Lena #79, do you think that HM the king can take criticism? And if he can, why does he put those who disagrees with him behind bars?
And for the father of the language, his use of it is certainly … unique. And that’s just for starters.
Did the book touch heavily on these subjects? If not, then we can’t call it an honest biography, can we? Because they’re many controversial parts in his reign that LM makes illegal to even discuss.
‘Action speaks louder than words’, and there’s lots of action against one quote from years ago. We can only conclude that he might not object that strongly to LM uses after all.
And if it’s so, then this book isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.
Lena, I see here by the thumbs that you are at least as as unloved as you claim Andrew is. Andrew, however, has contributed enormously to my understanding of Thailand, whether or not I agree with some parts, which is why I’m happy to put up with him without small-minded attacks on his person. Could you now please provide your own contribution to my understanding of Thailand or, as you have exhorted Andrew, simply shut up. To continue as you have is to waste the wonderful opportunity provided by this blog for people such as Handley, Marshall, Walker, Nostitz et al and their robust detractors to share their insights. I don’t have any great insights myself, but I enjoy the stimulating commentary and benefit from it. Whatever the source of your personal antipathy for Andrew, this really isn’t the forum for it. Unless you can come up with something better than you have, you’re just wasting space.
Paul Handley’s review does a very good job of both asking the questions and indeed answering them. His view, judging from what is written here, is that no book commissioned under these conditions could be seen as being academically pure nor could it be remotely considered a definitive source (what book could be?)…. But nor is it the worthless hagiographic whitewash that Mr Marshall believes it to be. It has value within a certain considered context.
Nor, lets be fair, is the overall conclusion sparing in its criticism.
“While an improvement over earlier official histories, this one is still unsatisfying. Not because of one’s own biases, but because it takes a Forrest Gump approach to history: in the movie a generation of events whiz by in a nostalgic haze. None is really bad or good; they just happened out of spontaneous generation, and Forrest was there for them all.”
He sees a lack of analysis, cohesion and evaluation, which considering his acknowledgment of the high quality of the writers hired, is fairly damning.
Questions are as much subject to rigor as are answers. Mr McElroy, if you don’t mind me asking, “How long have you been beating your wife?”
#75
“Is there something wrong with being “a political activist in a country that is not [one’s] own”? If so why?”
– Not intrinsically, no. But advocacy driving research is a different thing from research driving advocacy or research with no motivation to advocate at all. Of course, in reality, most commentators will take a view.
“Also, I have fathered an 18 month old son here and I’d like to think that he’ll grow up in a society where freedom of speech and enquiry is the norm.”
– Well you will have a while to wait it might seem judging by the actions of both this government and indeed the last.
“But that’s a false justification in a way. Everyone everywhere should have freedom of speech and thought and enquiry, even ten day tourists or backpackers. “
– Yes…. Indeed they should.
“If I was in China or Russia or the USA or Burkina Faso, I don’t concede that the fact that I’m just a visitor means I can’t comment on what I see.”
– Of course…. Had you also though about publishing 150,000 words on the internet to promote your views and vociferously putting forward those same views in a campaign involving social media?…. In these days of self-publishing it is possible for any man or woman to do that.
“Thailand’s major institutions have happily accepted praise and support from foreign commentators. They should learn to take the rough with the smooth.”
– Well they have precious little choice. But the fact that this might be true does not mean that every morsel of self-published advocacy is a gem, nor does it mean that the protagonists have ceased to be advocates.
#69
“The tally right now is one, isn’t it?”
– I think you will find that the Lese Majeste laws of Thailand have snared rather more unfortunates than one Mr Wright. Do you not think that one is a mite too many already? Also as Mr Macgregor Marshall says in #78, “Unfortunately we do not know the number of Thais who have been jailed for lese majeste since 2006. The system is so Orwellian that arrests and convictions are often kept secret.” ……. And some of those people might be in Room 101….. That is not a flippant comment Mr Wright.
#73
Mr Macgregor Marshall, I do believe that I made it clear to you that the answers to your questions were already written in the lines of text above your own.
“Do you concede that KBAALW is an activist text that seeks to propagate an idealized and sanitized version of Bhumibol’s life and career, rather than give a genuine critical analysis of his reign?”
– To quote #11, “Handley interprets the book specifically as the latest in a series of responses from the palace to pressure. His lack of vitriol, that appears to have dismayed some, is because he tackles the book from this perspective, soberly, and I think, appropriately.”
