A tug of wills. The ruling party PTP is dead intent on getting Thaksin absolved of all his crimes and the PTP will rewrite the Thai constitution, or amend/delete Sections 309 and 68, to get that done.
But the fact remains the current Thai constitution was approved by a national referendum. There is no changing that fact.
If PTP wishes to do a major constitutional rewrite or any significant constitutional amendments, a national referendum will be prerequisite on ethical and legal grounds.
I am challenging the notion that racialism, greed and envy are the factors that cause crisis in Malaysia, not the cause of it.
To simplify my argument:
Government intervention such as affirmative actions to ensure social justice is needed. We cannot leave it to meritocracy and market efficiency alone as argued by some. However it has to be implemented with transparency and accountability.
Second, race and religions are being used to secure the turf of the elite few by polarizing the country and society. “Race & religion” are the best propaganda machinery for both Malaysian and non-Malaysian state/non-state parties to use for their own benefits. Using race and religion as a framework in analysing state of affairs of Malaysia is simplistic, and allowing our thoughts and minds be influenced by the propaganda of the elite few.
Last, it is a pathetic state of affair that in the 21st century, an argument is being judged base on the writer’s name and his ethnicity, rather than on the merit of the argument.
When a judicial intervention takes place, one profound legacy left behind is another step to institutionalizing such interference. As the judges pronounced loud and clear before they proceeded to deliver the verdict, they “have the jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of charter amendment”. What they really are saying, is that they have, and will have such power to decide on the legality of literally everything in the kingdom. As a judicial body constituted by merely a handful judges, the statement is true yet disturbing.
Thailand is undoubtedly familiar with political intrusion by the monarchy and the military. Now, the court. Putting political warfare in a judicial context which is controlled by you-know-who, the legitimacy of grassroots social movement can face unconventional challenges. When it all comes down to the judges to decide, protesters can automatically lose credits as long as their cause is at odds with the court’s.
At the end, it pits the judiciary against the citizens.
Greg Lopez (25). I am from the hard sciences (hard rocks, actually), and I sympathise with the hard-science views of the human condition, as popularised by Richard Dawkins, and developed and popularised by B. F. Skinner. These views have, of course, been “discredited”, but only by advocates for various causes who wished to protect them from analysis.
You say that my assertion that “…When Malay culture mixes with Chinese and Indian cultures in a capitalist economic system, Malays tend to come out the poorest because they are, on the whole, less enthusiastic about working hard for profit than either Chinese or Indians…” has been discredited. Then which culture does actually come out at the bottom? Or are you saying that analysis in terms of culture is not valid? Admittedly it is difficult because cultures overlap in complex ways, but throwing out culture seems pretty desperate, and smacks of anti-analysis.
That the Malaysian Government governs with special consideration for the interests of Malays which are the majority of the population seems to me to be an indication of democracy. They might talk a lot of inflammatory nonsense which gets up our noses, but that does not stop them from being democratic. I have tried not to use “democratic” as a loaded term in the way that the US State Department does, for example. Their usage means little more than “our son-of-a-bitch”.
What may be happening is that many Malays are fed up with an increasingly corrupt UMNO and would prefer another organisation to better serve their interests. That may or may not be helpful. If the two sides turn out to be nothing more than rival teams of professional advocates, then representative government will become bogged in empty adversarial politics, just as it has in the the West.
This comment disturbs me:
“What are some of the actions Malaysians can take to promote dialogue among believers?”
I argue that there is much to be gained from dialogue with unbelievers, surely. Why should infidels be excluded from contributing to social/political discussion? Indeed, why should anyone be ignored just because they don’t share the superstitious beliefs of a majority?
Atheists, above all need to be heard, and they need to speak out loudly. In fact unencumbered with blind faith they have more to offer than any number of intolerant, self-righteous, hypocritical, narrow minded bigots. Forget the great Sky God! Get real and move on.
I find some of your statements fascinating, especially from a scientist (are you a scientist in the hard sciences or the soft sciences?).
How does culture in your view explain this – “…When Malay culture mixes with Chinese and Indian cultures in a capitalist economic system, Malays tend to come out the poorest because they are, on the whole, less enthusiastic about working hard for profit than either Chinese or Indians…”
I had assumed this type of explanation (culture) had been discredited some time ago.
