahang and the southern Malay Sultanate of Johore.

Chinese merchants, beginning with Cheng Ho in the period 1406-1433, played a major role in the rise of Patani as a regional trade center. They were soon joined by other groups such as the Portuguese in 1516, Japanese in 1592, Dutch in 1602, English in 1612, and of course a great number of Malay and Siamese merchants who worked throughout the area. The United East India Company and the English East India Company(EIC) established warehouses in Patani in 1603 and 1612, respectively, and carried out intense trading there. Patani was particularly viewed by European traders as a way of accessing the Chinese market.

After 1620, the Dutch and English both closed their warehouses, but a prosperous trade continued, mainly with the Chinese, Japanese, and Portuguese, for much of the rest of the century. Following the 1688 invasion by Ayudhya, political disorder ensued for the following half-century during which time local rulers were unable to quell the lawlessness that consumed the region. Most foreign merchants abandoned their trade in Patani at that time.

In 1630 the Pattani kingdom revolted against the King of Siam, Prasat Thong. In 1630 Patani was ruled by a strong headed princess, Raja Ungu(Purple Queen), who was the former wife of the King of Pahang, a state further south in the Malay Peninsula. She came to the throne rejecting the title Phra Nang Chao-Yang or Raja Nang Cayam given by the King of Siam. Instead she assumed the title Paduka Syah Alam as an act of defiance against King Prasat Thong.

Her ascension to the throne coincided with the coup at the Siam court of Ayuthia by Prasat Thong(สมเด็จพระเจ้าปราสาททอง)who later became 1st king of Prasat Thong dynasty(the 4th Dynasty of Ayutthaya kingdom, who ruled form 1629-1656. Raja Ungu rejected Prasat Thong's coronation and declared Patani to be independent from Siam and refused to send the Bunga Emas(Gold flower) as a token of subservience to Siam. The newly crowned king was upset with the turn of events and eventually declared war on Patani on the pretext that Patani had made an unlawful alliance with the Portuguese to destroy Siam.

In 1631 Raja Ungu despatched her Pattani army to Ligor to liberate it from Siam control. This infuriated the King of Siam even more. In the aftermath of the battle, the Patani army captured two ships belonging to Siam including two Dutch traders. Ligor was recaptured by Siamese forces. However, the two Dutch traders were still missing. This incident brought the Dutch, who were hitherto neutral observers, into the war on the side of Siam.

Following an agreement with the Dutch that they would come at the appointed time of the battle against Pattani, the Siam army began its assault on Pattani in May 1634. The 60,000 strong Siam army could not withstand the assault on their own against the combined forces of Pattani and the Portuguese. As the Dutch was nowhere to be seen, the Siamese army conceded defeat and returned to Ayuthia where the general of the army was later beheaded on the orders of the king. The Dutch finally arrived in June after the battle had long been lost to Pattani. The king was furious and ordered that the whole of the Dutch fleet be confined to their quarters. It was only after constant persuasion that they were released with the excuse that they had engaged and destroyed 6 Pattani ships as the reason for their delay.

Two years later in 1636, the Siamese army managed to reorganize itself for another assault on Pattani. This however was never undertaken due to two main factors. The Dutch were ordered by the head of the VOC not to be involved in local feuds. The second factor was the negotiation instigated by the Sultan of Kedah, Sultan Rijalluddin Muhammed Syah (1619-1652). The Sultan became the middle man between Siam and Pattani, thus resolving the issue without any bloodshed. The agreement stated that Siam would not attack Patani and Pattani in turn would send Bunga Emas as a symbol of friendship. The Sultanah disagreed with the Bunga Emas and instead suggested that Pattani send an ambassador to Siam. The representative of the king of Siam, Phraya Phrakhlang, without the backing of the Dutch hesitatingly agreed. Thus the revolt ended with the partial victory of the kingdom of Pattani under the rule of one of its most famous Sultanahs, Sultanah Paduka Syah Alam.

The death of the Sultanah ended the hostility towards Siamese rule. Her daughter Raja Kuning(Yellow Queen)regained the Siam title of Phra Nang Chao-Yang or Raja Nang Cayam. Another bid for total freedom came with the occupation of Ayuthia by the Burmese in 1767.

