Tengku Abduk Kadir Kamarudin ibnu al Marhum Tengku Sulaiman Sharifudin Syah

However, the Malay rulers did not submit to their loss of autonomy without an outcry. In august 1901, the Ruler of Patani, Tengku Abdul Kadir Kamaruddin sought the aid of Sir Frank Swettenham, the Governor of the Straits Settlements, against new encroachment on his authority.(29) Tengku Abdul Kadir stated that although, five years earlier, the Siamese had appointed a Commissioner for Patani, he had no interfered to any great extend in the administration. The Commissioner had indeed taken over the opium and spirit excise, which he had farmed to a Chinese in respect of all the seven states, but that was all. When, however, Tengku Sulaiman, the ruler of Patani died in 1896, advantage was taken of the situation to impose drastic changes. The heir was at first given only provisional recognition as successor. Though two years later he was confirmed, the Raja was thus reduced to the status of a mere official. Further, the Raja’s authority was whittled away. The collection of customs dues at Patani port was taken away from him. The commissioner also took over the collection of the poll tax and salt tax.

More serious still, there were efforts by the Siamese officials to violate Muslim religious convictions: Muslims were required to do obeisanceto a picture of a King and to transport images of Gautama Buddha in processions at the time of the Chief Buddhist festivals, cases were heard in court on Friday and witnesses who failed to appear on his holy day were punished, the Raja was prevented from enforcing the Syariah laws requiring Muslims to attend the mosque on Friday and to provide for the upkeep of the mosque, which in consequence had fallen into decay. The Commissioner had even taken a dog into mosque. The Commissioner’s followers, moreover, molested Malay women. Tengku Abdul Kadir appealed for British intervention, hinting that, failing this he would turn to some other European Power.

Similar appeals were sent to Settenham by the Malay rulers of Saiburi and Reman.(30)

Swttenham replied to Tengku Abdul Kadir’s appeal by advising him to be patient and avoid violence. (31) At the same time, Swettenham also made private representations to the King of Siam, Chulalongkorn, in the hope of moderating his policy.(32) The Siamese Government, however, held that the Raja had been deliberately seeking trouble and that in this he had been instigated by interests in British Malaya.
However, since their appeal brought no action to ‘relieve them off the oppression and unjust treatment by the Siamese’, the Malay rulers began to plan on their own with Tengku Abdul Kadir Kamaruddin, the ruler of Patani, as their leader.(33) The Malay ruler hoped that, when the French heard that the Siamese were being attacked in the South, they would attack in the east and divert the Siamese’s forces from Patani. The uprising was planned to take place in October 1901, and a large supply of arms and ammunitions were acquired from a German firm in Singapore. However, while the plan was being laid, R.W.Duff, who was in Patani negotiating a mining concession in Legeh, fearing that an uprising would spread throughout the east coast of the peninsula endangering all British commercial enterprises, dissuaded the Malay rulers from an uprising would bring their own downfall, ruin hundreds of lives and also disrupt commerce. (34) Duff advised the Rajas to consult a firm of solicitors in Singapore and request them to draw a petition to the British Government on their behalf explaining their grievances and, while admitting Siamese suzerainty, appealing to Britain to ensure that their complaints were properly represented to the Siamese Government. (35) The Malay rajas agreed and once again sent petitions to Britain stating their grievances against Siam.

Though the official response to the petitions was a stern warning against an uprising accompanied by a ban of arms sales to the east coast, the petitions, accompanied by threats of violence, began to cause the British Foreign Office and Colonial Office, including Governor Swettenham, to take the complaints of the Malay Rajas seriously, The British Minister in Bankok, Paget, made informal inquiries with the Siamese Government on the situation in Patani. (36) Those inquiries, though informal, had caused the Siamese to look into the matter. In fact, Phya Sri Sahadheb, Vice Minister of the Interior, called on Duff to secure a detailed account of the Patani situation. (37) Duff explained to the Minister that the Malay Rajas had just caused for complaint and that if the complaints were not dealt with there might be trouble. He advised the Minister to go personally to Patani with force and inquire into the grievance.