Also this statement: “…The non-democratic alternative, a Chinese-Indian plutarchy ruling over a poor Malay majority, would, I think, be worse…”
First, the current system is already non-democratic although you note that its reasonably democratic. Hence, what do you mean by non-democratic and reasonably democratic?
Second, how do the minority Chinese and Indians – who have no influence over any of the current institutions, and have access to force or even the threat of force, actually become a plutarchy?
Mr Worachet said he disagreed with the court’s ruling that the constitution could only be amended section by section and could not be completely rewritten.
He said it was difficult to change the constitution by individual sections because amending one section would affect other sections.
He said it was reasonable to rewrite a whole new charter instead.
Mr Worachet said he also disagreed with the court’s ruling requiring a referendum before a charter change.
Under the current amendment bill, a constitution drafting assembly (CDA) would be formed to write a new charter and there would be a referendum afterwards on the proposed draft.
Let’s hope the absolute necessity of embracing and protecting the Khana Nitirat is at last finally apparent to all in Thailand!
Thais need not expend so much energy upon the Royal Thai Army’s illicit 2007 Substitution for the 1997 Thai Constitution.
1. The Thai people are the absolute sovereigns in Thailand and require a new, bona fide 2012 Constitution to replace the bogus 2007 Substitution of the Royal Thai Army.
2. The 2007 Substitution is the poisoned fruit of yet another treasonous mutiny by the Royal Thai Army and as such has no de jure standing, although it may be accorded just as much interim, de facto, standing as the Thai people find it convenient to allow.
3. The Thai peoples’ agent in the creation of their new, bona fide 2012 Constitution is the government they have elected.
4. Should their elected government be found not to be up to the job of creation, the Thai people will create their new, bona fide 2012 Constitution directly, themselves, as they require.
With respect to Mr. Damage comments, altering a coupist constitution based on electoral mandates is not doing so “on a whim”. Electoral choices were made by a majority of the voting public, supporting such an action.
Suggesting that Politicians approach to changing laws is nefarious, projects the PAD agenda of demonizing politicians as a class, impugning them for the purposes of advancing an anti-electoral democracy agenda.
The court is obviously a mouthpiece for conservative elements and as such deserves whatever respect it has brought upon itself. Never the less to me it does seem reasonable that governments should not be able to alter a constitution at their whim.
The current constitution was enacted after a referendum where the army said vote for this or there will be no more elections. As such it is a tool of associated factions, just an any rewriting would be to the benefit of the current government.
Would seem Thailand needs a new broadly accepted constitution, one that can not be altered again without a referendum. Politicians change the laws to suit themselves or their financial backers, not to benefit the populace.
It is instructive to note that the victory claimed by the Democrats and PADite Dr. Tul in this CC decision, should be reflected in both the Abac and Suan Dusit Polls. Goes to show the source of these so-called Polls. The above demonstrates in some way, that these Polls are “agenda laundering” tools for the Opposition.
First of all the court has no right by any way to get involve in this matter. The constitution stated clearly that any petition has to be submitted to the attorney general. Puea Thai Party had clearly announced before the election that they will amend the constitution if they win the election. Even Apisit who heads the opposition party announced openly to the public that the Democrat party will be the first to amend this constitution if they win the election because he felt that this constitution is not good for the country, but he never kept his promises, indeed he went against any changes.
This constitution court keeps breaking the laws again and again. A few years ago, this group of constitution court decided to fire PM Samak Suntornvej because he appeared in a cooking show. By deciding that Mr. Samak broke the law the court use a dictionary to decide that case. That decision by this group of constitution court became an international joke. There were many other verdicts that went against the laws and the will of the people by these group of court. The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia last year was partly because of there verdict.
Time up constitution court! There is no space for you in Thailand.
