Colum, thanks for the comments. Obviously, we can’t be sure, and some people I’ve talked to think Shwe Mann is sincerely interested in enhancing the legislature’s capacity. However, I suspect that this interest stems at least in part from his desire to become president in 2015. Once he becomes president, a strong legislature might be seen as an impediment. Unlike parliamentary systems, a president can’t directly control or discipline MPs who oppose his agenda. After all, no president wants an oversight committee looking over his shoulders.
This is a classic twist in presidential systems. Even in America, politicians who criticize the imperial presidency often become ardent supporters once they become president. Just ask President Obama (he’s been quite willing to employ unilateral force without asking for congressional authorization).
Ralph, I put the word endorsed in quotes as I was quoting the extract in the summary above. If you don’t like that word please take issue with the article, not the commenter.
As I mentioned, I’m not a Twitter user, but I thought Twitter was a real-time medium – taking down a ‘tweet’ is far removed from taking down a blog post, isn’t it? By the time it’s been taken down it’s already been consumed, re-tweeted. And on a practical level, as commenters above seem to be suggesting, there seem to be multiple routes around the block for people in Thailand.
Jon@7: Thailand hardly “endorsed” it; rather MICT immediately welcomed it and explained that they would use this facility.
On EFF, this hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement either:
Free speech and digital rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation defended Twitter’s changes in a Jan. 27, 2012 blog post, and asked supporters to “keep Twitter honest” and to circumvent censorship. “For now, the overall effect is less censorship rather than more censorship, since they used to take things down for all users. But people have voiced concerns that ‘if you build it, they will come,’ – if you build a tool for state-by-state censorship, states will start to use it. We should remain vigilant against this outcome.”
For now…. We should remain vigilant…. That seems pretty fare removed from the notion of “Nothing to see here, move along.”
Recall, too, the link on this to EFF: Twitter will notify users if their message is removed, indicate to all viewers that a Tweet has been withheld, and publish the takedown requests on Chilling Effects, a website run by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several American universities.
Andrew Spooner: I missed those calls to ban transgressors from online ‘social networks’ at the time they were voiced – even so you’re talking about a completely different kettle of fish – as you accept with your final statement: “Thailand, PT and even Malika are way, way behind the curve“. And in the intervening months I think most of those protagonists over in the UK have backed off from their heat-of-the-moment suggestions.
Closer to reality was the fuss in California a few months ago where the Internet was switched off along a commuter route that activists were using to get to a protest.
But this Twitter-Thailand thing was way overblown. Thailand ‘endorsed’ it; the EFF had already done the same. Nothing to see here, move along. [I’m not a Twitter user.]
current cease-fire still remains elusive. Long-lasting peace that has been sought by all stakeholders will depend on political concessions that will be discussed in Union level talk with all ethnic armed groups in Naypitaw. After that we will see another decades of fighting or real national reconciliation…
One sensible way would be to smuggle Ah Kong out to another truly free country. With the atmosphere as it is now, Ah Kong does not have a chance, with our dear General Prayudh telling “traitors” to leave Thailand and seek residence elsewhere.
Thanks for the thought-provoking article. I find it interesting that Thein Sein and crew thought it worthwhile coaxing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi into the political process, despite the likely damage it would do to the USDP. I’m sure that not all in the party, particularly those who are no longer in real positions of power, such as Htay Oo, would have welcomed her return to the formal political process. It will be fascinating to see where the USDP is at in four years time.
This terrible article comprised, almost word for word, the second half of a terrible piece on Asia Sentinel on Friday credited to Pavin Chachavalpongpun. So, is this factually-suspect and shoddily-written piece actually the work of Andrew Walker or Pavin?
To reiterate from my post above: Was she really accused of committing lèse-majesté in April 2009? Did any professors really call her a ‘traitor’? Was it really a ‘monarchist’ who threw a shoe at her? Please New Mandala, don’t allow contributors to take liberties like this.
