The terrorist problem in southern Thailand is of great importance to both Malaysia and Thailand.

Both countries should crack down hard on Muslim terrorism (without resorting to the ISA but by prolonged detention pending trial, e.g. for six months as in Indonesia).

Malaysia should only give refuge to Muslim refugees after a thorough body search. No weapons should be allowed into Malaysia. Thailand should refrain from committing violations of human rights such as murdering unarmed villagers.

Most importantly, Thailand should be magnanimous enough to grant independence to the southern Muslim majority provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat and Songkhla. And Malaysia should pressure Thailand towards this aim.

Why separate these four provinces from Thailand? If we study history, we will realise that there was a Patani, a Muslim Malay sultanate in existence before the 1800s. Patani was Kelantan's twin brother and they both have had a much longer existence than Siam/Thailand which was only formed in the 1200s when the Siamese left China to live in Southeast Asia.

Patani and Kelantan were both Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms like Thailand. They received Islam in the 11th century, and were, in fact, two of the first Southeast Asian countries to receive Islam.

Patani and Kelantan were at first protected by Sri Vijaya or Old Selangor, the Hindu-Buddhist Malay empire centred in Klang and Palembang.

Sri Vijaya was succeeded by Malacca and Malacca by Johor-Riau (later Pahang-Johor-Riau when Pahang merged with Johor-Riau). When Pahang-Johor-Riau weakened in the 1800s, Siam expanded southwards and made Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Patani and Terengganu its protectorates.

In 1909, Britain, which had taken over the states of the Pahang-Johor-Riau empire in the peninsula, acquired Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu as its protectorates. Siam and Britain had an agreement whereby in return for Britain acquiring the above four states, Siam was allowed to keep Patani.

Siam proceeded to annex Patani and force its native Patani Malays to abandon calling themselves 'Malay'. Their history was also to be erased, and they had to learn that they were all Thais from the start. They even had to adopt Siamese names.

The Patani Malays launched many revolts against Siam over the decades. They were all suppressed harshly. The Patani Malays are not anti-Siam people. They are only against Thai rule of their own country, just as the East Timorese were against Indonesian rule over their country between 1975 and 1999.

Patani was not part of Siam or Thailand. It was a protectorate of Siam for a century or so. Just as Kelantan chose to become separate from Siam as an independent state (under the federation of Malaysia), the Patani Malays should be given the right of self-determination.

True, many Patani Malays have become influenced by the Wahhabi terrorist outfit al-Qaeda. These monsters should be slaughtered by the Thai troops. But as Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi says, tackle the root causes of terrorism.

The terrorists are people who have been driven into the arms of extremist groups because of their desperation. They have been denied of the right to choose independence from Thailand. Thailand is very stubborn in protecting the 'integrity' of the great Thai nation just as Indonesia was very stubborn in protecting the 'integrity' of the great Malay Archipelago (which it erroneously equated with Indonesia itself).

But Indonesia at its most stubborn still recognised independent Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore and the Philippines, because the people of these countries chose not to be part of Indonesia. Thailand used to control Laos. The Laotians are Thais, and are thus closer in blood to the Thais of Thailand.

The Patani Malays are not Thais, unlike the Laotian people. They are instead blood brothers of the Kelantan Malays. If there are any Indochinese people related to the Patani and Kelantan Malays, it is the Vietnamese.

Yes, south Vietnam used to be a Muslim Vietnamese kingdom called Champa. Champa ceased to exist in the 1800s, when many wars with Buddhist northern Vietnam or Annam, led to Champa's absorption by Vietnam/Annam.

Thus, if Thailand can recognise Laos as an independent country, Thailand should be able to recognise Pattani as an independent country too.

The late Israeli prime minister Golda Meir used to say she would get a headache each time a Muslim was born. It seems that the leaders of Thailand and the US would get a headache each time a new Muslim country is born.

But if a Muslim country is created with care, so as to ensure that it is free of religious fanatics such as the Taliban or al-Qaeda, it can be a blessing to the world. Malaysia and Thailand should thus not fear the creation of an independent Pattani.

Independent Pattani can contribute to the growth and prosperity of Asean, so long as Thailand and Malaysia work together to create the country, nurture it and steer it along the moderate and multi-racial (in this case Thai and Patani Malay) path to independence.