I had to smile seeing the word “national advisor” in the title of this post. After all, the proposals of Prawase Wasi’s Democracy Development Committee in 1995 included establishing a national administration advisory assembly (sapha thiprueksa ratchakan phaendin). This assembly was intended to advise both the government and the other two assemblies, and
“most importantly, it is an assembly that can pass a decision with a two-thirds majority to stop any action by the government and the other two assemblies [House of Elders/Senate, House of Representatives] that negatively impact on the institutions of nation, religion, and monarchy. In this case, the government and the two assemblies have no power to pursue their actions further, except if they receive approval by the people in a referendum” (р╕Др╕Ур╕░р╕Бр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕в (р╕Др╕Юр╕Ы.). 2538 [1995], p. 55.).
As for the referendum argument, pushed as a court witness by Suraphol Nittikraiphot (law professor and former rector of Thammasat University; he is closely connected to a number of key writers of the 2007 constitution), it is highly disingenuous to argue that the current constitution was “approved by the people.” After all, the referendum was neither free nor fair, and thus invalid. References to the referendum are thus a really cheap trick. For details, please allow me to refer to my own analysis of the referendum that can be downloaded freely at http://www.eajlg.org/article/looking-back-election-2011-thailands-constitutional-referendum-election-2007.
With regards to Malaysia, it depends on the area for comparison, as Malaysia and Vietnam are significantly different.
If it is corruption, Malaysia is not improving, although it is far better than Vietnam.
In terms of centralisation of power, two parallel issues are at play. The vacumm created by Mahathir, reform measures under Badawi, and the oppositions path-breaking results at the 2008 general elections, have given rise to new centres of power.
Over the past 55 years, too much centralisation has led to power being concentrated in to the hands of (1) the Executive, (2) the Barisan Nasional, (3) UMNO, and now (4) the Prime Minister. This has seen the excess only worsen, not reduced. Therefore in Malaysia, the way to go would be decentralisation towards the norms of what would be as it was intended – a federation.
However, as in the case of Vietnam, the weak ruling party “a kind of decentralisation” has given warlords within the ruling coalition, and externally (religious fundamentalists) disproportionate power. Najib has sought to address this by concentrating power within himself.
I believe what Vietnam is facing is similar to what China is facing (Beijing not being able to exert control over the provinces, which had been part and parcel of Chinese history), and also Indonesia, and maybe Thailand. But Not Malaysia though.
Vietnam could definitely learn from China, but also alternative modes such as in India, US and Australia – on how power sharing can actually work.
The latter may not be pretty, but definitely worth a try. Its shown to be resilient with can actually deliver on prosperity for a good number of its citizens.
Another government killing in Cambodia, this time a 14 year old girl in Kratie, part of the ongoing land seizure and concessions disputes, yet another example of the Cambodia elite’s out-of-control impunity:
The word “worship” followed the usage in your first post, and thanks for your additional hermeneutic efforts. Sorry, also, for having no great sense for things such as “deep beauty” and “solitary religious act(s).” However, I can tell you that I have placed a picture of my old mum, to whom I am deeply grateful, on the top of one of my filing cabinets. Sometimes, when I pass the picture, I produce “small drops of meaning” (Lichterman and Cefa├п ), as innumerable people do at the same time all over the world. I merely think that these “small drops” are not of great scholarly interest, even for an anthropologist.
Dr Syed Muhammad Khairudin, associate professor at the National University of Singapore, speaking to Radio Australia in February 2012, is of the opinion that younger Malaysians want to see change – supporting Weiss’s arguments that regime change is already in motion.
They see Bersih as part and parcel of their own aspirations to structure the making of a new Malaysian society. A lot of the young people I spoke to, a lot of the young people whom I interviewed in my own research see Bersih as fulfilling their demands for a new political structure in Malaysia. Many of them are sceptical with regards to the current government’s ability to make widespread changes in the political landscape in Malaysia and they saw Bersih as one of those strategies that they could employ to initiate change from below.
If this is the case, it would then also be the case that this would be a war of attrition (which had already began since 1998) rather than a total war.
It’s important to distinguish between race and culture. They correlate highly but they propagate by entirely different mechanisms, one by genes which are bits of DNA, and the other as memes which are bits of human behaviour (especially verbal behaviour) that catch on. A racially half-Chinese, half-Indian child adopted by a Malay family would end up culturally Malay but non-Malay by birth.
