I first saw your article in Mizzima News. First of all, I want to clarify several issues. You labeled the action at the garment factory a ‘wildcat’ strike. I believe you misunderstand the meaning of a ‘wildcat’ strike. A ‘wildcat’ strike is a strike action undertaken by union members when the strike has not been sanction by the union’s leadership – usually at level higher than the local union.
While the workers at the factory may be ‘satisfied’ with the settlement that was reached, the settlement does not conform to Thai labour law. The workers agreed to pay rates that are below the statutory minimum wage — why? It certainly seems that the had the leverage in this situation to do better — and why would a lawyer from the LPO sanction such an agreement?
Sadly, this is just another instance in which migrant workers from Burma have settled for wages less than provided in law. I believe that there should be a concerted effort among all the migrant workers in Mae Sot and in all of Thailand to press their demands with their respective employers and the Thai Department of Labour to conform with existing labour and migrant worker statutes and regulations. Migrant workers can not afford to further institutionalize their second class status as they have in this instance.
Lastly, how would the workers enforce their agreement if the employer does not abide by it? Seems very problematic to me. There is no union, right?
Interesting coincidence that these questions are being raised at the same time as new interest is awakened in the BBC programme from the early 1980’s “The Soul of The Nation” , actually well worth watching (and listening to given the dulcet tones of John Gielgud narrating it) though very much a period piece.What I suspect will be overlooked is that the fawning and hagiographical nature of the programme was a matter of controversy at the time.Bernard Levin wrote an bizarre commie bashing article in defence of it in The Times (somebody with access to Times archives might like to dig it up) in response to some critical comments from Jonathan Meades.Anyway the Thai army is now reported to be asking if it may use footage as part of its own proposed propaganda piece.I politely suggest that the BBC should inquire what earthly business is this of the Thai army and perhaps rather less politely it should go screw itself.
Learning a lot about agricultural policy in Malaysia from this thread as it develops.
The agricultural sector and policy seems to be relatively neglected in Southeast Asian Studies given its real world importance for the people who live in these countries, not and even more so in the past.
Are there any ASEAN-wide bibliographies or review articles? Or for the individual countries?
This area is bound to become more important as ASEAN heads towards integration and the Asean Economic Community (AEC) in 2015.
International opinions is very influential, yes. But it is only that: influential. It is not decisive or binding, and outside nations cannot force Thailand to abolish the law. Thus, until the King dies, lese majeste is not likely to be abolished, and there is nothing other countries can do about it.
If Thailand has as much oil as Iraq or Libya, however, UN may send the international army in, claiming their BS ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) principle.
But that won’t happen, as Thailand has no oil for them.
The Monarchy will weaken after the death of the King. Apart from Princess Sirindhorn, no other Royal is so well liked that the army can commit any atrocity and claim that they are protecting him or her. I believe the King’s death is near.
But I really don’t know whether the army has further plans up their sleeve to retain its power after the King’s death.
[…] will be held in June this year, the prospect of which is raising political temperatures.But massive demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur on 28 April organised by Bersih, a civil society coalition for clean and fair elections, may have thrown a […]
“It is almost impossible for UDD leaders to curb the open expression of those (anti-monarchy) sentiments.” – Nostitz
I was under the impression that the ‘hatred’ propaganda by UDD leaders include encouraging anti-monarchy sentiments from its followers. Wasn’t that what UDD hatred leaders Arisman/Nattawut were at when they encouraged their followers to tote one-petrol-bottle each during their Bangkok march, AND, include Sririraj Hotel (where HMK was recuperating) as a target?
Thanks for the information on SRI in Indoesia. thats very interesting. It also shows an attitudional change towards the value of labour on the land.
As agricultural is situational, as you have said the results will vary and the markets will also vary. There would of course have to be research before the introduction of new methods (some is being done) and the issues of labour etc, are very critical in malaysia (more so than Indonesia). Therefore process research is also required to look into how this method of farming can be adapted to our situation here. And of course the most important aspect of research is the economic study to model the effects of changes on costs.
But probably before that there needs to be debate about freeing up of the market and particularly the supply chain here in malaysia. If innovation in rice paddy production and marketing is forbidden by law, then it is highly doubtful that any innovation will occur.