In the mid-17th century, however, Ratu Kuning (the Yellow Queen), believed to be the last of the four successive rulers of Pattani, died. Pattani went through decades of political chaos and conflict, suffering a gradual decline.

Around 1688-90, the rule of Pattani shifted to the Kelantan royal line, and this scenario was reversed around 1730 when the Pattani royal line came to rule Kelantan.

Raja Bakal, (1688-1690 or 1651-1670), after a brief invasion of Patani by his father in 1649, Raja Sakti I of Kelantan, he was given the throne in Patani.

The last sultan of Pattani, Sultan Abdul Kadir Kamaruddin's (1899-1902) son Tengku Seri Akar was married to the daughter of Sultan Muhamad IV of Kelantan. Through the 16th century to the 19th century we can trace many Pattani royal sons and daughters married into the ruling families of Kelantan, Perlis, Trengganu, Pahang, Johor, Melaka and Kedah.

One hundred years later, Ayutthaya under King Ekatat (Boromaraja V) (สมเด็จพระเจ้าเอกทัศน์)was faced with another Burmese invasion. He was the 33rd and last monarch of Ayutthaya Kingdom, ruling from 1758 to 1767. On April 7, 1767, Ayutthaya fell. The Burmese looted and burnt the city to the ground. This culminated in the fall and complete destruction of Ayutthaya. Siam was broken apart, Patani declared its independence.

Independence(1767-1771)

The Malay states under the rule of Siam used the opportunity to declare independence from Siamese rule. The states were Ligor, Patalung and Singgora. Their independence was short-lived as Siam managed to cleanse Ayuthia from the Burmese forces and regain their power. The son of the king was sent to quell the rebellion in the south. The rulers of these three states fled and sought refuge in Patani. The Siamese authorities under the prince pursued them to Patani. He despatched a messenger to the king of Patani, Sultan Muhammad Patani. The messenger declared that the kingdom of Patani would face the wrath of Siam if it did not hand over the rebels. The Sultan had very little choice and agreed.

Thonburi Kingdom(1768-1782)

n 1768 Taksin (1734-1782)assumed the throne of Thonburi and was named King Krung-Thonburi (generally known as King Taksin the Great, สมเด็จพระเจ้ากรุงธนบุรี). He rapidly reunified the central Thai heartland. Probably as the kingdom had just emarged, Taksin needed huge resources. He thus began the Siamese expansion for the first time to conquer neighboring kingdoms. In 1769 was able to conquer western Cambodia. After that, his army marched south and reestablished Thai power over the Malay Peninsula including Syburi (today is Kedah)and Terengganu.

Chakri Dynasty(1782-until now)

General Taksin (later King Taksin) managed to defeat the Burmese and reunify the country, opening the way for the establishment of the Chakri dynasty by his successor, King Rama I(พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาจักรีบรมนาถฯ พระพุทธยอดฟ้าจุฬาโลก, b 1736-d 1809). The Chakri Dynasty (also known as the House of Chakri) (Thai: ราชวงศ์จักรี: Rajawongse Chakri) is the current ruling royal house of the Kingdom of Thailand, the Head of the house is the King of Thailand. The Dynasty has ruled Thailand since the founding of the Ratthanakosin era and the city of Bangkok in 1782 following the end of King Taksin of Thonburi's reign, when the capital of Siam shifted to Bangkok. The Royal house was founded by King Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke an Ayutthayan military leader.

In 1784, under threat from Burma, the King of Siam again despatched his son to recapture the southern states of Ligor and Phuket from Burma. After the success of destroying the Burmese armada, the prince requested the states of Kedah and Patani to send Bunga Emas to Siam as a sign of subservience.

Sultan Muhammad Patani refused and rejected the request incurring the wrath of Siam who sent an army to attack and destroy Patani. The army assaulted an already weakened Patani kingdom in November 1786. Patani fell to the control of Siam on this historic date. The Siamese army committed atrocities with utmost rigour against the inhabitants. Sir Francis Light, who had just settled in Penang, wrote a letter to the Governor-General of India, Lord Cornwallis, detailing the massacre and atrocities that he had heard were occurring in Patani. Men, elderly ladies and children were all captured and thrown to the ground to be stepped upon by herds of elephants. 4000 more men were sent back to Ayuthia as slaves and were later used as labourers to build the new capital of Siam, called Bangkok.