When Malay culture mixes with Chinese and Indian cultures in a capitalist economic system, Malays tend to come out the poorest because they are, on the whole, less enthusiastic about working hard for profit than either Chinese or Indians. That is a cultural characteristic, and one that I as a scientist can sympathise with, because profit has never been a major motive for my work. Given that situation, I can’t see how things could have turned out much different from the way they have. The Government is elected, and the majority are of Malay culture. The Government will naturally try to compensate for the tendency for Malays to end up poorer than Chinese or Indians. The rhetoric is a mess, especially the confusion of race and culture, and people are getting upset because of that, but what is happening is a natural outcome of a reasonably democratic system. The non-democratic alternative, a Chinese-Indian plutarchy ruling over a poor Malay majority, would, I think, be worse.
You are in a absolutely lose-lose situation. Regardless of AusAID, none of these projects are done with people on the ground looking for best way to help them.
They are to start with formatted by people looking at the map and conventional statistics and draw plans for commercialization which they hope to increase much desired GDP and trade figures which in their mind is be-all and end-all – that GDP.
If those things are really great as they keep telling everyone, why is the state of US and European economy in such a state? The idea seems to be to “develop” every where for resource extraction, trade and rampant- the more rampant, the better- consumerism to some unknown end.
To top it all, those things are done without full thought of the process and its effects which is exactly your point, with full awareness of unchangeable environment of corruption, lack of law and nepotism.
All these collection of statistics spouting these ideas are based on totally ignores the basic, innate richness of uncountable and therefore unmeasurable wealth of people- caring tradition, love of nature and birth place as well as non-monetary industry of loving care of the young, and community cohesiveness, etc. It would be a safe bet no one in ADB reads Hazel Henderson.
These criss-crossing Asia with roads and rails to “Develop” does spring in mind the vision of that disastrous Montgomery’s “Operation Market Gardens”. On the paper smart move, with little understanding and control of the environment involved leading to huge loss.
But the job of the like of yours will be in demand as there will be more and more such projects sprouting like mushrooms in Burma now!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Constitutional court or national advisor?
A tug of wills. The ruling party PTP is dead intent on getting Thaksin absolved of all his crimes and the PTP will rewrite the Thai constitution, or amend/delete Sections 309 and 68, to get that done.
But the fact remains the current Thai constitution was approved by a national referendum. There is no changing that fact.
If PTP wishes to do a major constitutional rewrite or any significant constitutional amendments, a national referendum will be prerequisite on ethical and legal grounds.
Malaysia after regime change – Ooi Kee Beng
Dear John,
I am challenging the notion that racialism, greed and envy are the factors that cause crisis in Malaysia, not the cause of it.
To simplify my argument:
Government intervention such as affirmative actions to ensure social justice is needed. We cannot leave it to meritocracy and market efficiency alone as argued by some. However it has to be implemented with transparency and accountability.
Second, race and religions are being used to secure the turf of the elite few by polarizing the country and society. “Race & religion” are the best propaganda machinery for both Malaysian and non-Malaysian state/non-state parties to use for their own benefits. Using race and religion as a framework in analysing state of affairs of Malaysia is simplistic, and allowing our thoughts and minds be influenced by the propaganda of the elite few.
Last, it is a pathetic state of affair that in the 21st century, an argument is being judged base on the writer’s name and his ethnicity, rather than on the merit of the argument.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
When a judicial intervention takes place, one profound legacy left behind is another step to institutionalizing such interference. As the judges pronounced loud and clear before they proceeded to deliver the verdict, they “have the jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of charter amendment”. What they really are saying, is that they have, and will have such power to decide on the legality of literally everything in the kingdom. As a judicial body constituted by merely a handful judges, the statement is true yet disturbing.
Thailand is undoubtedly familiar with political intrusion by the monarchy and the military. Now, the court. Putting political warfare in a judicial context which is controlled by you-know-who, the legitimacy of grassroots social movement can face unconventional challenges. When it all comes down to the judges to decide, protesters can automatically lose credits as long as their cause is at odds with the court’s.
At the end, it pits the judiciary against the citizens.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
J.F. Lee’s comments above are well taken.
However, one must keep in mind that the RTA are merely the enablers for others.
