Contacts in the special branch police have informally warned me not to attempt to visit Thailand, and I am following this advice. As Frank #62 says, even though it seems unlikely that charges have been filed and a warrant issued (from my informal checks, I believe not), there would be a very high risk that once my presence on Thai soil is known, anybody could file a complaint and I could be arrested. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I have clearly broken Thai law, and so could be liable for arrest and detention if I visit.
> “Like everybody else, I assume that Handley and Marshall face arrest if they go to Thailand, but has there been an actual official excoriation and banning order by the Thai government charging them with a crime?”
At the end of the first part of Andrew MacGregor Marshall’s review: Anxious to get my hands on a copy, I ordered it by mail (I was not able to buy it in person in Thailand as special branch police have warned me that if I ever return there again I risk arrest and imprisonment because of what I have written).
re no. 63: ” My own view is that it was an ill-judged effort that fails to do this even on its own terms.”
Perhaps you mean on your terms. One would have to read the book of course but I haven’t seen anything here to suggest that the book damages the king’s reputation except with those whom the reputation was already at bottom.
The book is literally hot off the press; straight out “of the oven” as one of the editor’s said. I don’t even think it is available on Amazon yet. When we get more details from Mike or Pavin we will be sure to post them here. They may also be able to advise on its availability in Thailand, and elsewhere.
It looks good. People from both sides have contributed to the book.
I simply have two questions.
1. Where/when will this book be available? Will it be banned in Thailand?
2. TOC is a good start but it would be great if you could provide page number too so that you know exactly how much each authors has contributed to the book and whether their contribution is balanced. (See criticism in recent NM discussion about borrowing good names to increase the credibility of a book here http://www.newmandala.org/2012/01/13/reviewing-king-bhumibols-life/ )
If anybody could clarify how long Paethongthan Shinawatra lasted at McDonalds I think we would all benefit from the details. And, my other question still stands: does anybody out there know how long Thaksin worked at Kentucky Fried Chicken?
Just to say once again, I have no problems with the treatment I’m receiving (I am a Scot with an anger management problem and enjoy brawling), but the majority of readers of this discussion are not greatly interested to read comments that are about me rather than about the book, so I urge those wishing to denounce me to do so on the following thread instead, where I would be delighted to face you on the field of battle, and where we can engage in savage mutual bloodletting without annoying and boring everybody else:
Back to the book: like many of those who have commented above, I think there is of course space for multiple opinions about and approaches to KBAALW, and discussing them is illuminating for all of us. It is not a personal feud, and indeed anybody who has waded through my review will see how much credit it gives to Paul for the work he has done.
But one key area where I disagree with Paul’s assessment and that of some others who have commented above is their view that KBAALW is largely successful in its attempt to update the monarchy’s image and has done enough to burnish the king’s reputation. My own view is that it was an ill-judged effort that fails to do this even on its own terms.
We would not be having this kind of discussion about works like “Thailand’s Guiding Light” or “Strength of the Land” because they are both clearly hagiographies, full of nice photographs, and serving their purpose perfectly adequately. But KBAALW is being marketed as a very different book: academic, scholarly, a “definitive” version of the king’s life. Those are bold claims to make, and I think the fact the book falls so far short of meeting them leaves it open to legitimate attack. In the current climate of heightened debate about the institution, it was foolhardly for those who put this book together to claim it was a work that stands up to serious scrutiny, because now it has to face such scrutiny, and the results will not be pretty. In my view, it will end up being regarded a debacle of the same scale as The Revolutionary King.
If it was really a stunt, don’t u think by now reports or testimonies would have floated around that she lasted only a few weeks or was idling around the back office most of the time after the reporters are out of sight? I’m not pro-thaksin nor have I any vested interest in Thai politics but, if you’re gonna point the finger years after the incident, the least you can do is put some logic into it.