[Hi John, as I have noted on the post, I accidentally attributed authorship to myself by forgetting to change the author details when posted Pavin’s piece. Andrew Walker]
Thanks for this illuminating discussion. I’m curious why you predict ‘Shwe Mann will become noticeably less enthusiastic about legislative power if he becomes president in 2015’, though. I don’t have any reason to counter your prediction, I’m just interested in greater elaboration.
I wonder especially what the results of these ceasefires will be on border areas. Agreements have been reached, but will they hold up under the pressure of political demands? I look forward to this series.
HRK, thanks for your comments. While the Arab Spring might have had something to do with it, again there’s the question of why now. Why not after the 2005 color revolutions? Or the collapse of Eastern Europe in the late 1980s/early 1990s? Moreover, when the momentum for the Arab Spring has stopped last spring, why did the reforms accelerate these past few months? It’s tough to tease all these different pieces apart, but I’ve always been a bit skeptical of placing too much weight on international factors.
“We are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality,” Cameron added. “Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill.”
This was 6months ago.
Thailand, PT and even Malika are way, way behind the curve.
The provocation of Nitirat is that they want the constitution as base for legitimacy, while the opponents regard the king as the only valid base for it. This has far reaching implications. Using the constitution as base requires a state and politics based on legality of its procedures. Even more, it demands equal legal treatment, in contrast to influence. In the second case, legitimacy derives from personal relations that through patronage etc. are supposed to reach up to the top. Furthermore it implies that even violence or a coup are taken as legitimate, as long as they are interpreted to be for the protection of the king. In this way, violent acts against f.e. Nitirat can be taken as legitimate even though they would not be in line with existing laws.
Taking the ideologies of the political elite serious, they see themselves as the only able guarantors of national unity and sovereignty. They certainly noticed two important current shifts. Firstly, the rise of China and India as new global economic and political players. Myanmar is located just in between both. To maintain political and economic independence vis a vis these two neighbours requires support from others like ASEAN and may be even Europe and the US. Secondly, they noticed what happened around the Mediterranean. To avoid revolution gradual reform is the only way to maintain power. This is, in turn, is regarded as crucial to keep unity and sovereignty. Consequently, a policy of careful reform is most appropriate. (It seems that the elite in Thailand has not yet learned this lesson). As external observer, the task is to support this process and not to challenge it with utopian demands for “good governance” etc.
Andrew Spooner, (c: 14), I think you’re right. At the time (26/5/2010) I proposed to my colleagues in the English Department at Thammasat University that we send the following letter to the dean and circulate it to the rector. I was able to add two signatures to my own.
“Dear Professor Pinmanee,
We are writing in connection with the case of Ms Nattakarn Sakoondarachart.
Apparently, you have rejected her application to study in the Faculty of Arts at Silpakorn University on the basis of unproven assertions about her political views and personality. You are quoted in the Manager newspaper on 24 May 2010 as saying that otherwise her application would have been successful.
This is a gross dereliction of your responsibility to Ms Nattakarn as a student and to the concepts of academic freedom and natural justice.
We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Hoy” (and two others)
I thought it was a firm but polite and reasonable letter. We did not receive a reply.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Internet access denied, controlled and now contested
Ralph – I’m a member of EFF : regularly receive their e-mails, etc.
Thanks for posting this – which helps get through the clutter.
Burma’s incentive for reform?
Colum, thanks for the comments. Obviously, we can’t be sure, and some people I’ve talked to think Shwe Mann is sincerely interested in enhancing the legislature’s capacity. However, I suspect that this interest stems at least in part from his desire to become president in 2015. Once he becomes president, a strong legislature might be seen as an impediment. Unlike parliamentary systems, a president can’t directly control or discipline MPs who oppose his agenda. After all, no president wants an oversight committee looking over his shoulders.
This is a classic twist in presidential systems. Even in America, politicians who criticize the imperial presidency often become ardent supporters once they become president. Just ask President Obama (he’s been quite willing to employ unilateral force without asking for congressional authorization).
Internet access denied, controlled and now contested
Ralph, I put the word endorsed in quotes as I was quoting the extract in the summary above. If you don’t like that word please take issue with the article, not the commenter.