Race-based ideology and Islam: The Malaysian enigma
Greg Lopez (25). I am from the hard sciences (hard rocks, actually), and I sympathise with the hard-science views of the human condition, as popularised by Richard Dawkins, and developed and popularised by B. F. Skinner. These views have, of course, been “discredited”, but only by advocates for various causes who wished to protect them from analysis.
You say that my assertion that “…When Malay culture mixes with Chinese and Indian cultures in a capitalist economic system, Malays tend to come out the poorest because they are, on the whole, less enthusiastic about working hard for profit than either Chinese or Indians…” has been discredited. Then which culture does actually come out at the bottom? Or are you saying that analysis in terms of culture is not valid? Admittedly it is difficult because cultures overlap in complex ways, but throwing out culture seems pretty desperate, and smacks of anti-analysis.
That the Malaysian Government governs with special consideration for the interests of Malays which are the majority of the population seems to me to be an indication of democracy. They might talk a lot of inflammatory nonsense which gets up our noses, but that does not stop them from being democratic. I have tried not to use “democratic” as a loaded term in the way that the US State Department does, for example. Their usage means little more than “our son-of-a-bitch”.
What may be happening is that many Malays are fed up with an increasingly corrupt UMNO and would prefer another organisation to better serve their interests. That may or may not be helpful. If the two sides turn out to be nothing more than rival teams of professional advocates, then representative government will become bogged in empty adversarial politics, just as it has in the the West.
Do we need more inter faith dialogue – Part 2
This comment disturbs me:
“What are some of the actions Malaysians can take to promote dialogue among believers?”
I argue that there is much to be gained from dialogue with unbelievers, surely. Why should infidels be excluded from contributing to social/political discussion? Indeed, why should anyone be ignored just because they don’t share the superstitious beliefs of a majority?
Atheists, above all need to be heard, and they need to speak out loudly. In fact unencumbered with blind faith they have more to offer than any number of intolerant, self-righteous, hypocritical, narrow minded bigots. Forget the great Sky God! Get real and move on.
Race-based ideology and Islam: The Malaysian enigma
R.N. England #24.
I find some of your statements fascinating, especially from a scientist (are you a scientist in the hard sciences or the soft sciences?).
How does culture in your view explain this – “…When Malay culture mixes with Chinese and Indian cultures in a capitalist economic system, Malays tend to come out the poorest because they are, on the whole, less enthusiastic about working hard for profit than either Chinese or Indians…”
I had assumed this type of explanation (culture) had been discredited some time ago.
Also this statement: “…The non-democratic alternative, a Chinese-Indian plutarchy ruling over a poor Malay majority, would, I think, be worse…”
First, the current system is already non-democratic although you note that its reasonably democratic. Hence, what do you mean by non-democratic and reasonably democratic?
Second, how do the minority Chinese and Indians – who have no influence over any of the current institutions, and have access to force or even the threat of force, actually become a plutarchy?
Constitutional court or national advisor?
Dissolve court, Nitirat demands
Let’s hope the absolute necessity of embracing and protecting the Khana Nitirat is at last finally apparent to all in Thailand!
Thais need not expend so much energy upon the Royal Thai Army’s illicit 2007 Substitution for the 1997 Thai Constitution.
1. The Thai people are the absolute sovereigns in Thailand and require a new, bona fide 2012 Constitution to replace the bogus 2007 Substitution of the Royal Thai Army.
2. The 2007 Substitution is the poisoned fruit of yet another treasonous mutiny by the Royal Thai Army and as such has no de jure standing, although it may be accorded just as much interim, de facto, standing as the Thai people find it convenient to allow.
3. The Thai peoples’ agent in the creation of their new, bona fide 2012 Constitution is the government they have elected.
4. Should their elected government be found not to be up to the job of creation, the Thai people will create their new, bona fide 2012 Constitution directly, themselves, as they require.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
With respect to Mr. Damage comments, altering a coupist constitution based on electoral mandates is not doing so “on a whim”. Electoral choices were made by a majority of the voting public, supporting such an action.