Does Burma’s constitution really matter? Well, it depends on who is valuing it. I think it’s hard to assess how much members of the Hluttaw really value the constitution, or really how much it is valued by the particular members that power gravitates around. It’s difficult to say because there is no media freedom, and subsequently, no journalist would have the audacity to question them on it. Also, perhaps foreign researchers who have ‘seen it all before’ and are determined to go for the jugular through the smoky veil of deception that shrouds Naypyidaw don’t really value it either. It does matter, however, that there is a constitution because, if anything, it is a political tool. It’s a political tool that could be used (and improved) by people other than the present ruling elite.
If the constitution is valued little, it can always be valued more when those involved in politics who have little value for it now have reason to value it more. The more the constitution is mentioned and is in the national psyche, the more the public will surely value it (even just the word: constitution), irrespective of how poorly written and loaded with negativity it actually is. Indeed, surely the current constitution’s uselessness could spur public support for amending it. Support for amending it could occur if the reforms of moving towards a free media and moving towards gaining the entire public’s acceptance of law enforcement are being fulfilled. That way critiques of the constitution can be made without fear by people who really value it. Until Naypyidaw moves towards implementing those two reforms, everyone shall surely be in limbo when trying to assess what has actually changed, or valued or not valued in, what is at present as Lintner calls it, the ‘thinly disguised authoritarian state’.
The popularity of often identifying democracy as the main victim of repression in Thailand is possibly an oversight.
The real victim in Thailand is self-determination of any kind, a much wider issue and why the bad guys seem to be winning at the moment. The May 2010 culmination of repressed anger and frustration happened to be Red shirt in on a wider aspect it was people, people, who have had enough and who want to be able to determine their own present and their own future. This is the problem. The Thai state will not allow this.
I’d like to see, among the reams of research, analysis of individual “leaders” of Thailand’s legal infrastructure, such as in the Law Reform Commission chaired by a 73 year-old loyal fundamentalist/traditionalist, and the links between them and projected outcomes of various social issues. It seems helpful to identify personalities that are part of the culture that is more widely observable. Of course, once you begin naming Thais by name, then you are subject to criminal defamation accusations.
Becoming more and more familiar as each day passes with my own criminal defamation fiasco here in the kingdom (since 2008) and still not being charged officially, I would like to address the Thainess aspects of consequences of going south of the law here knowingly or unknowingly.
As in several other cases, a person may never know an arrest warrant has been issued, especially in a lese majeste case, until one is actually detained and arrested. Also, such warrant itself may often not be issued until the person enters/re-enters Thailand. Given logic only, it does not seem logical that Thai authorities have actually issued arrest warrants against the two. But money says they would if the two were to enter the kingdom. And anyone, from an official to his computer to a private citizen, might flag the arrival and opportunity for arrest.
There are two possibilities re. arrest or no arrest. First is that because of their “contributions” to freedom of speech, some Bad Samaritan has filed a lese majeste complaint and based on that with whatever evidence was gathered (a lot by now?) police have prepared to arrange for initial detention and then charge and arrest. The second possibility is that everyone is waiting for a Red Flag (either of them to re-enter the kingdom) before official action or even charges are seriously considered. Making such official charges public at this time when it is not necessary would further “harm Thailand’s image” and so why do so?
In a sense, Handley and Marshall could be in the same boat as was Nicolaides some time ago. Show up and bang! While the lese majeste and criminal defamation regime more generally are harsh and cut human rights and free speech corners (I am understating) the Thai ways of handling things will not follow accumulated Western expectations. Thus, playing it safe means not testing the system by showing up.
In this matter, note that recently the Thai government has stated it intends to make lese majeste cases even more secret. This is not a good sign, other than it shows that both domestic and international shouts against these laws are becoming at least an inconvenience to the Thai state.
Respect for constitutions, coming elections, prospects of reform, Present government of Thein Sein, China, N.Korea, Indonesia etc
only make the following points again
1) Same circuitous matters repeated without any tangible benefits or enough exposé to real continual Citizenry of Myanmar suffering.
2) It justify continuing or delay abrogating present useless careless policy.
3) It absolve the combined iniquities of the west and all the protagonists and running dogs.
Everyone except the present government has lost one way or another.
Until the pointed discussions of how to directly and boldly benefit the citizenry is brought forth, changing Myanmar will never happen.