Handley says, “And again, hampered by excessive caution and some glaring equivocation, they fall short of where they need to be for the institution’s sake. But they go far enough to preserve Bhumibol’s image. And that seems to be the priority these days.”
He then adds, “Style-wise, this book is a jumble: a history of kingship in Siam, Bhumibol’s life by twelve-year cycle, his development work, and then, a section on hot issues around the monarchy: its wealth, the royal advisors, succession, and lèse majesté. We do not know who wrote and amended the different sections, but it seems clear that the editorial board kept the writers from going too far. Since the writers were some of the very people with which the palace needed to catch up and since they have reputations to protect, however, A Life’s Work is not a whitewash. It does not exactly seize control of the narrative, but it eases the palace into the twenty-first century.”
– Whilst this is hardly an endorsement it is not a judgment that concurs with your own. The most important phrase which Handley puts forward that is in clear contravention of your own views here is “A Life’s Work is not a whitewash. It does not exactly seize control of the narrative, but it eases the palace into the twenty-first century.”
“Or would you like to argue that it is indeed a serious academic biography that seeks to tell the truth about his reign?”
I would, like Paul Handley, say that it fits into neither template that you have proffered. In seeking an answer that you have already decided you want to have before examining the facts is a familiar methodological ploy of the advocate. It tips the balance of research from the genuine desire to seek the truth according to the facts into the desire to seek what you wish to be known before the facts are approached. It is a question of intention and it doesn’t make any difference how thorough your research is before you lower yourself into that trap and that definition.
“If your view is the latter”
– There are more than two views Mr Macgregor Marshall and that is something that Handley recognizes but you do not because you will need to restrict the debate in order to promote the answers that you have already decided you want. …… Anyway as they say up in Argyll, ‘Fear sam bith a loisgeas a mh├аs, ‘s e fhèin a dh’fheumas suidhe air’….. And yours might indeed be feeling a little intellectually tender just at the moment. It will pass.
Minote Tripathi’s review seems to merely pile more lies and distortions on top of whatever KBAAWL has to offer. He tells us that the book provides “stunning descriptions of people, places and events we knew little about ” but is unable to elucidate on any such information in his review.
Then he tells us “the book ……… harks back to old Sukhothai, whose rulers pioneered the concept of kingship as paternalistic and righteous in the Buddhist sense. Every monarch since then has adhered to this moral template.” Really? Hard to see how Vajiravudh Rama VI adhered to that moral template, let alone some of the Ayutthayan kings.
Minote tells us that “the end of absolute monarchy in 1932 warrant[s] special attention.” and then proceeds to quote Prajadhipok’s abdication letter followed by the statement “Within days, Siam had a draft of its first constitution.” But the abdication speech was written in 1935 more than two years after Thailand’s first constitution was promulgated.
On the subject of Ananda’s death he tells us that one theory mentioned in the book involves Tsuji Masanobu, without mentioning that this is probably the most ridiculous theory of the many (He should perhaps read Andrew Marhall’s review where this is thoroughly handled).
Like many I have been unable to get my hands on KBAALW yet so perhaps I must take Minote on his word that “the lese majeste law is heavily discussed from a range of perspectives”
It does seem that KBAAWL will be used by many to trot out the same tired old myths surrounding the monarchy whilst purporting to be having an open and honest discussion of all issues.
Najib is a “PR (public Relation) made man” as oppose to a self made man. So is he a moderate, Yes. Is he really against extremism? Probably, but he is not one who would stand by “principles” and act against it. (extremism)
Constitution is primarily for granting individual rights. If there is a democratic constitution, it is understood as a document that guarantees the safety and security of the entire citizens of the country; Burman and non-Burman alike. Imagine out of only close to 2 million Rohingyas during the 70’s, until now, one million were forced to leave the country with the excuse that they are “foreigners” in Burma. Ne Win’s notorious constitutional Act of 1982 is still there.
The premise is: If Rohingyas are accepted as Burmese people, but not as “intruders,” bringing changes in the constitutional Act is not going to be an act sidetracking or denying any Burmese issue because Rohingya issue becomes both a Burmese issue and a constitutional issue.Changes in the constitution issues like this and others would be a movement in the right direction for changes in other areas as well for everybody Burmese person.