Due to these atrocities many fled Patani to neighbouring Kedah. From 1786 onwards the rulers of Patani were appointed by the Siamese court in Ayuthia and later on Bangkok. This however did not stop the masses from rising up due to differential treatment meted out to the Malays. Beginning with Tengku Lamidin, who was appointed ruler by Siam, later rebelled and was subsequently captured and executed, the other rulers were also subservient in the beginning but revolted in the course of time.

Faced with frequent rebellions, the Siam authorities employed numerous tactics to pacify the south. The divide and rule tactic was used and the Patani provinces were divided into seven smaller provinces: Patani, Nhongchik, Raman, Ra-ngae, Saiburi, Yala and Yaring. This tactic however did not solve the problem; instead it created problems over revenue collections and taxation. It also did not quell the rebellions as the indigenous Patani rulers, influenced by the Kedah rebellion against Siam, also instigated another rebellion in 1832. They were defeated but another uprising was to occur 6 years later. The Siam authority then decided to choose the appointed officials from the Patani people themselves. This helped establish a stable and peaceful atmosphere for many years before the coming of King Chulalongkorn (1868-1910)

A resurgent and much stronger Siam, led by Prince Surasi (Vice-King Boworn Maha Surasinghanat), the younger brother of King Rama I, sought the submission of Pattani. During the reign of Pattani's last Queens in the 17th Century, the kingdom fell into disarray and went into gradual decline. A Siamese leader, Phraya Taksin, drove off the Burmese invaders out of Siam in a war of independence. His successor, Rama I, established the Chakri Dynasty, which still rules Thailand till today. The reunited and stronger Siamese army was to face another Burmese raid and demanded troops from a reluctant Pattani.

Prince Surasi, Rama I's son, invaded Pattani. Its Sultan Muhammad was killed in battle and his capital razed to the ground. According to local sources, 4,000 Malay men were enslaved and made to work on Bangkok's system of khlongs (canals). To further humiliate the Pattanese, the symbol of Pattani's military strength, the Seri Patani and Seri Negara cannons, were brought to Bangkok and it is today displayed in front of the Ministry of Defense.

On 1791 and 1808, there were several unsuccessful rebellions within Pattani against their Thai conquerors. Following which, Pattani was divided into 7 largely autonomous states ; Pattani, Nongchik, Saiburi (Teluban), Yala (Jala), Yaring (Jambu), Ra-ngae (Legeh) and Reman. All these was ruled by the King of Ligor. For several months, there was a period of independence when along with Kedah Malays, Pattanese drove the Thais out. This however was short-lived.

King Chulalongkorn (พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาจุฬาลงกรณ์ฯ พระจุลจอมเกล้าเจ้าอยู่หัว, b 1853-d 1910) introduced a centralisation programme (thesaphiban) which was to increase the strain of direct control from the capital Bangkok. In 1901 Siam regrouped the seven provinces of Patani under one single administrative unit called “Area of Seven Provinces” (boriween chet huamuang) and placed it under the control of an area commissioner who worked directly under the Interior Ministry. The treasuries of the Malay kingdom was handled directly by the Revenue Department as in other Siamese provinces.

1902-1909 Under Siam

In 1902, Pattani was formally annexed by Siam.

By 1906 the area of the seven Malay provinces was administratively reorganised into a “circle” (monthon) called Monthon Patani. The Monthon Patani incorporated the seven provinces into four larger provinces: Patani, Bangnara, Saiburi and Yala.

A district of Kedah was also incorporated into Siamese territory and named Satun Province. Kedah was however ceded to England together with Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu in accordance with the Anglo-Siamese Treaty signed in March 1909

1909 - Anglo-siamese treaty of 1909

Bangkok Treaty of 1909 was signed between Great Britain and Siam. With that agreement, the British recognized Siam sovereignty over Pattani. Later, all seven provinces were reunited into a monthon and incorporated into the kingdom. Later on the central government in Bangkok renamed certain localities with Thai-sounding names, as well as merging together some of the provinces. When the monthon was dissolved in 1933 three provinces remained - Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat.