ASSK managed not to go the way of Cory Aquino in 1988 to the detriment of the nation and herself – a defeat of the uprising and a very long interregnum of incarceration/repression.
A lawsuit, albeit a ridiculous one, is surely a drastic improvement but reserved for someone of ASSK’s stature as we’ve seen in the case of William Yettaw. Lesser mortals are rather more likely to be beaten up, arrested and tortured, if they are lucky enough to avoid the 5.56 mm bullet. They did try a blunt instrument on her at Depayin in 2003.
You wouldn’t believe it’s actually the very same people who decided to change tack, all in line with their goal of seeking legitimacy for and consolidating military domination nonetheless, and the same Lady who almost got dispatched in a final solution they evidently sought at the time.
The current charm offensive had to drag on since they have yet to get the sanctions comprehensively lifted. And they did try to hold back on the release of the political prisoners whose existence they categorically continue to deny. They still have to reach a basic ceasefire deal with the Kachin, never mind genuine reconciliation which cannot be said to have achieved with the mainstream opposition. In any case they seem to be on a roll.
People will enjoy and make the most of the window of opportunity with some limited freedoms on offer for the time being. Expectations will rise, and the Burmese are not known to hold back once the door goes ajar. They’ll push as far and hard as they can, and whether the NLD this time as well as the govt will find it enough of a nuisance and more crucially a challenge to their office and leadership role remains to be seen.
Burma today is more likely to find its own way than follow any other examples or ‘role models’ (the 1948 constitution was modelled after Yugoslavia), but there’s plenty to learn from others, not least the Arab Spring.
Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution is an amendment which is against the spirit of our original constitution and it shouldbe declared null and void as per Article 4. Our FC is supposed to be the supreme law of the land but this amendment has taken out it’s supremacy and is therefore invalid, whether passed by Parliament or not.
It is the same catch 22 situations Muslims find themselves in, in most areas. Kamariah wanted to apostatize but not allowed to and when she practised her belief, she was charged for deviant preaching and the like. Muslims have been preaching that their religion is most compassionate and peaceful but their actions do not portray those values when it matters most.
The controversial laws and amendments aside, do you personally think that the actions against Kamariah, Lina Joy, Revathi and other similar cases are justified and morally right? Your stance would indicate your humanity and how strong your faith is as well.
“So I suppose my question is: does Burma’s constitution really matter?”
Regarding the “constitutional laxity” this isn’t the most important question for me.
The rather interesting one is: How can Burma progress on its way to democracy (as it is said in paragraph 6 of the “Basic Principles of the Union”: “The Union’s consistent objects are …flourishing of a genuine, disciplined multi-party democratic system, enhacing the eternal priciples of Justice, Liberty and Equality…”) if the constitution itself is in great parts not “democratic” in a western sense at all (for example later on in paragraph 6: …enabling the Defence Services to be able to participate in the National political leadership of the state.” Or in many other paragraphs such as 11 (a), 17 (b), 20, 33, only to mention a few).
That’s a very good point. Like everybody else, I assume that Handley and Marshall face arrest if they go to Thailand, but has there been an actual official excoriation and banning order by the Thai government charging them with a crime? Perhaps someone knowledgeable about these things (Bangkok Pundit maybe) can point us to any official line on Handley and Marshall’s status? I remember some time back that Andrew Walker was “informed” through some mysterious unofficial grapevine that his presence at an event in Thailand would be unwelcome. Perhaps Marshall and Handley have simply been similarly informed? I beg your patience as I’m sure all this has probably been discussed before.
> “I think he might have been surprised by Handley’s take on the book”
Absolutely. I disagree that he’s getting a bit of a kicking. More like being slapped around the thighs with happy clappers by a posse of aunties teetering under bags of shopping.
How much has this useless careless policy deprived the future of Citizenry of Myanmar, compared to what you have mentioned so well on some of this present government behavior?
In terms of Education, Health Care and Economics.
Labeling obvious passion for the benefit of the most vulnerable as anything else need to stop.
Especially when we both agree on the tragic results that are ongoing among the most vulnerable within and outside Myanmar.
