I refer you to #11…. And indeed to Handley’s review where well thought out context is provided and your questions mostly answered.
“And if so, that therefore the foreign authors who worked on it are also political activists in a country that is not their own?”
I would not describe the authors who worked on this book as activists. Baker is an admirably impartial academic. Cummings is an expert on religion and culture respected by his academic peers within the Thai academic community. Streckfuss is a leading light on the Lese majeste debate. Horn and Ehrlich are respected as long standing news men in the Asian region. Faulder is also a reporter with an excellent record particularly with regards to Burma and Cambodia. Dr. Porphant Ouyyanont’s area of knowledge on the business dealings is recognised. None of them could be described as activists. They are a wide ranging team of professional writers, academics and journalists as Handley points out in his review even though he is not a fan of the book.
It is especially interesting that, like Souphanouvong himself, Sithon and Faydang are known to have expressed considerable unhappiness with aspects of the Lao PDR government after 1975. Faydang is even rumoured to have planned a revolt against the government in 1976-77. So, it is not only those who actually really supported the government after 1975 who are being promoted, but even those who were seemingly quite critical of the government. Sure, they were strong Pathet Lao supporters before 1975 but things got muddier after 1975. I think the positions of Sithon and Faydang were more than simply “ambiguous” after 1975, and their positioning within the government’s official historiography is really quite ironic.
Pla B #12 said:
“What make the Rhohingya so unique that this ethnic group among 100+ deserve more attention than others including the Bamar, the whole Citizenry of Myanmar?”
It is about saving innocent lives!
Rohingya issue is supremely important because it to stop genocide. It is to chose life over improving life style-the essence of protecting human rights. To the Nazis during the 30’s it was about improving their life style but to the German Jews, it was to save lives.
Your comments do raise one interesting issue which could be usefully discussed here. You describe me as “a political activist in a country that is not his own”.
Would you concede that KBAALW is an explicitly activist work? And if so, that therefore the foreign authors who worked on it are also political activists in a country that is not their own?
I’ve said this twice already. I’ll repeat it a third time in the hope the message gets through. I won’t respond to personal attacks in this discussion because they are a distraction from the debate on KBAALW and most readers have no interest in reading them. So if you feel the urge to denounce me further, a more appropriate place to do it would be here http://www.newmandala.org/2012/01/13/reviewing-king-bhumibols-life/ and I would be happy to respond to you on that thread.
As Somsak Jeamteerasakul said in comment #16, the issue of whether or not I am a clueless idiot really has no bearing on the issue under discussion here, which is the quality or otherwise of KBAALW.
Most people I know would not see that CPJ report as reflective of reality inside Myanmar. I think Reporters Without Borders has been more accurate. The CPJ report is also quite out of date. Reporters are allowed into the parliament (and were even when this report was published on September 20). Foreign journalists, including exile media, have been invited to visit on jouranlist visas, although only to cover the visits of foreign dignitaries. A number of reporters, mostly from DVB, imprisoned under the military government were released last week.
And I’m not really sure what you mean when you ask who my friends work for. Most of the major news journals in the country? Nobody is saying that censorship has disappeared. In fact for most the process hasn’t changed. However, the relaxation of censorship has been significant. The diversity of media ownership in Myanmar and the lack of political affiliations among the publishers means the industry is better placed than some of its counterparts elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
And by going around the constitution I meant Thein Sein used the criminal code (I can’t remember the exact section) rather than the constitution to issue the amnesty.
Yes the constitution doesn’t enshrine media freedom but what I meant was journalists will use its ambiguity (who says what is contrary to the security of the state, for example) to advocate for more freedom. And why you inferred that I was saying that was a negative thing I have no idea.
A flawed constitution is still a constitution and there to be amended. Of course, the constitution is used by all groups (and all people) for their own interests. Are you implying that this is a bad thing? The world would surely collapse if people pursued their own interests!
How did Thein Sein ‘go around’ the constitution? The 2008 constitution is rather amorphous.
Section 354 of the constitution does not enshrine media freedom at all. It merely mentions that people can express their convictions and opinions freely with the proviso that it does not interfere with the security of the state. With the direction of the state being based on the extremely insecure objective of ‘not to disintegrate’, this is an highly prohibitive proviso as anything could be interfering with the security of the state if deemed so by the people whose interests the current constitution really serves: as you say, those who were in power when it was written.
#68
Not certain what it is that you have against the Scots….
The fact is that Mr Macgregor Marshall’s writings lean heavily on those of Mr Handley. He quotes him constantly. Essentially his writing can be be seen as an extended appendix update of Mr Handley’s original text employing some new source material. The difference between the two commentators is clear though. Whilst not doubting Macgregor Marshall’s past work for the wire service which until recently employed him, he is not now acting as a journalist but rather as a political activist in a country that is not his own. This is not something one could accuse Mr Handley of doing in spite of the radical nature of his work as witnessed by the banning of his book and the incarceration of those poor souls who have been deemed guilty of propagating it….
The fact is that Mr Macgregor Marshall has thrown a a huge party here in expectations a feast…. But devastatingly for him, the two most respected guests of honour declined to turn up.
I think most of my journalist friends working inside the country would be offended by your remark on the lack of media freedom! You’ve obviously not been paying a lot of attention lately.
On the constitution’s “uselessness”, I know quite a few people that see exactly what is happening now – top-down reform – as the value of a flawed constitution that managed to secure the interests of those who were in power when it was written.