As I mentioned, I’m not a Twitter user, but I thought Twitter was a real-time medium – taking down a ‘tweet’ is far removed from taking down a blog post, isn’t it? By the time it’s been taken down it’s already been consumed, re-tweeted. And on a practical level, as commenters above seem to be suggesting, there seem to be multiple routes around the block for people in Thailand.
> “Recall, too, the link on this to EFF …”
What do you mean?
A catalogue of threats against the Khana Nitirat
[…] of threats against the Nitirat can be viewed, courtesy of commentator Elizabeth Fitzgerald, here. Degrading references to dogs and executions […]
Internet access denied, controlled and now contested
Jon@7: Thailand hardly “endorsed” it; rather MICT immediately welcomed it and explained that they would use this facility.
On EFF, this hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement either:
Free speech and digital rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation defended Twitter’s changes in a Jan. 27, 2012 blog post, and asked supporters to “keep Twitter honest” and to circumvent censorship. “For now, the overall effect is less censorship rather than more censorship, since they used to take things down for all users. But people have voiced concerns that ‘if you build it, they will come,’ – if you build a tool for state-by-state censorship, states will start to use it. We should remain vigilant against this outcome.”
For now…. We should remain vigilant…. That seems pretty fare removed from the notion of “Nothing to see here, move along.”
Recall, too, the link on this to EFF: Twitter will notify users if their message is removed, indicate to all viewers that a Tweet has been withheld, and publish the takedown requests on Chilling Effects, a website run by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several American universities.
Internet access denied, controlled and now contested
Jon Wright
Yep, overblown.
But then so are the claims Twitter is providing some kind of new form of liberty.
It isn’t.
It’s a private company looking to make money.
Internet access denied, controlled and now contested
Andrew Spooner: I missed those calls to ban transgressors from online ‘social networks’ at the time they were voiced – even so you’re talking about a completely different kettle of fish – as you accept with your final statement: “Thailand, PT and even Malika are way, way behind the curve“. And in the intervening months I think most of those protagonists over in the UK have backed off from their heat-of-the-moment suggestions.
Closer to reality was the fuss in California a few months ago where the Internet was switched off along a commuter route that activists were using to get to a protest.
But this Twitter-Thailand thing was way overblown. Thailand ‘endorsed’ it; the EFF had already done the same. Nothing to see here, move along. [I’m not a Twitter user.]
Where is Burma headed?
current cease-fire still remains elusive. Long-lasting peace that has been sought by all stakeholders will depend on political concessions that will be discussed in Union level talk with all ethnic armed groups in Naypitaw. After that we will see another decades of fighting or real national reconciliation…
Thailand’s Fearlessness: Free Akong
One sensible way would be to smuggle Ah Kong out to another truly free country. With the atmosphere as it is now, Ah Kong does not have a chance, with our dear General Prayudh telling “traitors” to leave Thailand and seek residence elsewhere.
Burma’s incentive for reform?
Thanks for the thought-provoking article. I find it interesting that Thein Sein and crew thought it worthwhile coaxing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi into the political process, despite the likely damage it would do to the USDP. I’m sure that not all in the party, particularly those who are no longer in real positions of power, such as Htay Oo, would have welcomed her return to the formal political process. It will be fascinating to see where the USDP is at in four years time.
Kantoop and lèse-majesté
This terrible article comprised, almost word for word, the second half of a terrible piece on Asia Sentinel on Friday credited to Pavin Chachavalpongpun. So, is this factually-suspect and shoddily-written piece actually the work of Andrew Walker or Pavin?
To reiterate from my post above: Was she really accused of committing lèse-majesté in April 2009? Did any professors really call her a ‘traitor’? Was it really a ‘monarchist’ who threw a shoe at her? Please New Mandala, don’t allow contributors to take liberties like this.
[Hi John, as I have noted on the post, I accidentally attributed authorship to myself by forgetting to change the author details when posted Pavin’s piece. Andrew Walker]
Burma’s incentive for reform?