I can recount umpteen similar and worst tragedies that transpired at Dr Cynthia’s Clinics. A microcosm of within Myanmar.
1) Children dying from repeated Malaria, other preventable infections and simple trauma.
2) The hopelessness and ignorance of teens and adults, choosing ‘penile enlargement’ with unspeakable results.
3) Kinds of Pathology such as Stage 4+ Breast cancer that only this useless careless policy can produce!
4)The stoic grief of their loved ones.
As much affection for this present and past administrations as for the useless careless policy by the west, we need to do everything to highlight the truth concerning the misery of the most vulnerable Myanmar Citizenry to all these armchair haters of dictators.
Paralleling the adage on policy “It is all about the economy stupid”
for Myanmar
“It must be all about the Citizenry well being.”
Maybe the constitution is not so much imporant in Burma as Lintner seems to imply, but it ‘s also necessary to point out that this SE Asia’s “constitutional laxity” is mostly encouraged and used by the powers-that-be to reinforce or preserve the status quo and their grip on power, much more used anyway than to advance democracy (Thailand is again a case in point). Anyway, in Burma, it’s likely that constitutional changes will be introduced by the same people who wrote the constitution (not only because the constitution provides for it, but because, and more importantly, the balance of power in Burma is strongly in their favour and it seems that this will be the case in the foreseeable future) and it’s almost unthinkable that they would intoduce changes that could affect substantially their privileged position in the power structure of the country. I think that the sober analysis of Lintner still holds water, specially among so much excessively optimistic accounts of recent developments in Burma.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Review of A Life’s Work
Jon #65 / stuart #61
Contacts in the special branch police have informally warned me not to attempt to visit Thailand, and I am following this advice. As Frank #62 says, even though it seems unlikely that charges have been filed and a warrant issued (from my informal checks, I believe not), there would be a very high risk that once my presence on Thai soil is known, anybody could file a complaint and I could be arrested. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I have clearly broken Thai law, and so could be liable for arrest and detention if I visit.
Review of A Life’s Work
Stuart:
> “Like everybody else, I assume that Handley and Marshall face arrest if they go to Thailand, but has there been an actual official excoriation and banning order by the Thai government charging them with a crime?”
At the end of the first part of Andrew MacGregor Marshall’s review: Anxious to get my hands on a copy, I ordered it by mail (I was not able to buy it in person in Thailand as special branch police have warned me that if I ever return there again I risk arrest and imprisonment because of what I have written).
Review of A Life’s Work
re no. 63: ” My own view is that it was an ill-judged effort that fails to do this even on its own terms.”
Perhaps you mean on your terms. One would have to read the book of course but I haven’t seen anything here to suggest that the book damages the king’s reputation except with those whom the reputation was already at bottom.
Bangkok May 2010
Thanks bookworm,
The book is literally hot off the press; straight out “of the oven” as one of the editor’s said. I don’t even think it is available on Amazon yet. When we get more details from Mike or Pavin we will be sure to post them here. They may also be able to advise on its availability in Thailand, and elsewhere.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Bangkok May 2010
It looks good. People from both sides have contributed to the book.
I simply have two questions.
1. Where/when will this book be available? Will it be banned in Thailand?
2. TOC is a good start but it would be great if you could provide page number too so that you know exactly how much each authors has contributed to the book and whether their contribution is balanced. (See criticism in recent NM discussion about borrowing good names to increase the credibility of a book here http://www.newmandala.org/2012/01/13/reviewing-king-bhumibols-life/ )
The wages of Paethongtan Shinawatra
Thanks Z,
I hadn’t thought about this for years.
If anybody could clarify how long Paethongthan Shinawatra lasted at McDonalds I think we would all benefit from the details. And, my other question still stands: does anybody out there know how long Thaksin worked at Kentucky Fried Chicken?