This also leads to an even bigger question: Should malaysia actually keep growing rice paddy? I would expect increasing urbanization to cut 20% of the land away now under rice paddy by 2020 anyway. Malaysia certainly has to sit down and determine where their agricultural opportunities are in the future.
It matters to Thais who wish to hobnob with the likes of David Cameron and whose minders indicated to said PM that a Christmas family holiday in Thailand rubbing elbows with his Eaton tub-mate AKA “Butcher of Bangkok” Mark A. might not be favorably viewed by British taxpayers scrimping over budget cuts, petrol prices and European economic turmoil .
Thanks for responding to my comment about the estates. I’ll admit I don’t know much about the set-up of the rice estates. They may truly be feudalistic. I have only seen one presentation on them, and I know very little about Malaysia’s agricultural set up. I was merely interested that there has been some institutional changes.
As for higher rice yields, are you pointing toward the system of rice intensification (SRI)? My experience with SRI implementation in Indonesia has been very mixed, with some farmers preferring not to use it due to the extra labor involved and lack of increased benefit due to low rice prices. In other areas it didn’t work at all due to climate and soil factors.
Although I know very little about the Malaysian situation, you indicate that farmers are tied to specific buyers (who, I assume, are able to control prices). If SRI were introduced wide-scale, wouldn’t farmers there run into the same problem as Indonesia, i.e. increased production fails to outpace the increased labor costs?
It is a good thing that these questions are asked at the British parliament.
Asians put a lot of store in what the others, especially “the advanced people”, think about them all the time.
That was how the sanction worked in Burma by countries which had little or no investment in the country before. Than Shwe was hurt people thought so little of him.
Unfortunately our people’s champi0n is now scoring own goal by rapid dismantling of sanction presumably wishing for flood of foreign money for “development” and jobs as no doubt advised by the honourable ASEAN and “Western” advisers.
Without any technology or renewable products, all Burma has to flog are the rivers, coastal line, minerals and trees (just family silver really) with jobs being manual labourers and sex workers.
Large scale mechanised high yield, high production rice plantation will not only destroy the once fertile land but the whole Burmeseness of the people who currently carries centuries-old tradition.
With hardly any rule of law with more entrenched military and incoming hoardes of international businessmen with usual exploitative methods, we are heading towards Cambodia without the sanction break on.
International opinion varies, understandably, in being either influential or non-influential. The dividing line by the Thais is where embarrassment begins to cost too much financially. A closely related consideration is growing unfavorable reports and comments that arise in any given case.
There is probably no government or state on this planet that really holds human rights and decency in front of everything else. That, too, for understandable reasons.
One major point that has not really been covered academically or otherwise is the line between the state and the government. AI and HRW and CPJ and others can direct well-intended and meaningful messages to the government but it is seldom that they will have any impact given the fact that it is not the government in Thailand that “runs things” but the state. The government is but a caretaker, taking its cues from a military/royalist/Council of State coalition that has little to no respect or patience for western-equivalent democracy or free speech. That the government, whether Democrat, TRT, PT, and so on can’t get a lot done is part of the syndrome of ruling the kingdom by people who have only one objective in mind – to preserve and spread the Old Culture.
The issue of the role of the state in Thailand is another potentially explosive one as it then leads to function, accountability and reform.
I am of the opinion that while letters to the current government (at any time) are fine and proper protocol in their own sense, they need to be accompanied by similar letters, calls and visits to State agencies involved, such as the Council of State and Council on Law Reform, etc. English language information on these agencies needs to be much more available and analyzed.
> “in the Victor Bout incident that the Thai gov. didn’t really give two hoots what either US or Russia thought”
They did, that’s why they changed their decision and deliberated for so long and why his departure from Bangkok looked more like ‘rendition’ than ‘extradition’.
I think you’ll find that, over time, international opinion is very influential…if not the most influential factor… in international affairs. The British Parliament has a long history of commenting on the “internal affairs” of other nations, sometimes to great effect. They’ve even go to war over it; Kosovo, Iraq and Libya being more recent examples. None of the leaders of those particular regimes fared well.