Thanks for this illuminating discussion. I’m curious why you predict ‘Shwe Mann will become noticeably less enthusiastic about legislative power if he becomes president in 2015’, though. I don’t have any reason to counter your prediction, I’m just interested in greater elaboration.
Where is Burma headed?
I wonder especially what the results of these ceasefires will be on border areas. Agreements have been reached, but will they hold up under the pressure of political demands? I look forward to this series.
Burma’s incentive for reform?
HRK, thanks for your comments. While the Arab Spring might have had something to do with it, again there’s the question of why now. Why not after the 2005 color revolutions? Or the collapse of Eastern Europe in the late 1980s/early 1990s? Moreover, when the momentum for the Arab Spring has stopped last spring, why did the reforms accelerate these past few months? It’s tough to tease all these different pieces apart, but I’ve always been a bit skeptical of placing too much weight on international factors.
Internet access denied, controlled and now contested
Jon Wright
Nope UK government wanted to block twitter and ban those convicted in the “riots” from using all social media.
Read this http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/08/twitter-braces-censorship-following-uk-riots/41127/
David Cameron is quoted as saying
“We are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality,” Cameron added. “Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill.”
This was 6months ago.
Thailand, PT and even Malika are way, way behind the curve.
A catalogue of threats against the Khana Nitirat
The provocation of Nitirat is that they want the constitution as base for legitimacy, while the opponents regard the king as the only valid base for it. This has far reaching implications. Using the constitution as base requires a state and politics based on legality of its procedures. Even more, it demands equal legal treatment, in contrast to influence. In the second case, legitimacy derives from personal relations that through patronage etc. are supposed to reach up to the top. Furthermore it implies that even violence or a coup are taken as legitimate, as long as they are interpreted to be for the protection of the king. In this way, violent acts against f.e. Nitirat can be taken as legitimate even though they would not be in line with existing laws.
Burma’s incentive for reform?
Taking the ideologies of the political elite serious, they see themselves as the only able guarantors of national unity and sovereignty. They certainly noticed two important current shifts. Firstly, the rise of China and India as new global economic and political players. Myanmar is located just in between both. To maintain political and economic independence vis a vis these two neighbours requires support from others like ASEAN and may be even Europe and the US. Secondly, they noticed what happened around the Mediterranean. To avoid revolution gradual reform is the only way to maintain power. This is, in turn, is regarded as crucial to keep unity and sovereignty. Consequently, a policy of careful reform is most appropriate. (It seems that the elite in Thailand has not yet learned this lesson). As external observer, the task is to support this process and not to challenge it with utopian demands for “good governance” etc.
Burma’s incentive for reform?
If that was the case, wouldn’t Western governments have rushed to Burma 20 years ago along with the rest of the world?
Kantoop and lèse-majesté
Andrew Spooner, (c: 14), I think you’re right. At the time (26/5/2010) I proposed to my colleagues in the English Department at Thammasat University that we send the following letter to the dean and circulate it to the rector. I was able to add two signatures to my own.
“Dear Professor Pinmanee,
We are writing in connection with the case of Ms Nattakarn Sakoondarachart.
Apparently, you have rejected her application to study in the Faculty of Arts at Silpakorn University on the basis of unproven assertions about her political views and personality. You are quoted in the Manager newspaper on 24 May 2010 as saying that otherwise her application would have been successful.
This is a gross dereliction of your responsibility to Ms Nattakarn as a student and to the concepts of academic freedom and natural justice.
We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Hoy” (and two others)
I thought it was a firm but polite and reasonable letter. We did not receive a reply.
Religious dialogue: whose responsibility? – Part 2
re: Lopez
The “real-politik” does indeed suggest that inter-faith dialogues and by extension inter-faith relations are extremely difficult.
But do minorities have any other choice?
Yes, minorities do have another choice: emigrate.
Let them leave and allow Malaysia to experience what Uganda did after Idi Amin ordered the expulsion of Uganda’s Asian population.