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Review of A Life’s Work
Just to say once again, I have no problems with the treatment I’m receiving (I am a Scot with an anger management problem and enjoy brawling), but the majority of readers of this discussion are not greatly interested to read comments that are about me rather than about the book, so I urge those wishing to denounce me to do so on the following thread instead, where I would be delighted to face you on the field of battle, and where we can engage in savage mutual bloodletting without annoying and boring everybody else:
http://www.newmandala.org/2012/01/13/reviewing-king-bhumibols-life/
Back to the book: like many of those who have commented above, I think there is of course space for multiple opinions about and approaches to KBAALW, and discussing them is illuminating for all of us. It is not a personal feud, and indeed anybody who has waded through my review will see how much credit it gives to Paul for the work he has done.
But one key area where I disagree with Paul’s assessment and that of some others who have commented above is their view that KBAALW is largely successful in its attempt to update the monarchy’s image and has done enough to burnish the king’s reputation. My own view is that it was an ill-judged effort that fails to do this even on its own terms.
We would not be having this kind of discussion about works like “Thailand’s Guiding Light” or “Strength of the Land” because they are both clearly hagiographies, full of nice photographs, and serving their purpose perfectly adequately. But KBAALW is being marketed as a very different book: academic, scholarly, a “definitive” version of the king’s life. Those are bold claims to make, and I think the fact the book falls so far short of meeting them leaves it open to legitimate attack. In the current climate of heightened debate about the institution, it was foolhardly for those who put this book together to claim it was a work that stands up to serious scrutiny, because now it has to face such scrutiny, and the results will not be pretty. In my view, it will end up being regarded a debacle of the same scale as The Revolutionary King.
The wages of Paethongtan Shinawatra
If it was really a stunt, don’t u think by now reports or testimonies would have floated around that she lasted only a few weeks or was idling around the back office most of the time after the reporters are out of sight? I’m not pro-thaksin nor have I any vested interest in Thai politics but, if you’re gonna point the finger years after the incident, the least you can do is put some logic into it.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Does Burma’s constitution really matter? Well, it depends on who is valuing it. I think it’s hard to assess how much members of the Hluttaw really value the constitution, or really how much it is valued by the particular members that power gravitates around. It’s difficult to say because there is no media freedom, and subsequently, no journalist would have the audacity to question them on it. Also, perhaps foreign researchers who have ‘seen it all before’ and are determined to go for the jugular through the smoky veil of deception that shrouds Naypyidaw don’t really value it either. It does matter, however, that there is a constitution because, if anything, it is a political tool. It’s a political tool that could be used (and improved) by people other than the present ruling elite.
If the constitution is valued little, it can always be valued more when those involved in politics who have little value for it now have reason to value it more. The more the constitution is mentioned and is in the national psyche, the more the public will surely value it (even just the word: constitution), irrespective of how poorly written and loaded with negativity it actually is. Indeed, surely the current constitution’s uselessness could spur public support for amending it. Support for amending it could occur if the reforms of moving towards a free media and moving towards gaining the entire public’s acceptance of law enforcement are being fulfilled. That way critiques of the constitution can be made without fear by people who really value it. Until Naypyidaw moves towards implementing those two reforms, everyone shall surely be in limbo when trying to assess what has actually changed, or valued or not valued in, what is at present as Lintner calls it, the ‘thinly disguised authoritarian state’.
Bangkok May 2010
The popularity of often identifying democracy as the main victim of repression in Thailand is possibly an oversight.
The real victim in Thailand is self-determination of any kind, a much wider issue and why the bad guys seem to be winning at the moment. The May 2010 culmination of repressed anger and frustration happened to be Red shirt in on a wider aspect it was people, people, who have had enough and who want to be able to determine their own present and their own future. This is the problem. The Thai state will not allow this.
I’d like to see, among the reams of research, analysis of individual “leaders” of Thailand’s legal infrastructure, such as in the Law Reform Commission chaired by a 73 year-old loyal fundamentalist/traditionalist, and the links between them and projected outcomes of various social issues. It seems helpful to identify personalities that are part of the culture that is more widely observable. Of course, once you begin naming Thais by name, then you are subject to criminal defamation accusations.
Review of A Life’s Work
Becoming more and more familiar as each day passes with my own criminal defamation fiasco here in the kingdom (since 2008) and still not being charged officially, I would like to address the Thainess aspects of consequences of going south of the law here knowingly or unknowingly.
