Page 73 - Hikayat-Patani-The-Story-Of-Patani 1

64 HIKAYAT PATANI

him to attack the Siamese king: he is received with the utmost courtesy
and respect: “He went freely in and out of audiences, without the
Siamese king’s fostering any evil intentions towards him” (p. 20). In this
situation the attack of Mudhaffar Syah on the palace of Ayudhya can
hardly be called anything but downright treason; even under such
circumstances it is the Siamese king who remains friendly towards his
Patani rival. It is interesting to compare the Malay text with Syukri’s
version of these events. Even though the latter is apparently based on
our text, Syukri very explicitly tells us that Mudhaffar Syah was not at
all properly received in Ayudhya during his first, friendly visit, and that
he therefore resolved to take revenge when the opportunity presented
itself during the war between the Burmese and the Siamese.
The second big clash between Patani and Siam is triggered off by the
remarriage of Raja Kuning, the wife of the Siamese high official, Phaya
Deca, during his absence, this time to the prince of Johore. It is obvious
even from the Malay text that this was a political affair connected with
the succession of Raja Biru (Marhum Tengah), who was well disposed
towards the Siamese, by Raja Ungu (Paduka Syah cAlam), who was
anti-Siamese, as appears from her refusal to be called Peracau. The
story of Phaya Deca’s attack on Patani is an objective report without
any disparaging remarks about the Siamese (in contrast with this the
assistance of the Johore Malays during this battle is ridiculed).
From this positive to neutral, but never negative appreciation it seems
clear that the author, even though he was a Malay Muslim from Patani
and wrote this book as such, had his reasons for not antagonizing the
Siamese. An obvious reason for this may have been the fact that when
he wrote his book Patani was under Siamese occupation, or that for
some reason or other the Malay ruler of Patani maintained friendly
relations with Siam.
It is also obvious that our author had no such inhibitions with regard
to the Malay rulers of Johore. On the contrary, he often indulges in a
demonstration of the superiority of the Patani kings over their Johore
colleagues. The Johore Malays are denounced and criticized implicitly,
through all kinds of anecdotical stories, as well as explicitly (see the
words of the Patani ministers on p. 53: “These people from Johore,
whatever they do, it is always for their own importance”). This may
point to a direct antagonism between Patani and Johore, although we
need not necessarily draw such a conclusion. The author may also have
been making use of a traditional antagonism between the two kingdoms
in order to add spice to his story, even though in his time relations with