In my own country of South Africa I remember as a child muttering that the sticky-beak Brits ought to butt out of our “internal affairs”, knowing we were in serious kak if they didn’t. And so it turned out. Apartheid was brought down as much by international condemnation as it was by internal protest.
It does take a while admittedly, but one has to start somewhere….and the British Parliament has a track record of being a very good place to start.
As for Thailand, I happen to know personally quite a few of the people who are very influential in shuffling the deckchairs of power in Bangkok. I can assure you they are most concerned about what we think about them. Much more so, in fact, than what their own countrymen in Isaan think about them. They may not say so in public (they’re diplomats after all) – as I grant you they probably didn’t during the Victor Bout affair – but they do read every single comment on this forum. And they will also be reading every single word written in the British press – with some trepidation.
Vichai N: Yes and No. Increased awareness in the UK will help them avoid future PR disasters like the prime minister’s planned trip to Thailand over Xmas 2010 and UK royals will (continue to) maintain their distance from the Thai counterparts. However does the UK hold much leverage over Thailand? Any large projects? Any signatures required to join any international bodies or for access to EU markets? Probably nothing significant. Thai MPs are shooting each other in petrol stations – the staid proceedings in a foreign parliament will hardly register among the Thai leadership.
not sure what the fuss is here or why the UK Foreign Minister would be compelled to respond with anything other than something to the effect that other countries’ legal and prison systems are internal matters. Why would anyone think the UK FM has any responsibility on this matter?
second, Stuart, there is a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to your proposition of Thai concerns with international criticism. I seem to recall just a few years ago in the Victor Bout incident that the Thai gov. didn’t really give two hoots what either US or Russia thought… so I wouldn’t want to go overboard in stressing the significance of international opinion on Thai opinion-makers… they can tend to be a fairly insular lot…
Well reported, Andrew. International opinion will do as much, if not arguably more, than local opinion to influence change in Thailand. Thais inherently cannot abide criticism – their entire cultural, social and political systems are designed to control it. They can crush dissent internally, but they know they have a harder battle in the face of international opinion. . The role of the international media is critical, as it was influencing change in South Africa and other internalized regimes that were nevertheless dependent on external relationships for survival. The Thai elite can’t make external criticism go away; they will need to confront it…and so confront themselves.
At one point, there might have been some hope with Aung San Suu Kyi.
She is genuinely well loved and supported by millions and expecting to be a true leader. She could stand by with ALL of the citizens of Burma against the stifling military hegemony.
At the time she was freed, if she were to get in with the prayer sessions which have already started for the lives of the Kachins, the whole country would have followed, Min Aung Hlaing would think twice, the plight of hundreds of young Burmese blood would have been either spared or their fate well publicised, and Kachin would feel hopeful of negotiated settlement buoyed by national support especially if she put unequavocally that Federal States was non-negotaible as only it should be.
The “Five Monks” would not have thought it necessary to protest for “National Peace” risking their lives.
In stead, she promoted tirelessly the King of Thieves, who until then was a nincompoop, and offered to “mediate” between the warring factions sending out clear signal that the Kachins were “Others” and by extension so would be all other “Ethnics”.
The military onslaught then became more open and blatant as there was no longer any worry about outright condemnation for the hideous criminal acts even from the usual international community who took the cue that it was something tolerated by the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner and “People’s Champion”.
Now with the recommendation of dropping all the sanction BEFORE any rule of law or any possiblility of it, Burma is at the mercy of the international conglomerates to spare a thought for the disadvantaged. And national peace is further than ever as the military is more, not less, entrenched and their position and financial power more solid now than ever before. No one now mentions Federal States any more. Only ports, rails and pipes while land confiscation is everyday occurance in open and violent manner.
KNU settlement is likely to be like Khin Nyunt deal with the Kachin. Again, http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/3568, look what happens to the Kachin Land and what happens to the Kachin today.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Anatomy of a Burmese migrant strike
Stephen,
I first saw your article in Mizzima News. First of all, I want to clarify several issues. You labeled the action at the garment factory a ‘wildcat’ strike. I believe you misunderstand the meaning of a ‘wildcat’ strike. A ‘wildcat’ strike is a strike action undertaken by union members when the strike has not been sanction by the union’s leadership – usually at level higher than the local union.