True, Rohingya genocide has similarities and differences with Jewish genocide in Germany, but what is not true is BBC didn’t make up something about Rohingya people, it was already there and to inform the readers about the nature of the Rohingya genocide here are some sources:
—————————————————————————————“What is Rohingya genocide? http://burmadigest.info/2012/01/18/tell-me-what-is-rohingya-genocide-in-burma/)
————————————————————————————-
Stateless Rohingya…Running on Empty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wShJ0dv121U
I don’t believe Faydang had any plots planned against the Party after 1975. He and his relative Nhiavu had been core members of the revolutionary movement since 1950. Nhiavu was one of the earliest members of the Party and he continued serving it until the 1990s. Faydang retired to his birthplace in Nong Haet in the 1980s. However, during the late 1970s Faydang was busy participating in various Front and SPA functions. Lofung Pablia is the Hmong official who went off the radar in 1975. As for Sithon Kommadam, his role after 1975 was limited to a few Front conferences and anniversary celebrations. Sithon had lived a hard life, having been struggling against ‘outsiders’ since his birth in 1910. He like most southern revolutionaries was probably riddled with parasites from rough living in the days of the maquis. Sure, not everything went sweet in his traditional birthplace, the Bolavens Plateau, after 1975 but Sithon never considered any sort of revolt. To be frank, the PL veterans were very disciplined in the late 1970s. It was only the late 1980s that the integrity of cadres went into serious decline.
I could have sworn that you are more concern about suffering Muslim in Myanmar only by your post @ BBC making Rohingya as the poster issue.
The fact is the whole country, the Citizenry of Myanmar is under siege, or suffering the genocidal— as you might put, by the present Dictators, as well as the west useless careless policy, instigated by DASSK, now prolonged by “how high can Thein Sein government jump” attitude.
As others proceed to discuss the merit of this constitution that a few short moment ago, if mentioned, will be called Junta Sympathizer, the last thing to do is giving these hypocrite another reason “The Rohingya to delay reversing the still ongoing useless careless policy that affect ALL Myanmar citizenry.
It will be quite a stretch to equate Rohingyas with Anti Semitic genocidal Nazi/Hitler PLANNED final solution. Unless of course you also accept ALL the Jewish/Isreal assertions UNEQUIVOCALLY.
Constitutions must matter, or the military regime wouldn’t have bothered to seek legitimacy in them in 1974 and again in 2008. Their latest must be unique in enshrining incontestable military domination for eternity even providing a ‘constitutional’ coup as and when necessary, beyond the frontiers that Indonesia’s military or any other had ever dared go before. That’s Burmese bloody-mindedness for you, and of course they don’t need to be reminded that they are not the only Burmese around.
Lintner’s point strikes a chord with ordinary Burmese, not the business class that stands to gain like the ‘international community’. To the regime securing 25% of seats in the legislative chamber endorsed by the ‘referendum’ isn’t nearly enough, even though to amend a bill 75% is mandatory which is well nigh impossible. To top it all, as a fail safe measure they formed their own party and managed to win a ‘landslide election victory’. How ASSK hopes to amend the 2008 Constitution in such a parliament stretches credulity – the chance of a snowball in hell. The next round in 2015 is being dangled in front like a great big juicy carrot, the handy big stick out of sight for now. Swe Swe Kyi’s comment on Lintner’s article is absolutely spot on, the whys and the wherefores.
That there is every indication that the current political, legal and constitutional format is here to stay reminds me of the conventional wisdom not so long ago that ‘the military dictatorship is here to say and we have no choice but to deal with it’. Power talks in any guise or format. It has parallels to an earlier era in our history when the older diarchy politicians such as Dr Ba Maw and U Saw tried to work with the colonial govt for greater self administration whilst younger Dobama Thakins pushed for a radical programme and full independence. Constitutions serve a purpose while they last.
This ‘single issue’ unfortunately is what will make or break the future.
Looking @ the topics that are being discussed, just a few weeks ago would have been accused of ‘junta coddling’ is now hope in the Dictators’ Constitution.
Where thou is thy righteous indignation?
While “barely acknowledge the appalling consequences they witness of regime policies and priorities, acts of commission as well as omission, ”
Still making these outright lies.
Is it because of your strong Man Friday nature that compel to overlook blatant westerners dictator coddling setiment?
Unfortunately we do not know the number of Thais who have been jailed for lese majeste since 2006. The system is so Orwellian that arrests and convictions are often kept secret. So we also don’t know how many people may have been jailed for disseminating or translating parts of TKNS. However of those we know about, besides Joe we should add Giles Gi Ungpakorn who fled to London to escape a lese majeste case related to him quoting a section of TKNS in ‘A Coup for the Rich’).