As in several other cases, a person may never know an arrest warrant has been issued, especially in a lese majeste case, until one is actually detained and arrested. Also, such warrant itself may often not be issued until the person enters/re-enters Thailand. Given logic only, it does not seem logical that Thai authorities have actually issued arrest warrants against the two. But money says they would if the two were to enter the kingdom. And anyone, from an official to his computer to a private citizen, might flag the arrival and opportunity for arrest.
There are two possibilities re. arrest or no arrest. First is that because of their “contributions” to freedom of speech, some Bad Samaritan has filed a lese majeste complaint and based on that with whatever evidence was gathered (a lot by now?) police have prepared to arrange for initial detention and then charge and arrest. The second possibility is that everyone is waiting for a Red Flag (either of them to re-enter the kingdom) before official action or even charges are seriously considered. Making such official charges public at this time when it is not necessary would further “harm Thailand’s image” and so why do so?
In a sense, Handley and Marshall could be in the same boat as was Nicolaides some time ago. Show up and bang! While the lese majeste and criminal defamation regime more generally are harsh and cut human rights and free speech corners (I am understating) the Thai ways of handling things will not follow accumulated Western expectations. Thus, playing it safe means not testing the system by showing up.
In this matter, note that recently the Thai government has stated it intends to make lese majeste cases even more secret. This is not a good sign, other than it shows that both domestic and international shouts against these laws are becoming at least an inconvenience to the Thai state.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Nich
It appear that discussion on:
Respect for constitutions, coming elections, prospects of reform, Present government of Thein Sein, China, N.Korea, Indonesia etc
only make the following points again
1) Same circuitous matters repeated without any tangible benefits or enough exposé to real continual Citizenry of Myanmar suffering.
2) It justify continuing or delay abrogating present useless careless policy.
3) It absolve the combined iniquities of the west and all the protagonists and running dogs.
Everyone except the present government has lost one way or another.
Until the pointed discussions of how to directly and boldly benefit the citizenry is brought forth, changing Myanmar will never happen.
Can Burma learn from Indonesia?
ASSK managed not to go the way of Cory Aquino in 1988 to the detriment of the nation and herself – a defeat of the uprising and a very long interregnum of incarceration/repression.
A lawsuit, albeit a ridiculous one, is surely a drastic improvement but reserved for someone of ASSK’s stature as we’ve seen in the case of William Yettaw. Lesser mortals are rather more likely to be beaten up, arrested and tortured, if they are lucky enough to avoid the 5.56 mm bullet. They did try a blunt instrument on her at Depayin in 2003.
You wouldn’t believe it’s actually the very same people who decided to change tack, all in line with their goal of seeking legitimacy for and consolidating military domination nonetheless, and the same Lady who almost got dispatched in a final solution they evidently sought at the time.
The current charm offensive had to drag on since they have yet to get the sanctions comprehensively lifted. And they did try to hold back on the release of the political prisoners whose existence they categorically continue to deny. They still have to reach a basic ceasefire deal with the Kachin, never mind genuine reconciliation which cannot be said to have achieved with the mainstream opposition. In any case they seem to be on a roll.
People will enjoy and make the most of the window of opportunity with some limited freedoms on offer for the time being. Expectations will rise, and the Burmese are not known to hold back once the door goes ajar. They’ll push as far and hard as they can, and whether the NLD this time as well as the govt will find it enough of a nuisance and more crucially a challenge to their office and leadership role remains to be seen.
Burma today is more likely to find its own way than follow any other examples or ‘role models’ (the 1948 constitution was modelled after Yugoslavia), but there’s plenty to learn from others, not least the Arab Spring.
Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view
To Namaku Muhammad #43
Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution is an amendment which is against the spirit of our original constitution and it shouldbe declared null and void as per Article 4. Our FC is supposed to be the supreme law of the land but this amendment has taken out it’s supremacy and is therefore invalid, whether passed by Parliament or not.