While the workers at the factory may be ‘satisfied’ with the settlement that was reached, the settlement does not conform to Thai labour law. The workers agreed to pay rates that are below the statutory minimum wage — why? It certainly seems that the had the leverage in this situation to do better — and why would a lawyer from the LPO sanction such an agreement?
Sadly, this is just another instance in which migrant workers from Burma have settled for wages less than provided in law. I believe that there should be a concerted effort among all the migrant workers in Mae Sot and in all of Thailand to press their demands with their respective employers and the Thai Department of Labour to conform with existing labour and migrant worker statutes and regulations. Migrant workers can not afford to further institutionalize their second class status as they have in this instance.
Lastly, how would the workers enforce their agreement if the employer does not abide by it? Seems very problematic to me. There is no union, right?
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
Interesting coincidence that these questions are being raised at the same time as new interest is awakened in the BBC programme from the early 1980’s “The Soul of The Nation” , actually well worth watching (and listening to given the dulcet tones of John Gielgud narrating it) though very much a period piece.What I suspect will be overlooked is that the fawning and hagiographical nature of the programme was a matter of controversy at the time.Bernard Levin wrote an bizarre commie bashing article in defence of it in The Times (somebody with access to Times archives might like to dig it up) in response to some critical comments from Jonathan Meades.Anyway the Thai army is now reported to be asking if it may use footage as part of its own proposed propaganda piece.I politely suggest that the BBC should inquire what earthly business is this of the Thai army and perhaps rather less politely it should go screw itself.
Agriculture in Malaysia’s economic and social transformation
Learning a lot about agricultural policy in Malaysia from this thread as it develops.
The agricultural sector and policy seems to be relatively neglected in Southeast Asian Studies given its real world importance for the people who live in these countries, not and even more so in the past.
Are there any ASEAN-wide bibliographies or review articles? Or for the individual countries?
This area is bound to become more important as ASEAN heads towards integration and the Asean Economic Community (AEC) in 2015.
🙂
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
International opinions is very influential, yes. But it is only that: influential. It is not decisive or binding, and outside nations cannot force Thailand to abolish the law. Thus, until the King dies, lese majeste is not likely to be abolished, and there is nothing other countries can do about it.
If Thailand has as much oil as Iraq or Libya, however, UN may send the international army in, claiming their BS ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) principle.
But that won’t happen, as Thailand has no oil for them.
The Monarchy will weaken after the death of the King. Apart from Princess Sirindhorn, no other Royal is so well liked that the army can commit any atrocity and claim that they are protecting him or her. I believe the King’s death is near.
But I really don’t know whether the army has further plans up their sleeve to retain its power after the King’s death.
Political enjoyment in Malaysia: From RPK to BERSIH
[…] will be held in June this year, the prospect of which is raising political temperatures.But massive demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur on 28 April organised by Bersih, a civil society coalition for clean and fair elections, may have thrown a […]
Analysing Thailand’s détente
“It is almost impossible for UDD leaders to curb the open expression of those (anti-monarchy) sentiments.” – Nostitz
I was under the impression that the ‘hatred’ propaganda by UDD leaders include encouraging anti-monarchy sentiments from its followers. Wasn’t that what UDD hatred leaders Arisman/Nattawut were at when they encouraged their followers to tote one-petrol-bottle each during their Bangkok march, AND, include Sririraj Hotel (where HMK was recuperating) as a target?
Agriculture in Malaysia’s economic and social transformation
JR,
Thanks for the information on SRI in Indoesia. thats very interesting. It also shows an attitudional change towards the value of labour on the land.
As agricultural is situational, as you have said the results will vary and the markets will also vary. There would of course have to be research before the introduction of new methods (some is being done) and the issues of labour etc, are very critical in malaysia (more so than Indonesia). Therefore process research is also required to look into how this method of farming can be adapted to our situation here. And of course the most important aspect of research is the economic study to model the effects of changes on costs.
But probably before that there needs to be debate about freeing up of the market and particularly the supply chain here in malaysia. If innovation in rice paddy production and marketing is forbidden by law, then it is highly doubtful that any innovation will occur.