Not an adequate answer I’m afraid. Let me make it simpler for you. Do you concede that KBAALW is an activist text that seeks to propagate an idealized and sanitized version of Bhumibol’s life and career, rather than give a genuine critical analysis of his reign?
Or would you like to argue that it is indeed a serious academic biography that seeks to tell the truth about his reign?
If your view is the latter, it would be useful if you can enlighten us on how a serious academic text can be so mendacious about so many things (plenty identified by Paul Handley alone if you feel the need to disregard my own examples). Was this just an accident?
Once we have established whether or not you concede KBAALW is an activist text, we can then discuss whether or not its authors can be described as activists.
If there are some single issue campaigners on NM we’d have to include plan B and Jon Fernquest when it comes to sanctions. Between the two, Jon does a much better job, but they seem to share the same willful oversight as regards policy priorities of the regime since they cannot possibly be ignorant of the overall picture.
Whilst their faith in dog00ding regardless – lift the sanctions, CBOs, NGOs – is admirable, to barely acknowledge the appalling consequences they witness of regime policies and priorities, acts of commission as well as omission, is like applying poultice over a festering cancer, albeit of more practical help than prayer and calling on the parties concerned across the divide to come to their senses, make love not war, why not join hands and work together for the good of the country and so forth, like that has ever worked.
Economic activity and prosperity (for whom?) may be seen as a panacea by some who believe that the rising water lift all boats. Unfortunately, given the set up and the priorities, the reality is more likely to be more rain where there’s plenty of water while the rest remains parched and barren.
Why would your journalist friends be offended with what I’ve said if, as you say “Nobody is saying that censorship has disappeared”? Would any of your journalist friends have the audacity to rigorously question a member of the Hluttaw on the lack of media freedom? Or why, as you put it, “…for most the process hasn’t changed.”? I hope one of your journalist friends rigorously interviews someone from the USDP/military!! If your journalist friends are offended with what I’ve said, they should not cower and lack the audacity to write about media freedom frankly, but instead go and question those at the source of the censorship. Surely your journalist friends wouldn’t be that offended, though! And a good thing, too!
I wasn’t sure why you mentioned groups will use the constitution to push for their own interests because I too was suggesting that constitutional ambiguity will be used to advocate for more media freedom. After the apparent offence caused to your journalist friends was mentioned first, I looked at the rest of your post as a critique with that in mind.
Which Reporters Without Borders report has been more accurate?
Great article. It is nice to see more Lao related articles on NM.
I wonder one thing. Has the whole thought of national and revolutionary building of statues, halls, and museums with foreign been new? It would seem to me that since 2000, this has been a trend, starting with the Kaysone Museums and the Cultural Hall. Would anyone care to elaborate?
> “Many author names and topics will be familiar to regular New Mandala readers.”
Some big names there. They seem to get bigger with every chapter although there are a few I’m not familiar with. I hope (well I sincerely doubt) those belonging to this collaborative effort don’t get cast off as “freelancers and stringers”.
Andrew makes an interesting point and I’d like to follow it up. Is there something wrong with being “a political activist in a country that is not [one’s] own”? If so why?
Speaking from my own point of view, I’ve been here for eleven years, all of them working in universities where doing my job properly as far as I’m concerned involves me thinking about things and talking about them. Nobody’s obliged to listen but I have that right and obligation. Also, I have fathered an 18 month old son here and I’d like to think that he’ll grow up in a society where freedom of speech and enquiry is the norm. Because of this, I think I do own the country to some extent even though I’m not recognized as a citizen or anything of that sort.
But that’s a false justification in a way. Everyone everywhere should have freedom of speech and thought and enquiry, even ten day tourists or backpackers. If I was in China or Russia or the USA or Burkina Faso, I don’t concede that the fact that I’m just a visitor means I can’t comment on what I see. “Truth and justice are indivisible”. “No man is an island, Everyone is part of the main” “Global citizenship” etc.
And I think Andrew’s right. Thailand’s major institutions have happily accepted praise and support from foreign commentators. They should learn to take the rough with the smooth.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Review of A Life’s Work
Lena #79, do you think that HM the king can take criticism? And if he can, why does he put those who disagrees with him behind bars?
And for the father of the language, his use of it is certainly … unique. And that’s just for starters.
Did the book touch heavily on these subjects? If not, then we can’t call it an honest biography, can we? Because they’re many controversial parts in his reign that LM makes illegal to even discuss.
‘Action speaks louder than words’, and there’s lots of action against one quote from years ago. We can only conclude that he might not object that strongly to LM uses after all.