Suggesting that Politicians approach to changing laws is nefarious, projects the PAD agenda of demonizing politicians as a class, impugning them for the purposes of advancing an anti-electoral democracy agenda.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
The court is obviously a mouthpiece for conservative elements and as such deserves whatever respect it has brought upon itself. Never the less to me it does seem reasonable that governments should not be able to alter a constitution at their whim.
The current constitution was enacted after a referendum where the army said vote for this or there will be no more elections. As such it is a tool of associated factions, just an any rewriting would be to the benefit of the current government.
Would seem Thailand needs a new broadly accepted constitution, one that can not be altered again without a referendum. Politicians change the laws to suit themselves or their financial backers, not to benefit the populace.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
It is instructive to note that the victory claimed by the Democrats and PADite Dr. Tul in this CC decision, should be reflected in both the Abac and Suan Dusit Polls. Goes to show the source of these so-called Polls. The above demonstrates in some way, that these Polls are “agenda laundering” tools for the Opposition.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
First of all the court has no right by any way to get involve in this matter. The constitution stated clearly that any petition has to be submitted to the attorney general. Puea Thai Party had clearly announced before the election that they will amend the constitution if they win the election. Even Apisit who heads the opposition party announced openly to the public that the Democrat party will be the first to amend this constitution if they win the election because he felt that this constitution is not good for the country, but he never kept his promises, indeed he went against any changes.
This constitution court keeps breaking the laws again and again. A few years ago, this group of constitution court decided to fire PM Samak Suntornvej because he appeared in a cooking show. By deciding that Mr. Samak broke the law the court use a dictionary to decide that case. That decision by this group of constitution court became an international joke. There were many other verdicts that went against the laws and the will of the people by these group of court. The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia last year was partly because of there verdict.
Time up constitution court! There is no space for you in Thailand.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
I had to smile seeing the word “national advisor” in the title of this post. After all, the proposals of Prawase Wasi’s Democracy Development Committee in 1995 included establishing a national administration advisory assembly (sapha thiprueksa ratchakan phaendin). This assembly was intended to advise both the government and the other two assemblies, and
“most importantly, it is an assembly that can pass a decision with a two-thirds majority to stop any action by the government and the other two assemblies [House of Elders/Senate, House of Representatives] that negatively impact on the institutions of nation, religion, and monarchy. In this case, the government and the two assemblies have no power to pursue their actions further, except if they receive approval by the people in a referendum” (р╕Др╕Ур╕░р╕Бр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕в (р╕Др╕Юр╕Ы.). 2538 [1995], p. 55.).
As for the referendum argument, pushed as a court witness by Suraphol Nittikraiphot (law professor and former rector of Thammasat University; he is closely connected to a number of key writers of the 2007 constitution), it is highly disingenuous to argue that the current constitution was “approved by the people.” After all, the referendum was neither free nor fair, and thus invalid. References to the referendum are thus a really cheap trick. For details, please allow me to refer to my own analysis of the referendum that can be downloaded freely at http://www.eajlg.org/article/looking-back-election-2011-thailands-constitutional-referendum-election-2007.
Factionalism in Vietnam
With regards to Malaysia, it depends on the area for comparison, as Malaysia and Vietnam are significantly different.
If it is corruption, Malaysia is not improving, although it is far better than Vietnam.
In terms of centralisation of power, two parallel issues are at play. The vacumm created by Mahathir, reform measures under Badawi, and the oppositions path-breaking results at the 2008 general elections, have given rise to new centres of power.
Over the past 55 years, too much centralisation has led to power being concentrated in to the hands of (1) the Executive, (2) the Barisan Nasional, (3) UMNO, and now (4) the Prime Minister. This has seen the excess only worsen, not reduced. Therefore in Malaysia, the way to go would be decentralisation towards the norms of what would be as it was intended – a federation.
However, as in the case of Vietnam, the weak ruling party “a kind of decentralisation” has given warlords within the ruling coalition, and externally (religious fundamentalists) disproportionate power. Najib has sought to address this by concentrating power within himself.
I believe what Vietnam is facing is similar to what China is facing (Beijing not being able to exert control over the provinces, which had been part and parcel of Chinese history), and also Indonesia, and maybe Thailand. But Not Malaysia though.
Vietnam could definitely learn from China, but also alternative modes such as in India, US and Australia – on how power sharing can actually work.