This also leads to an even bigger question: Should malaysia actually keep growing rice paddy? I would expect increasing urbanization to cut 20% of the land away now under rice paddy by 2020 anyway. Malaysia certainly has to sit down and determine where their agricultural opportunities are in the future.
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
It matters to Thais who wish to hobnob with the likes of David Cameron and whose minders indicated to said PM that a Christmas family holiday in Thailand rubbing elbows with his Eaton tub-mate AKA “Butcher of Bangkok” Mark A. might not be favorably viewed by British taxpayers scrimping over budget cuts, petrol prices and European economic turmoil .
Agriculture in Malaysia’s economic and social transformation
Murray,
Thanks for responding to my comment about the estates. I’ll admit I don’t know much about the set-up of the rice estates. They may truly be feudalistic. I have only seen one presentation on them, and I know very little about Malaysia’s agricultural set up. I was merely interested that there has been some institutional changes.
As for higher rice yields, are you pointing toward the system of rice intensification (SRI)? My experience with SRI implementation in Indonesia has been very mixed, with some farmers preferring not to use it due to the extra labor involved and lack of increased benefit due to low rice prices. In other areas it didn’t work at all due to climate and soil factors.
Although I know very little about the Malaysian situation, you indicate that farmers are tied to specific buyers (who, I assume, are able to control prices). If SRI were introduced wide-scale, wouldn’t farmers there run into the same problem as Indonesia, i.e. increased production fails to outpace the increased labor costs?
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
It is a good thing that these questions are asked at the British parliament.
Asians put a lot of store in what the others, especially “the advanced people”, think about them all the time.
That was how the sanction worked in Burma by countries which had little or no investment in the country before. Than Shwe was hurt people thought so little of him.
Unfortunately our people’s champi0n is now scoring own goal by rapid dismantling of sanction presumably wishing for flood of foreign money for “development” and jobs as no doubt advised by the honourable ASEAN and “Western” advisers.
Without any technology or renewable products, all Burma has to flog are the rivers, coastal line, minerals and trees (just family silver really) with jobs being manual labourers and sex workers.
Large scale mechanised high yield, high production rice plantation will not only destroy the once fertile land but the whole Burmeseness of the people who currently carries centuries-old tradition.
With hardly any rule of law with more entrenched military and incoming hoardes of international businessmen with usual exploitative methods, we are heading towards Cambodia without the sanction break on.
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
International opinion varies, understandably, in being either influential or non-influential. The dividing line by the Thais is where embarrassment begins to cost too much financially. A closely related consideration is growing unfavorable reports and comments that arise in any given case.
There is probably no government or state on this planet that really holds human rights and decency in front of everything else. That, too, for understandable reasons.
One major point that has not really been covered academically or otherwise is the line between the state and the government. AI and HRW and CPJ and others can direct well-intended and meaningful messages to the government but it is seldom that they will have any impact given the fact that it is not the government in Thailand that “runs things” but the state. The government is but a caretaker, taking its cues from a military/royalist/Council of State coalition that has little to no respect or patience for western-equivalent democracy or free speech. That the government, whether Democrat, TRT, PT, and so on can’t get a lot done is part of the syndrome of ruling the kingdom by people who have only one objective in mind – to preserve and spread the Old Culture.
The issue of the role of the state in Thailand is another potentially explosive one as it then leads to function, accountability and reform.
I am of the opinion that while letters to the current government (at any time) are fine and proper protocol in their own sense, they need to be accompanied by similar letters, calls and visits to State agencies involved, such as the Council of State and Council on Law Reform, etc. English language information on these agencies needs to be much more available and analyzed.
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
> “in the Victor Bout incident that the Thai gov. didn’t really give two hoots what either US or Russia thought”
They did, that’s why they changed their decision and deliberated for so long and why his departure from Bangkok looked more like ‘rendition’ than ‘extradition’.
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
Billy D
I think you’ll find that, over time, international opinion is very influential…if not the most influential factor… in international affairs. The British Parliament has a long history of commenting on the “internal affairs” of other nations, sometimes to great effect. They’ve even go to war over it; Kosovo, Iraq and Libya being more recent examples. None of the leaders of those particular regimes fared well.