And if it’s so, then this book isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.
Review of A Life’s Work
Lena, I see here by the thumbs that you are at least as as unloved as you claim Andrew is. Andrew, however, has contributed enormously to my understanding of Thailand, whether or not I agree with some parts, which is why I’m happy to put up with him without small-minded attacks on his person. Could you now please provide your own contribution to my understanding of Thailand or, as you have exhorted Andrew, simply shut up. To continue as you have is to waste the wonderful opportunity provided by this blog for people such as Handley, Marshall, Walker, Nostitz et al and their robust detractors to share their insights. I don’t have any great insights myself, but I enjoy the stimulating commentary and benefit from it. Whatever the source of your personal antipathy for Andrew, this really isn’t the forum for it. Unless you can come up with something better than you have, you’re just wasting space.
Review of A Life’s Work
#79
Paul Handley’s review does a very good job of both asking the questions and indeed answering them. His view, judging from what is written here, is that no book commissioned under these conditions could be seen as being academically pure nor could it be remotely considered a definitive source (what book could be?)…. But nor is it the worthless hagiographic whitewash that Mr Marshall believes it to be. It has value within a certain considered context.
Nor, lets be fair, is the overall conclusion sparing in its criticism.
“While an improvement over earlier official histories, this one is still unsatisfying. Not because of one’s own biases, but because it takes a Forrest Gump approach to history: in the movie a generation of events whiz by in a nostalgic haze. None is really bad or good; they just happened out of spontaneous generation, and Forrest was there for them all.”
He sees a lack of analysis, cohesion and evaluation, which considering his acknowledgment of the high quality of the writers hired, is fairly damning.
Questions are as much subject to rigor as are answers. Mr McElroy, if you don’t mind me asking, “How long have you been beating your wife?”
Review of A Life’s Work
@Lena #79
Incoherent equivocation that doesn’t answer the question:
Is KBAALW serious academic biography or not?
AMM has a point. You can try to run the clock out by dancing with your agenda, but you until you answer that question directly, you fail to convince.
Review of A Life’s Work
#75
“Is there something wrong with being “a political activist in a country that is not [one’s] own”? If so why?”
– Not intrinsically, no. But advocacy driving research is a different thing from research driving advocacy or research with no motivation to advocate at all. Of course, in reality, most commentators will take a view.
“Also, I have fathered an 18 month old son here and I’d like to think that he’ll grow up in a society where freedom of speech and enquiry is the norm.”
– Well you will have a while to wait it might seem judging by the actions of both this government and indeed the last.
“But that’s a false justification in a way. Everyone everywhere should have freedom of speech and thought and enquiry, even ten day tourists or backpackers. “
– Yes…. Indeed they should.
“If I was in China or Russia or the USA or Burkina Faso, I don’t concede that the fact that I’m just a visitor means I can’t comment on what I see.”
– Of course…. Had you also though about publishing 150,000 words on the internet to promote your views and vociferously putting forward those same views in a campaign involving social media?…. In these days of self-publishing it is possible for any man or woman to do that.
“Thailand’s major institutions have happily accepted praise and support from foreign commentators. They should learn to take the rough with the smooth.”
– Well they have precious little choice. But the fact that this might be true does not mean that every morsel of self-published advocacy is a gem, nor does it mean that the protagonists have ceased to be advocates.
#69
“The tally right now is one, isn’t it?”
– I think you will find that the Lese Majeste laws of Thailand have snared rather more unfortunates than one Mr Wright. Do you not think that one is a mite too many already? Also as Mr Macgregor Marshall says in #78, “Unfortunately we do not know the number of Thais who have been jailed for lese majeste since 2006. The system is so Orwellian that arrests and convictions are often kept secret.” ……. And some of those people might be in Room 101….. That is not a flippant comment Mr Wright.
#73
Mr Macgregor Marshall, I do believe that I made it clear to you that the answers to your questions were already written in the lines of text above your own.
“Do you concede that KBAALW is an activist text that seeks to propagate an idealized and sanitized version of Bhumibol’s life and career, rather than give a genuine critical analysis of his reign?”
– To quote #11, “Handley interprets the book specifically as the latest in a series of responses from the palace to pressure. His lack of vitriol, that appears to have dismayed some, is because he tackles the book from this perspective, soberly, and I think, appropriately.”
Handley says, “And again, hampered by excessive caution and some glaring equivocation, they fall short of where they need to be for the institution’s sake. But they go far enough to preserve Bhumibol’s image. And that seems to be the priority these days.”
