For those people, including Anwar Ibrahim, who argue that poverty and development are the causes of upheaval in southern Thailand , they might want to consider that they are running the risk of ignoring the reality at ground level.

The interview of Narathiwat Islamic Council Chairman Abdul Rahman Abdul Samad, conducted by the New Straits Times on Oct 31, could provide important insights into the complexity of the situation.

Surprisingly, poverty was never mentioned at all in his interview. However, he cited that the main source of problem is that Thai Muslims cannot assimilate into the Thai mainstream culture.

The Thai Muslims have their own culture, religion and language, but the big question is, does non-assimilation warrant a separate state or autonomy? Isn't it a coincidence that this factor is cited in most Muslim hotspots around the world. Can there be other reasons?

If integration could be the solution for southern Thailand, then they don't have to look far - just go south, where we have the Malaysian model whereby the people can co-exist peacefully with 'segregated integration'.

One might argue that poverty is the cause, but if this is true then we must look at what is happening in the poor districts in northern Thailand. Do you hear a call for autonomy there? No.

Let us be forthright - one of the real causes for the conflict is the desire for a separate Islamic state. This sole reason is sufficiently adequate to rally all Muslims to their cause. It is too simplistic to blame poverty and lack of development as the cause.

The manifestation of violence is not about the revolt of the dispossessed or oppressed in certain countries. For example, the killing of Shiite Muslims, Christians, Ahamadiyya etc. in some poor Muslim countries illustrate that it is more to the complex problem that one cares to imagine.