In my own country of South Africa I remember as a child muttering that the sticky-beak Brits ought to butt out of our “internal affairs”, knowing we were in serious kak if they didn’t. And so it turned out. Apartheid was brought down as much by international condemnation as it was by internal protest.
It does take a while admittedly, but one has to start somewhere….and the British Parliament has a track record of being a very good place to start.
As for Thailand, I happen to know personally quite a few of the people who are very influential in shuffling the deckchairs of power in Bangkok. I can assure you they are most concerned about what we think about them. Much more so, in fact, than what their own countrymen in Isaan think about them. They may not say so in public (they’re diplomats after all) – as I grant you they probably didn’t during the Victor Bout affair – but they do read every single comment on this forum. And they will also be reading every single word written in the British press – with some trepidation.
Review of Economic Disparity and of Economic Transition
What a wonderful essay and recommendations.
Your steadfastness for perceptive observation and promotion of the welfare of the people of Burma is exceptional.
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
Vichai N: Yes and No. Increased awareness in the UK will help them avoid future PR disasters like the prime minister’s planned trip to Thailand over Xmas 2010 and UK royals will (continue to) maintain their distance from the Thai counterparts. However does the UK hold much leverage over Thailand? Any large projects? Any signatures required to join any international bodies or for access to EU markets? Probably nothing significant. Thai MPs are shooting each other in petrol stations – the staid proceedings in a foreign parliament will hardly register among the Thai leadership.
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
not sure what the fuss is here or why the UK Foreign Minister would be compelled to respond with anything other than something to the effect that other countries’ legal and prison systems are internal matters. Why would anyone think the UK FM has any responsibility on this matter?
second, Stuart, there is a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to your proposition of Thai concerns with international criticism. I seem to recall just a few years ago in the Victor Bout incident that the Thai gov. didn’t really give two hoots what either US or Russia thought… so I wouldn’t want to go overboard in stressing the significance of international opinion on Thai opinion-makers… they can tend to be a fairly insular lot…
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
Great work by Andrew Spooner.
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
Picayune!
Lese majeste makes it to UK parliament
Well reported, Andrew. International opinion will do as much, if not arguably more, than local opinion to influence change in Thailand. Thais inherently cannot abide criticism – their entire cultural, social and political systems are designed to control it. They can crush dissent internally, but they know they have a harder battle in the face of international opinion. . The role of the international media is critical, as it was influencing change in South Africa and other internalized regimes that were nevertheless dependent on external relationships for survival. The Thai elite can’t make external criticism go away; they will need to confront it…and so confront themselves.
Ending civil war in Burma
U Moe Aung,
At one point, there might have been some hope with Aung San Suu Kyi.
She is genuinely well loved and supported by millions and expecting to be a true leader. She could stand by with ALL of the citizens of Burma against the stifling military hegemony.
At the time she was freed, if she were to get in with the prayer sessions which have already started for the lives of the Kachins, the whole country would have followed, Min Aung Hlaing would think twice, the plight of hundreds of young Burmese blood would have been either spared or their fate well publicised, and Kachin would feel hopeful of negotiated settlement buoyed by national support especially if she put unequavocally that Federal States was non-negotaible as only it should be.
The “Five Monks” would not have thought it necessary to protest for “National Peace” risking their lives.
In stead, she promoted tirelessly the King of Thieves, who until then was a nincompoop, and offered to “mediate” between the warring factions sending out clear signal that the Kachins were “Others” and by extension so would be all other “Ethnics”.
The military onslaught then became more open and blatant as there was no longer any worry about outright condemnation for the hideous criminal acts even from the usual international community who took the cue that it was something tolerated by the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner and “People’s Champion”.
Now with the recommendation of dropping all the sanction BEFORE any rule of law or any possiblility of it, Burma is at the mercy of the international conglomerates to spare a thought for the disadvantaged. And national peace is further than ever as the military is more, not less, entrenched and their position and financial power more solid now than ever before. No one now mentions Federal States any more. Only ports, rails and pipes while land confiscation is everyday occurance in open and violent manner.
KNU settlement is likely to be like Khin Nyunt deal with the Kachin. Again, http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/3568, look what happens to the Kachin Land and what happens to the Kachin today.