Commentary: Is Anwar-Thaksin deal a masterstroke or miscalculation?

Thaksin’s Legacy and the Deep South Conflict

The unresolved conflict near the Thai-Malaysian border remains a volatile issue, with former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s record in Thailand’s Deep South being particularly contentious. During his tenure, Thaksin adopted a hardline approach to insurgency, dismissing armed groups as "petty criminals" and relying on questionable intelligence to justify harsh policies. These actions not only escalated tensions between insurgents and Thai security forces but also resulted in tragic events, such as the Tak Bai massacre in 2004. In October 2024, under the government led by his daughter, the statute of limitations for those responsible for the massacre expired, allowing individuals implicated in the tragedy to avoid accountability. This decision sparked outrage and disappointment among the victims’ families and human rights advocates.

Despite Thaksin’s later apology during a visit to Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat in early 2025, many view his words as insufficient without concrete efforts to address past injustices. His daughter’s government has yet to take meaningful steps toward seeking justice for the victims of the Tak Bai massacre, leaving many to question the sincerity of Thaksin’s remorse. The ongoing lack of accountability continues to fuel tensions in the region, underscoring the need for a more comprehensive approach to resolving the conflict.

The Risk of Eroding Malaysia’s Credibility

Malaysia’s potential involvement in mediating peace talks in Thailand’s Deep South has raised concerns about its credibility in the process. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s plan to play a more active role in facilitating dialogue between Thai authorities and insurgent groups is ambitious, but collaborating with Thaksin could undermine Malaysia’s neutrality and credibility as a mediator. Thaksin’s divisive legacy and his government’s history of aggressive policies in the region make him a polarizing figure, and any association with him risks complicating Malaysia’s role in the peace process.

Analysts argue that Malaysia has little to lose in the current low-intensity conflict, as it prevents Thailand from gaining full control of the Deep South while minimizing the likelihood of a large-scale refugee influx into Malaysia. However, if Malaysia is seen as aligning with figures like Thaksin, its impartiality could be called into question, weakening its position as a mediator. This raises important questions about whether Malaysia’s involvement will truly contribute to peace or if it will inadvertently exacerbate existing tensions.

Anwar’s Plan and the Risks of Associating with Thaksin

Anwar Ibrahim’s decision to engage with Thaksin as part of his plan to mediate peace talks in the Deep South is a risky move that could have far-reaching consequences. While Anwar’s intentions may be genuine, the association with Thaksin is ill-advised, given the former Thai leader’s fraught history in the region. Thaksin’s policies during his time in office were widely criticized for exacerbating the conflict, and his involvement in any capacity could alienate key stakeholders in the peace process.

Moreover, Thaksin’s political motivations for collaborating with Anwar cannot be overlooked. The deal between the two leaders appears to benefit Thaksin more than anyone else, providing him with an opportunity to regain influence in regional diplomacy and rehabilitate his tarnished image. If things take a turn for the worse in Thailand, the agreement could also serve as a convenient pretext for Thaksin to seek court approval for international travel, further solidifying his influence from abroad. This raises concerns about whether the peace process is being used as a tool for political maneuvering rather than a genuine attempt to resolve the conflict.

The Anwar-Thaksin Deal: A Convenient Arrangement

The partnership between Anwar and Thaksin has been criticized for being self-serving, particularly for Thaksin. By aligning himself with Malaysia’s prime minister, Thaksin gains a platform to reenter regional diplomacy, a move that could help him rebuild his political brand. For Anwar, the deal may offer a chance to bolster his international reputation as a peacemaker, but it comes with significant risks. Critics argue that the arrangement undermines Malaysia’s neutrality and could damage its credibility as a mediator.

The deal also raises questions about the broader implications for the peace process. If Thaksin is perceived as having undue influence over the talks, it could discourage insurgent groups from participating, as they may view the process as biased toward Thai authorities. This could further entrench divisions and make a lasting resolution to the conflict even more elusive. Ultimately, the Anwar-Thaksin deal appears to prioritize political expediency over the needs and concerns of the people most affected by the conflict.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

Resolving the conflict in Thailand’s Deep South requires a nuanced approach that prioritizes justice, accountability, and the needs of local communities. While Malaysia’s willingness to engage in the peace process is commendable, its association with figures like Thaksin risks undermining its credibility and complicating the path to peace. For progress to be made, all parties involved must commit to transparency, impartiality, and a genuine effort to address the root causes of the conflict.

Thaksin’s apology, while a step in the right direction, is insufficient without concrete actions to seek justice for past injustices. Similarly, Anwar’s plan to mediate peace talks must be accompanied by a clear commitment to neutrality and a willingness to engage with all stakeholders. Only then can the region hope to achieve a lasting and equitable resolution to the conflict.

About the Author

Napon Jatusripitak, a Visiting Fellow and Acting Coordinator of the Thailand Studies Programme at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, has provided valuable insights into the complexities of the conflict in Thailand’s Deep South. His commentary, originally published on the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute’s blog, Fulcrum, highlights the challenges posed by Thaksin’s involvement and the risks associated with Anwar’s mediation plan. Jatusripitak’s analysis offers a critical perspective on the political dynamics at play and underscores the need for a more comprehensive and impartial approach to resolving the conflict.