He then adds, “Style-wise, this book is a jumble: a history of kingship in Siam, Bhumibol’s life by twelve-year cycle, his development work, and then, a section on hot issues around the monarchy: its wealth, the royal advisors, succession, and lèse majesté. We do not know who wrote and amended the different sections, but it seems clear that the editorial board kept the writers from going too far. Since the writers were some of the very people with which the palace needed to catch up and since they have reputations to protect, however, A Life’s Work is not a whitewash. It does not exactly seize control of the narrative, but it eases the palace into the twenty-first century.”
– Whilst this is hardly an endorsement it is not a judgment that concurs with your own. The most important phrase which Handley puts forward that is in clear contravention of your own views here is “A Life’s Work is not a whitewash. It does not exactly seize control of the narrative, but it eases the palace into the twenty-first century.”
“Or would you like to argue that it is indeed a serious academic biography that seeks to tell the truth about his reign?”
I would, like Paul Handley, say that it fits into neither template that you have proffered. In seeking an answer that you have already decided you want to have before examining the facts is a familiar methodological ploy of the advocate. It tips the balance of research from the genuine desire to seek the truth according to the facts into the desire to seek what you wish to be known before the facts are approached. It is a question of intention and it doesn’t make any difference how thorough your research is before you lower yourself into that trap and that definition.
“If your view is the latter”
– There are more than two views Mr Macgregor Marshall and that is something that Handley recognizes but you do not because you will need to restrict the debate in order to promote the answers that you have already decided you want. …… Anyway as they say up in Argyll, ‘Fear sam bith a loisgeas a mh├аs, ‘s e fhèin a dh’fheumas suidhe air’….. And yours might indeed be feeling a little intellectually tender just at the moment. It will pass.
Reviews and reviews and reviews
Minote Tripathi’s review seems to merely pile more lies and distortions on top of whatever KBAAWL has to offer. He tells us that the book provides “stunning descriptions of people, places and events we knew little about ” but is unable to elucidate on any such information in his review.
Then he tells us “the book ……… harks back to old Sukhothai, whose rulers pioneered the concept of kingship as paternalistic and righteous in the Buddhist sense. Every monarch since then has adhered to this moral template.” Really? Hard to see how Vajiravudh Rama VI adhered to that moral template, let alone some of the Ayutthayan kings.
Minote tells us that “the end of absolute monarchy in 1932 warrant[s] special attention.” and then proceeds to quote Prajadhipok’s abdication letter followed by the statement “Within days, Siam had a draft of its first constitution.” But the abdication speech was written in 1935 more than two years after Thailand’s first constitution was promulgated.
On the subject of Ananda’s death he tells us that one theory mentioned in the book involves Tsuji Masanobu, without mentioning that this is probably the most ridiculous theory of the many (He should perhaps read Andrew Marhall’s review where this is thoroughly handled).
Like many I have been unable to get my hands on KBAALW yet so perhaps I must take Minote on his word that “the lese majeste law is heavily discussed from a range of perspectives”
It does seem that KBAAWL will be used by many to trot out the same tired old myths surrounding the monarchy whilst purporting to be having an open and honest discussion of all issues.
Can Malaysia trust Najib?
Najib is a “PR (public Relation) made man” as oppose to a self made man. So is he a moderate, Yes. Is he really against extremism? Probably, but he is not one who would stand by “principles” and act against it. (extremism)
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Constitution is primarily for granting individual rights. If there is a democratic constitution, it is understood as a document that guarantees the safety and security of the entire citizens of the country; Burman and non-Burman alike. Imagine out of only close to 2 million Rohingyas during the 70’s, until now, one million were forced to leave the country with the excuse that they are “foreigners” in Burma. Ne Win’s notorious constitutional Act of 1982 is still there.
The premise is: If Rohingyas are accepted as Burmese people, but not as “intruders,” bringing changes in the constitutional Act is not going to be an act sidetracking or denying any Burmese issue because Rohingya issue becomes both a Burmese issue and a constitutional issue.Changes in the constitution issues like this and others would be a movement in the right direction for changes in other areas as well for everybody Burmese person.
