族群政策的歷史起源：20世紀初泰國和菲律賓對南部穆斯林的政策比較

The Historical Origin of Ethnic Policy: A Comparative Study of Thailand's and the Philippines' Policies toward Southern Muslims in the Early 20th Century

在20世紀初啟動國族建構事業之時，泰國和菲律賓為何會採取不同的政策對待各自南疆的穆斯林少數族群？本文透過考察一個關鍵但未獲重視的外部因素──現代國家形成過程中民族菁英與殖民大國的關係──對上述問題作了回答。作者認為民族菁英與殖民大國的關係是對抗性的還是共謀性的，這會深刻地影響中央政權對少數族群的政策。基於泰國和菲律賓的比較研究，作者揭示了將這一外部因素與國內族群政策聯結起來的兩種機制，即塑造菁英的政治自主性及其戰略取向。具體而言，泰國對其南部馬來穆斯林的同化政策（1910～1944年）起源於該國與英、法兩個殖民大國的長期對抗關係，因為這種關係造成了泰族菁英較高的自主性和安全化的戰略取向。相比之下，菲律賓對其南部摩洛穆斯林的容留政策（1921～1941年）則根植於該國與美國殖民勢力的共謀關係，而這種關係發揮作用正是通過限制菲律賓菁英的自主性和塑造其經濟化的戰略取向。上述案例比較展示了民族菁英與外部殖民大國的互動關係為何及如何影響了國內族群政策的起源，將增進學界對東南亞地區國族建構實踐的理解，同時也有助於我們認清第二次世界大戰後該地區族際關係和族群衝突的動態。

Why did Thailand and the Philippines adopt different policies toward their domestic Muslim minorities in southern border areas during the early 20th century? This paper addresses the above question by focusing on a critical but underappreciated external factor: the national elites' relationship with colonial powers in the process of modern state formation. I argue that whether the national elites develop an antagonistic or a collaborationist relationship with colonial powers has a great effect on government policies toward ethnic minorities. Elites' political autonomy and their strategic orientation, as two mechanisms connecting this external factor to domestic ethnic policy, are identified in this comparative case study of Thailand and the Philippines. Thailand's assimilationist policy toward Malay Muslims (1910-1944) originated in its antagonistic relationship with Britain and France since the 1880s, because it contributed to a high degree of Thai elite autonomy and to the elites' serious security concerns on nation-building. By contrast, the Philippines' accommodationist policy toward Moro Muslims (1921-1941) resulted from its collaborationist relationship with the American colonial power, and such a relationship took effect by limiting the autonomy of Philippine elites and shaping their economic concerns on nation-building. This controlled comparison shows why and how an external factor contributes to the origin of domestic ethnic policy. It deepens our understanding of nation-building practices in Southeast Asia, as well as the dynamics of inter-ethnic relations and ethnic conflict in this region after World War II.