Both Yala (Jala) and Narathiwat (Menara) were originally part of Pattani, but were made provinces of their own. Satun (Sentul) and Songkhla (Singgora) were nearby semi-independent states.

During WW2

During World War II, Thailand was an unofficial ally1 with Japan and allowed its southern territory to invade British dependencies and colonies on the Malay peninsula. Tengku Mahmud Mahyuddin, a prominent Pattani leader who was the son of the last Raja of Pattani, allied himself with the British in promises that after the war should they win, Pattani would be granted independence.

The major source of support came from the Malay people frustrated with the Rathaniyom policy during the reign of Phibul Songkhram where Malays were subjected to assimilation and forced to abandon large amounts of their indigenous culture.

The Malay leader collaborated with the British in launching guerrilla attacks against the Japanese. In 1945, a petition of Malay leaders lead by Tengku Abdul Jalal demanded from the British independence of the 4 southern provinces from Thailand, which itself had collaborated with the Japanese and declared war on the Allies in 1941. After the war, there was a period where the Greater Malay Pattani State (Negara Melayu Patani Raya) flag rose in Pattani. However, the British soon broke its war promises by reestablishing Thai presence in Pattani and the hopes of an independent Pattani was shattered.

This immediately gave rise to many insurgency groups seeking independence. British reasoning behind this move however is to keep Thailand stable, because they are seen as a strategic counterweight to the communist insurgency in China, Indochina and Malaya.

After the war finished, however, it was found that the Thai government in charge at that time which declared an ally with Japan was no longer a valid government. Therefore, any agreement it made was invalid. From Free Thai Movement contributions to the Allies intelligence during war time, Thailand was recognized as a non-ally of Japan.

During the World War II, along with the Greater Patani Malay Movement lead by Tengku Mahmud Mahyuddin, another resistance force under the leadership of Islamic scholar Haji Sulong Tokmina fought alongside against the Japanese. Their stated goal is to create an Islamic republic in Patani, which frequently put it at odds with Tengku Mahmud who wants to reestablish the Pattanese Sultanate (being a prince himself).

Today, the goals and ideas of Haji Sulong Tokmina is still carried on by minor resistance groups interested in creating an Islamic republic. After the war though, hopes of any independent republic in Pattani was quickly dashed by the British and the Thais.

Chronology of Patani Rulers

bf.1400 Patani kingdom founded
1786 Thai occupation
1816 split into 7 divisions (Patani, Rahman, Jalar, Sai, Legeh,
Jering, Nongcik)
1902 incorporated into Siam, now Thailand.

Inland Dynasty

* Sultan Ismail Shah (d. 1530?), founder of the kingdom according to one account, and the first ruler to convert to Islam. In actuality, other rulers must have preceded him. It is also likely that during his reign the Portuguese first visited the port to trade, arriving in 1516. He was called King Phaya Tu Nakpa before his conversion.
* Sultan Mudhaffar Shah (c. 1530-1564), son of Sultan Ismail Shah, who died during an attack on Ayudhya (Siam).
* Sultan Manzur Shah (1564-1572), brother of Sultan Mudhaffar Shah.
* Sultan Patik Siam (1572-1573), son of Sultan Mudhaffar Shah, who was murdered by his half-brother, Raja Bambang.
* Sultan Bahdur (1573-1584), son of Sultan Manzur Shah, who was considered a tyrant in most accounts.
* Raja Ijau (1584-1616), sister of Sultan Bahdur, during whose reign Patani attained his greatest economic success as a middle-sized port frequented by Chinese, Dutch, English, Japanese, Malays, Portuguese, Siamese, and other merchants.
* Raja Biru (1616-1624), sister of Raja Ijau.
* Raja Ungu (1624-1635), sister of Raja Biru, who was particularly opposed to Siamese interference in local affairs.
* Raja Kuning (1635-1649/88), daughter of Raja Ungu and last queen of the Inland Dynasty. Controversy surrounds the exact date of the end of her reign.