True, Rohingya genocide has similarities and differences with Jewish genocide in Germany, but what is not true is BBC didn’t make up something about Rohingya people, it was already there and to inform the readers about the nature of the Rohingya genocide here are some sources:
—————————————————————————————“What is Rohingya genocide? http://burmadigest.info/2012/01/18/tell-me-what-is-rohingya-genocide-in-burma/)
————————————————————————————-
Stateless Rohingya…Running on Empty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wShJ0dv121U
Revolutionary statues reloaded
I don’t believe Faydang had any plots planned against the Party after 1975. He and his relative Nhiavu had been core members of the revolutionary movement since 1950. Nhiavu was one of the earliest members of the Party and he continued serving it until the 1990s. Faydang retired to his birthplace in Nong Haet in the 1980s. However, during the late 1970s Faydang was busy participating in various Front and SPA functions. Lofung Pablia is the Hmong official who went off the radar in 1975. As for Sithon Kommadam, his role after 1975 was limited to a few Front conferences and anniversary celebrations. Sithon had lived a hard life, having been struggling against ‘outsiders’ since his birth in 1910. He like most southern revolutionaries was probably riddled with parasites from rough living in the days of the maquis. Sure, not everything went sweet in his traditional birthplace, the Bolavens Plateau, after 1975 but Sithon never considered any sort of revolt. To be frank, the PL veterans were very disciplined in the late 1970s. It was only the late 1980s that the integrity of cadres went into serious decline.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Abid Bahar #16
I could have sworn that you are more concern about suffering Muslim in Myanmar only by your post @ BBC making Rohingya as the poster issue.
The fact is the whole country, the Citizenry of Myanmar is under siege, or suffering the genocidal— as you might put, by the present Dictators, as well as the west useless careless policy, instigated by DASSK, now prolonged by “how high can Thein Sein government jump” attitude.
As others proceed to discuss the merit of this constitution that a few short moment ago, if mentioned, will be called Junta Sympathizer, the last thing to do is giving these hypocrite another reason “The Rohingya to delay reversing the still ongoing useless careless policy that affect ALL Myanmar citizenry.
It will be quite a stretch to equate Rohingyas with Anti Semitic genocidal Nazi/Hitler PLANNED final solution. Unless of course you also accept ALL the Jewish/Isreal assertions UNEQUIVOCALLY.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Constitutions must matter, or the military regime wouldn’t have bothered to seek legitimacy in them in 1974 and again in 2008. Their latest must be unique in enshrining incontestable military domination for eternity even providing a ‘constitutional’ coup as and when necessary, beyond the frontiers that Indonesia’s military or any other had ever dared go before. That’s Burmese bloody-mindedness for you, and of course they don’t need to be reminded that they are not the only Burmese around.
Lintner’s point strikes a chord with ordinary Burmese, not the business class that stands to gain like the ‘international community’. To the regime securing 25% of seats in the legislative chamber endorsed by the ‘referendum’ isn’t nearly enough, even though to amend a bill 75% is mandatory which is well nigh impossible. To top it all, as a fail safe measure they formed their own party and managed to win a ‘landslide election victory’. How ASSK hopes to amend the 2008 Constitution in such a parliament stretches credulity – the chance of a snowball in hell. The next round in 2015 is being dangled in front like a great big juicy carrot, the handy big stick out of sight for now. Swe Swe Kyi’s comment on Lintner’s article is absolutely spot on, the whys and the wherefores.
That there is every indication that the current political, legal and constitutional format is here to stay reminds me of the conventional wisdom not so long ago that ‘the military dictatorship is here to say and we have no choice but to deal with it’. Power talks in any guise or format. It has parallels to an earlier era in our history when the older diarchy politicians such as Dr Ba Maw and U Saw tried to work with the colonial govt for greater self administration whilst younger Dobama Thakins pushed for a radical programme and full independence. Constitutions serve a purpose while they last.
Out of the Burmese daze?
Ko Moe Aung
This ‘single issue’ unfortunately is what will make or break the future.
Looking @ the topics that are being discussed, just a few weeks ago would have been accused of ‘junta coddling’ is now hope in the Dictators’ Constitution.
Where thou is thy righteous indignation?
While “barely acknowledge the appalling consequences they witness of regime policies and priorities, acts of commission as well as omission, ”
Still making these outright lies.
Is it because of your strong Man Friday nature that compel to overlook blatant westerners dictator coddling setiment?
Review of A Life’s Work
Jon Wright #76
Unfortunately we do not know the number of Thais who have been jailed for lese majeste since 2006. The system is so Orwellian that arrests and convictions are often kept secret. So we also don’t know how many people may have been jailed for disseminating or translating parts of TKNS. However of those we know about, besides Joe we should add Giles Gi Ungpakorn who fled to London to escape a lese majeste case related to him quoting a section of TKNS in ‘A Coup for the Rich’).