On October 23, 1901, Phya Sri Sahadhebarrived in Patani and had a friendly discussion with the Raja of Patani, who was asked to freely state his entire grievance. (38) Tengku Abdul Kadirset forh his major complaint: he lacked authority and revenue because the Siamese Commissioner controlled the administration and the country. The Raja requested that Patani be administrated like Kedah with authority in the hand of the Raja, except in capital cases, with Malay laws and Malay as the official language in the states.

The next morning in Phya Sri Sahadheb returned with two documents written in Siamese and asked the Raja to sign it. The Minister explained that the letter and the copy of the letter which contained all the Raja’s wishes would be sent to Prince Damrong, the Minister for Interior, for his consideration. The latter also assured the Raja that signing the letter would not bind him to anything. When the Raja objected without a translation, Phya Sri Sahadheb produced a Malay scholar, known to the Raja, who translated the document. After getting the Raja’s signature, Phya Sri Sahadheb sailed to Singapore. However, to the Raja’s astonishment and dismay, it was found later that the letter stated the Raja’s agreement to the appointment of a government secretary, whose consultation and signature would be required in order for the Raja to promulgate any decree. (39) The proposed administrative structure would deprive the Malay Raja all authority and make them subordinate to several Siamese officers of no particular rank.

Tengku Abdul Kadir immediately sent a letter of protest to Prince Damrong. (40) In mid-December 1901, Prince Damrong replied, but he evaded the issue of authority but mentioned only that the Raja’s allowances were perhaps inadequate. (41) Enclosed with the letter was a document of a new administrative structure of the seven states.

In late 1901 and early 1902 measures were taken to tighten control further in Saiburi and Rangae through the appointment of two Siamese officers to rule in conjunction with the Malay ruler in each state. Tengku Muttalib of Saiburi and Tengku Samsuddin of Rengae took passive resistance by creating situations by which the Siamese government actions were made difficult. Sensing the potential revolt by these Malay Rajas, the Bangkok Government ordered an immediate use of force. Without prior notice, Tengku Muttalib and Tengku Samsuddin were replaced. All the Rajas, who had been displaced, were less influential than the Raja of Patani. As argued by Surin Pitsuwan:

Due to its history, its respected religious establishment and economic status, the principality of Patani had been recognized as the capital of Malay states under Siamese suzerainty. Thus Tengku Abdul Kamaruddin, the Raja of Patani, was considered (41)

On February 21, 1902, Tengku Abdul Kadir was arrested and later imprisoned in Pitsanuloke. (43) Tengku Abdul Kadir was charged for ‘gross disobedience’ against an order of the King. (44) Tengku Pitay or Kadir, the elderly uncle of the ex-Raja of Patani, was duly appointed as the new Raja of Patani. (45)

His arrest was viewed with sympathy throughout the Malay Peninsula. The Straits Settlements press, particularly the Singapore Free Press, attempted to raise an agitation, for the Siamese action was a set-back for those interest which had hoped to embody the whole Malay area in a British protectorate; but the Siamese were too firmly established to be displaced. (46) Feeling some obligation towards the Raja, since he had accepted Sir Frank Swettenham’s advice not to raise a rebellion, the British Government made a proposal in 1903 for his restoration, but the Siamese Government stated that Tengku Abdul Kadir would already have been reinstated if he had not refused to sign an undertaking to keep the peace. (47) Friends of the Raja, however, asserted that she Siamese had demdanded not only a humiliating submission but also an admission that Sir Frank Swettenham had incited him against the Government and that the Raja hade refused these terms. Tengku Abdul Kadir was, however, released two years later and was allowed to return to Patani, on signing a simple undertaking not to engage in political activities. (48) After staying in Patani for some time in 1905, Tengku Abdul Kadir and his family retired to Kelantan.