In the aftermath of last week's bombs, we see an unchanged pattern of violence. Nobody has stepped forward to claim responsibility for the carnage. Perpetrators remain anonymous, leaving security officials and local residents to speculate on how and why the senseless killings happened. The unrest in the three southernmost provinces for the past two years resembles pretty much the situation in the 1970s in Aceh, Indonesia. The only difference is that the Aceh insurgency was a clear struggle under a well-organised movement with a clear-cut identity. In Thailand, the perpetrators of the violence seem unconcerned even that they are burning down their own home with their rampage, for even though they may want to avenge past injustices, the real victims are not the officials killed but terrified residents deprived of a livelihood.

The Thai authorities' wild goose chase after a "faceless enemy" has backfired to fan violence. Indonesian security forces took almost three decades to realise that domestic security should be left in the hands of locals. Thai officials should heed the Aceh lesson. What the Thai government can and must do is shore up the trust of southern Muslims.

The southern discontent is clearly directed against the central government. A study by Prince of Songkhla University, Pattani Campus, indicated that 41.8 per cent of southern Muslims wanted a special administrative body set up for the three southernmost provinces. An almost equal number called for a revamp of the existing structure for local administration. The study's subtext is that local Muslims see the central government as insensitive and unresponsive to their needs. Local residents want to be empowered to manage their affairs, although they remain divided over the proper administrative structure.

The National Reconciliation Commission (NRC) has ruled out a special administrative body on the grounds that it could be a slippery slope towards total autonomy. The NRC has proposed the formation of a special agency to oversee the administration of the region. The new agency - the Peaceful Strategic Administrative Centre for Southern Border Provinces - is meant to ensure peace and development with a stronger mandate than that granted to the defunct Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre. Many academics, meanwhile, have called for the autonomy of southern bureaucracy, empowering the local community to assume a greater role in the decision-making process.

The idea of bureaucratic autonomy was introduced more than a decade ago, particularly to free state universities from government bureaucracy. It made little headway, but the debate can't linger on. The government needs to act now with whatever mechanisms are available. Authorities should look to the Okinawan experience as an example for embracing cultural diversity. Thailand's administrative structure mirrors that of Japan, and Pattani's historical fate is similar to that of Okinawa, formerly known as the Ryukyu Kingdom.

Japan forced Ryukyu into a tribute-commerce relationship in the 17th century just as Thailand did Pattani State in the Rattanakosin period. Ryukyu and Pattani both retained political independence until they fell victim to modern state-building in the early 20th century, coinciding with Japan's Meiji era and the reign of King Chulalongkorn. Japanese administrative structure poses no obstacle to the integration Okinawa and strives to help the locals achieve economic parity with the rest of the country while retaining their cultural identity.

To this day Okinawa thrives as a distinct part of Japan even though mainstream Japanese can hardly understand a word of the Ryukyuan language, just as most Thais are not conversant with Yawi. If the Japanese can successfully accept Okinawans and their culture, there is no reason why Thais cannot live in harmony with Pattani Muslims.