Kelantan Dynasty

* Raja Bakal, (1688-1690 or 1651-1670), after a brief invasion of Patani by his father in 1649, Raja Sakti I of Kelantan, he was given the throne in Patani.
* Raja Emas Kelantan (1690-1704 or 1670-1698), thought by Teeuw & Wyatt to be a king, but claimed by al-Fatani to be a queen, the widow of Raja Bakal and mother of the succeeding queen.
* Raja Emas Chayam (1704-1707 or 1698-1702 and 1716-1718), daughter of the two preceding rulers, according to al-Fatani.
* Raja Dewi (1707-1716; Fatani gives no dates).
* Raja Bendang Badan (1716-1720 or ?-1715), he was afterward raja of Kelantan, 1715-1733.
* Raja Laksamana Dajang (1720-1721; Fatani gives no dates).
* Raja Alung Yunus (1728-1729 or 1718-1729),
* Raja Yunus (1729-1749)
* Raja Long Nuh (1749-1771).

Kings
1690 - 1707 Raja Mas Kelatan
1707 - 1710 Raja Mas Jayam (1st time)
1710 - 1719 Raja Dewi (f)
1719 - 1723 Raja Bendang Badan
1723 - 1724 Raja Laksamana Dajang
1724 - 1726 Raja Mas Jayam (2nd time)
1726 - 12 Aug 1729 Along Yunus (b. ... - d. 1729)
1729 - 1749 Raja Yunus
1749- 1771 Raja Long Nuh
1729 - 1776 ...
1776 - 1786 Sultan Muhammad
1786 - 1791 Tengku Lamidin
1791 - 1808 Datok Pengkalan
1808 - 1815 Nai Khwan Sai
1815 - 1816 Nai Pai


Kelantan & Patani

Patani and Kelantan have close relationship. Raja Bakal, (1688-1690 or 1651-1670), after a brief invasion of Patani by his father in 1649, Raja Sakti I of Kelantan, he was given the throne in Patani.

Sultan Long Bahar, from Patani, ruled Kelantan from 1721 to 1734. He was the son-in-law of Sultan Omar, husband of Rajah Pah. This put an end to the Raja Jembal line of ancestry, which start from Raja Loyor to Sultan Omar. Raja Loyor was the raja of Jembal, who succeed Che Wan Kembang in 1649. Che Wan Kembang was the descendant of the original Raja Kumar.

Around 1760, Long Yunus, an aristocratic warlord of Patani origin succeeded in unifying the territory of present-day Kelantan.

Modern Thailand
Pattani Province(北大年府), Thailand

Pattani (Thai ปัตตานี) today is one of the southern provinces (changwat) of Thailand. Neighboring provinces are (from south-east clockwise) Narathiwat(陶公府), Yala(惹拉府) and Songkhla(宋卡府).

Pattani is one of the four provinces of Thailand(The others are Yala, Narathiwat,Satun) where the majority of the population are Malay Muslim, making up 88% of the population. They speak the Patani Malay language. The Pattani Malays are very similar in ethnicity and culture to the Malays of Kelantan, Malaysia.

Pattani is subdivided into 12 districts (amphoe), which are further subdivided into 115 communes (tambon) and 629 villages (muban).

The districts of Chana (Malay: Chenok), Thepa (Malay:Tiba) and Saba Yoi (Malay:Sebayu) were detached from Pattani and transferred to Songkhla in recent times by the Thai government.

1. Mueang Pattani (Malay: Patani)
2. Khok Pho
3. Nong Chik
4. Panare
5. Mayo
6. Thung Yang Daeng
7. Sai Buri (Malay: Teluban or Selindung Bayu)
8. Mai Kaen
9. Yaring (Malay: Jaring)
10. Yarang
11. Mae Lan
12. Kapho

separatist movement

A separatist movement now exists, which after being dormant for many years erupted again in 2004. The movement is extremely violent, committing acts such as murdering members of the Buddhist minority, burning public schools, mining roads and ambushing military and police units. Muslims who cooperate with Thai authorities including Thai schooling are also considered fair game for attack. The separatist movement are mainly Malay Muslims in Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala provinces, except Satun province(which are Kedah Malay).

( Note: Satun does not have a history of political confrontation with the central power in Bangkok or of tension with the Buddhist population which makes up the majority of Thailand as a country. Malay Muslims in Satun are substantially assimilated and rarely sympathise with separatism from Thailand. Some of them are mixed Malay-Siamese, called Samsam).