The latter may not be pretty, but definitely worth a try. Its shown to be resilient with can actually deliver on prosperity for a good number of its citizens.
Singapore’s insatiable hunger for sand
Another government killing in Cambodia, this time a 14 year old girl in Kratie, part of the ongoing land seizure and concessions disputes, yet another example of the Cambodia elite’s out-of-control impunity:
http://sochua.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/2513/
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2012051756224/National-news/girl-killed-in-eviction.html
Review of The Lovelorn Ghost and the Magical Monk
Jon:
The word “worship” followed the usage in your first post, and thanks for your additional hermeneutic efforts. Sorry, also, for having no great sense for things such as “deep beauty” and “solitary religious act(s).” However, I can tell you that I have placed a picture of my old mum, to whom I am deeply grateful, on the top of one of my filing cabinets. Sometimes, when I pass the picture, I produce “small drops of meaning” (Lichterman and Cefa├п ), as innumerable people do at the same time all over the world. I merely think that these “small drops” are not of great scholarly interest, even for an anthropologist.
Malaysia after regime change – Meredith Weiss
Dr Syed Muhammad Khairudin, associate professor at the National University of Singapore, speaking to Radio Australia in February 2012, is of the opinion that younger Malaysians want to see change – supporting Weiss’s arguments that regime change is already in motion.
If this is the case, it would then also be the case that this would be a war of attrition (which had already began since 1998) rather than a total war.
Myanmar’s new political-economic contours
Ko Aung Myint Myat,
In case you find interesting, recycling one of previous posts.
http://www.dictatorwatch.org/articles/monkeypaw.pdf
Race-based ideology and Islam: The Malaysian enigma
It’s important to distinguish between race and culture. They correlate highly but they propagate by entirely different mechanisms, one by genes which are bits of DNA, and the other as memes which are bits of human behaviour (especially verbal behaviour) that catch on. A racially half-Chinese, half-Indian child adopted by a Malay family would end up culturally Malay but non-Malay by birth.
When Malay culture mixes with Chinese and Indian cultures in a capitalist economic system, Malays tend to come out the poorest because they are, on the whole, less enthusiastic about working hard for profit than either Chinese or Indians. That is a cultural characteristic, and one that I as a scientist can sympathise with, because profit has never been a major motive for my work. Given that situation, I can’t see how things could have turned out much different from the way they have. The Government is elected, and the majority are of Malay culture. The Government will naturally try to compensate for the tendency for Malays to end up poorer than Chinese or Indians. The rhetoric is a mess, especially the confusion of race and culture, and people are getting upset because of that, but what is happening is a natural outcome of a reasonably democratic system. The non-democratic alternative, a Chinese-Indian plutarchy ruling over a poor Malay majority, would, I think, be worse.
The Cambodia Railway Project – what is AusAID’s responsibility?
Jonathan Cornford,
You are in a absolutely lose-lose situation. Regardless of AusAID, none of these projects are done with people on the ground looking for best way to help them.
They are to start with formatted by people looking at the map and conventional statistics and draw plans for commercialization which they hope to increase much desired GDP and trade figures which in their mind is be-all and end-all – that GDP.
If those things are really great as they keep telling everyone, why is the state of US and European economy in such a state? The idea seems to be to “develop” every where for resource extraction, trade and rampant- the more rampant, the better- consumerism to some unknown end.
To top it all, those things are done without full thought of the process and its effects which is exactly your point, with full awareness of unchangeable environment of corruption, lack of law and nepotism.
All these collection of statistics spouting these ideas are based on totally ignores the basic, innate richness of uncountable and therefore unmeasurable wealth of people- caring tradition, love of nature and birth place as well as non-monetary industry of loving care of the young, and community cohesiveness, etc. It would be a safe bet no one in ADB reads Hazel Henderson.
These criss-crossing Asia with roads and rails to “Develop” does spring in mind the vision of that disastrous Montgomery’s “Operation Market Gardens”. On the paper smart move, with little understanding and control of the environment involved leading to huge loss.
But the job of the like of yours will be in demand as there will be more and more such projects sprouting like mushrooms in Burma now!
Happy reporting s!!!