It is the same catch 22 situations Muslims find themselves in, in most areas. Kamariah wanted to apostatize but not allowed to and when she practised her belief, she was charged for deviant preaching and the like. Muslims have been preaching that their religion is most compassionate and peaceful but their actions do not portray those values when it matters most.
The controversial laws and amendments aside, do you personally think that the actions against Kamariah, Lina Joy, Revathi and other similar cases are justified and morally right? Your stance would indicate your humanity and how strong your faith is as well.
May good sense prevail.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
“So I suppose my question is: does Burma’s constitution really matter?”
Regarding the “constitutional laxity” this isn’t the most important question for me.
The rather interesting one is: How can Burma progress on its way to democracy (as it is said in paragraph 6 of the “Basic Principles of the Union”: “The Union’s consistent objects are …flourishing of a genuine, disciplined multi-party democratic system, enhacing the eternal priciples of Justice, Liberty and Equality…”) if the constitution itself is in great parts not “democratic” in a western sense at all (for example later on in paragraph 6: …enabling the Defence Services to be able to participate in the National political leadership of the state.” Or in many other paragraphs such as 11 (a), 17 (b), 20, 33, only to mention a few).
Review of A Life’s Work
Jon #54
That’s a very good point. Like everybody else, I assume that Handley and Marshall face arrest if they go to Thailand, but has there been an actual official excoriation and banning order by the Thai government charging them with a crime? Perhaps someone knowledgeable about these things (Bangkok Pundit maybe) can point us to any official line on Handley and Marshall’s status? I remember some time back that Andrew Walker was “informed” through some mysterious unofficial grapevine that his presence at an event in Thailand would be unwelcome. Perhaps Marshall and Handley have simply been similarly informed? I beg your patience as I’m sure all this has probably been discussed before.
Review of A Life’s Work
#54 > “Given how TKNS and Handley have been treated by Thai authorities, … ”
How has Paul Handley been treated by Thai authorities?
Review of A Life’s Work
> “I think he might have been surprised by Handley’s take on the book”
Absolutely. I disagree that he’s getting a bit of a kicking. More like being slapped around the thighs with happy clappers by a posse of aunties teetering under bags of shopping.
Out of the Burmese daze?
LD
Food for thought:
How much has this useless careless policy deprived the future of Citizenry of Myanmar, compared to what you have mentioned so well on some of this present government behavior?
In terms of Education, Health Care and Economics.
Labeling obvious passion for the benefit of the most vulnerable as anything else need to stop.
Especially when we both agree on the tragic results that are ongoing among the most vulnerable within and outside Myanmar.
I can recount umpteen similar and worst tragedies that transpired at Dr Cynthia’s Clinics. A microcosm of within Myanmar.
1) Children dying from repeated Malaria, other preventable infections and simple trauma.
2) The hopelessness and ignorance of teens and adults, choosing ‘penile enlargement’ with unspeakable results.
3) Kinds of Pathology such as Stage 4+ Breast cancer that only this useless careless policy can produce!
4)The stoic grief of their loved ones.
As much affection for this present and past administrations as for the useless careless policy by the west, we need to do everything to highlight the truth concerning the misery of the most vulnerable Myanmar Citizenry to all these armchair haters of dictators.
Paralleling the adage on policy “It is all about the economy stupid”
for Myanmar
“It must be all about the Citizenry well being.”
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Maybe the constitution is not so much imporant in Burma as Lintner seems to imply, but it ‘s also necessary to point out that this SE Asia’s “constitutional laxity” is mostly encouraged and used by the powers-that-be to reinforce or preserve the status quo and their grip on power, much more used anyway than to advance democracy (Thailand is again a case in point). Anyway, in Burma, it’s likely that constitutional changes will be introduced by the same people who wrote the constitution (not only because the constitution provides for it, but because, and more importantly, the balance of power in Burma is strongly in their favour and it seems that this will be the case in the foreseeable future) and it’s almost unthinkable that they would intoduce changes that could affect substantially their privileged position in the power structure of the country. I think that the sober analysis of Lintner still holds water, specially among so much excessively optimistic accounts of recent developments in Burma.