Page 67 - Hikayat-Patani-The-Story-Of-Patani 1

58 HIKAYAT PATANI

conclusive arguments can be adduced for the time being. But it seems
to offer an explanation for at least three of the deviations of the Thai
text from the Malay original. No explanation is possible for the fact
that T says that this bendahara only ruled for a short time.
Not only is the story of the reign of Datuk Cerak Kin unconnected
with what precedes it in the Malay text, but it has no clear links with
what follows, either. For after relating that all the people of Patani used
to pray for the well-being of Datuk Cerak Kin and his descendants, the
text (p. 83 below) suddenly switches over to a short enumeration of
the early bendaharas, giving their succession from Datuk Sakur onwards,
i.e. from about 1630. Theoretically it is possible to assume that benda­
hara Cerak Kin preceded Datuk Sakur and ruled before 1630 (see
above) but this assumption would hardly fit in with other information
supplied by our text, nor would it explain the total lack of continuity in
the text between parts IV and V. To some extent this beginning of
part V is a repetition of part III, but it soon develops into quite a
detailed story of Datuk Sai, his rivals, his death and his successors, about
whom part II makes only a vague, general statement: “Many noblemen
fought to become bendahara and there were many bendaharas”. In fact,
part V could be best characterized as an appendix, expanding on and
explaining that particular sentence in part II. It tells the story of all
these noblemen fighting to become bendahara, their rivalries and their
alliances, both local and foreign. In some cases the names and details
given in part V differ from those found in part II. One of the interesting
differences lies in the way in which the kings of Patani are dealt with
in these two parts, as in part V three kings are mentioned who do not
occur in part II — Raja Mendelang, Aya Wang and Pera’ Picai, i.e. all
three doubtless Siamese supported or Siamese appointed rulers or
governors — while king Baginda, who plays quite a prominent part in
II is only mentioned in passing at the end of V. For these reasons it is
obvious that part V is a different tradition from the one given in III
or II, even though these traditions partly overlap and have a number
of names and events in common. There is another reason for assuming
that originally V did not belong to the same text and tradition as either
I or II: its language is a poor kind of Malay compared to the reasonably
correct classical Malay of the earlier part. This part V must have been
composed by someone who did not write in the classical literary tradition:
it represents rather some kind of spoken East Coast Malay, and may even
have been written by a local Siamese (or Chinese?), or translated from
either of these languages by a Malay whose grasp of the language was