Bests
Andrew
Review of A Life’s Work
“Lena” #73
Not an adequate answer I’m afraid. Let me make it simpler for you. Do you concede that KBAALW is an activist text that seeks to propagate an idealized and sanitized version of Bhumibol’s life and career, rather than give a genuine critical analysis of his reign?
Or would you like to argue that it is indeed a serious academic biography that seeks to tell the truth about his reign?
If your view is the latter, it would be useful if you can enlighten us on how a serious academic text can be so mendacious about so many things (plenty identified by Paul Handley alone if you feel the need to disregard my own examples). Was this just an accident?
Once we have established whether or not you concede KBAALW is an activist text, we can then discuss whether or not its authors can be described as activists.
Thanks in advance!
Andrew
Out of the Burmese daze?
If there are some single issue campaigners on NM we’d have to include plan B and Jon Fernquest when it comes to sanctions. Between the two, Jon does a much better job, but they seem to share the same willful oversight as regards policy priorities of the regime since they cannot possibly be ignorant of the overall picture.
Whilst their faith in dog00ding regardless – lift the sanctions, CBOs, NGOs – is admirable, to barely acknowledge the appalling consequences they witness of regime policies and priorities, acts of commission as well as omission, is like applying poultice over a festering cancer, albeit of more practical help than prayer and calling on the parties concerned across the divide to come to their senses, make love not war, why not join hands and work together for the good of the country and so forth, like that has ever worked.
Economic activity and prosperity (for whom?) may be seen as a panacea by some who believe that the rising water lift all boats. Unfortunately, given the set up and the priorities, the reality is more likely to be more rain where there’s plenty of water while the rest remains parched and barren.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Kyaw,
Why would your journalist friends be offended with what I’ve said if, as you say “Nobody is saying that censorship has disappeared”? Would any of your journalist friends have the audacity to rigorously question a member of the Hluttaw on the lack of media freedom? Or why, as you put it, “…for most the process hasn’t changed.”? I hope one of your journalist friends rigorously interviews someone from the USDP/military!! If your journalist friends are offended with what I’ve said, they should not cower and lack the audacity to write about media freedom frankly, but instead go and question those at the source of the censorship. Surely your journalist friends wouldn’t be that offended, though! And a good thing, too!
I wasn’t sure why you mentioned groups will use the constitution to push for their own interests because I too was suggesting that constitutional ambiguity will be used to advocate for more media freedom. After the apparent offence caused to your journalist friends was mentioned first, I looked at the rest of your post as a critique with that in mind.
Which Reporters Without Borders report has been more accurate?
Review of A Life’s Work
@69 > “the incarceration of those poor souls who have been deemed guilty of propagating it [TKNS]”
The tally right now is one, isn’t it?
Revolutionary statues reloaded
Great article. It is nice to see more Lao related articles on NM.
I wonder one thing. Has the whole thought of national and revolutionary building of statues, halls, and museums with foreign been new? It would seem to me that since 2000, this has been a trend, starting with the Kaysone Museums and the Cultural Hall. Would anyone care to elaborate?
Bangkok May 2010
> “Many author names and topics will be familiar to regular New Mandala readers.”
Some big names there. They seem to get bigger with every chapter although there are a few I’m not familiar with. I hope (well I sincerely doubt) those belonging to this collaborative effort don’t get cast off as “freelancers and stringers”.
Review of A Life’s Work
Lena,
Andrew makes an interesting point and I’d like to follow it up. Is there something wrong with being “a political activist in a country that is not [one’s] own”? If so why?
Speaking from my own point of view, I’ve been here for eleven years, all of them working in universities where doing my job properly as far as I’m concerned involves me thinking about things and talking about them. Nobody’s obliged to listen but I have that right and obligation. Also, I have fathered an 18 month old son here and I’d like to think that he’ll grow up in a society where freedom of speech and enquiry is the norm. Because of this, I think I do own the country to some extent even though I’m not recognized as a citizen or anything of that sort.
But that’s a false justification in a way. Everyone everywhere should have freedom of speech and thought and enquiry, even ten day tourists or backpackers. If I was in China or Russia or the USA or Burkina Faso, I don’t concede that the fact that I’m just a visitor means I can’t comment on what I see. “Truth and justice are indivisible”. “No man is an island, Everyone is part of the main” “Global citizenship” etc.
And I think Andrew’s right. Thailand’s major institutions have happily accepted praise and support from foreign commentators. They should learn to take the rough with the smooth.