Also, the way that President Thein Sein seemingly went around the constitution (and National Defence and Security Council) to release political prisoners last week shows the constitution is not all-powerful in Myanmar in 2012. I think most groups will use the constitution to push their own interests, however. Journalists say it enshrines freedom of press, for example, and then use it as justification to call for ending of censorship.
What make the Rhohingya so unique that this ethnic group among 100+ deserve more attention than others including the Bamar, the whole Citizenry of Myanmar?
Mr. Lintner has blinders on, and is a prisoner of his own misunderstandings about the functionings and creation of a democracy.
While of course there severe hamperings in the constitution regarding mostly, the military’s role, I am constantly fascinated by how no pundits or writers pick up on some of the more positive developments the constitution has provided, such as:
– a certain level of decentralization
– autonomous zones for some ethnic groups
– the creation of a bicameral legislature
– the outlawing of effective military rule of states/divisions by replacing regional commanders with Chief Ministers and their cabinets.
– the discussion in both parliaments, of what were previously extremely sensitive issues. government officials publicly defending and explaining their policies for the first time.
I’m not arguing that its a 100% benevolent constitution, but find it interesting that no one focuses on some of the less sexy progress thats happened in the past year…
Burma’s Ethnic Issue
————————–
Optimism is good, we all are happy at the changes the new government has undertaken. But here by not dealing with the main issue, the problem remains hidden and perhaps unsolved as well. The main issue is the ethnic problems.
Constitutional changes truly matters especially in countries like Burma with many strong ethnic minorities because Burma’s problem is not fundamentally a democracy problem; in its essence it is the problem of sharing power with ethnic minorities. Burma failed miserably in this sharing experiment. ( Read Abid Bahar’s book, “BURMA’s MISSING DOTS,” 2010 for details)
If past experience is any guide we see it was U Nu accepting the minority’s federalist demands that led to the toppling of his elected government. Ne Win and his fellow military coup leader ever since have been fighting against the rebels.
The latest changes we can see in democratic reforms is coming from India playing behind the scene to remove Burma from Chinese influence and in exchange the sweetener the military is getting is that its sins perhaps will be erased. But Burma will never go against China, it will continue to play its cat and mouse game it is familiar with.
Change or no change, nothing significant has happened in the direction of the roadblocks in ethnic areas. If we recall, the denying of the Rohingya citizenship rights was done in 1982 by Ne Win passing a constitutional Act. This black Act was not yet revoked to show the world at least superficially that genocide in ethnic minority areas were brought to an end. ( See “What is Rohingya genocide? http://burmadigest.info/2012/01/18/tell-me-what-is-rohingya-genocide-in-burma/)
Talking about the Rohingya genocide, of course Arakan is a triangle where the Rakhine-Rohingya Buma tri parties and racial favoritism by the military deployed in the region makes the issue more complicated. Furthermore, Rakhines are only 5% of the Burmese population but are 30% in the army, making the issue more tilting toward the Rakhines.
Recent report shows that while there has been small changes taking place in Rangoon and in the new capital Naypyidaw but nothing significant has happened yet in ethnic areas like in Kachine, Karen, Chin or in Arakan areas.
It seems that more than constitutional changes what is urgently needed is the changes in education to demystify that Buma people are not a master race and minorities are not the guest people or foreigners in Burma. So constitutional changes are necessary particularly to stop genocide of Rohingyas and other ethnic groups demanding their rights codified in a federalist constitution. But again more importantly, the dominant Buma people have to be educated in to respect and tolerate ethnic minorities as equal human beings.
Debating whether this dictator will be different is akin to predicting the weather in hell will be at anytime.
Ne Win went constitutional with BSPP, with great respect and affection manipulated to the hilt to his own advantages with little benefit to the citizenry, and the west described him, “enigmatic”.
1) No independent Judiciary, as everywhere else in Asia except Singapore
2)Almost impossible to be an independently elected Hluttaw, even with Daw AUng San Suu Kyi in it.
3) With a perpetual chosen insider to the dictator as a President
The west is now discussing nonsensical possibilities. All the expats are chiming in.
Either this is an attempt to being obtuse or continuing the white washing of the iniquities of the ongoing policy.
This ‘much to do about nothing’ at best, over compensating for the fantasy of changes by the dictators at worst will again put the Citizenry of Myanmar benefits 2┬║ to every thing else in the ongoing engagement.
This rather contradict the concept of changes must come from within.
Thanks for this.
The book is currently available at ISEAS–you can order through its website.
ISEAS has worked with Silkworm Books in Thailand, and Silkworm will publish the book for sale in Thailand alone (but without accompanying photos to reduce the cost of the book–so it will be more affordable for Thai readers).
I will be able to tell you more later when this book will be available in Thailand.
Pavin
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Review of A Life’s Work
#73
I refer you to #11…. And indeed to Handley’s review where well thought out context is provided and your questions mostly answered.
“And if so, that therefore the foreign authors who worked on it are also political activists in a country that is not their own?”
I would not describe the authors who worked on this book as activists. Baker is an admirably impartial academic. Cummings is an expert on religion and culture respected by his academic peers within the Thai academic community. Streckfuss is a leading light on the Lese majeste debate. Horn and Ehrlich are respected as long standing news men in the Asian region. Faulder is also a reporter with an excellent record particularly with regards to Burma and Cambodia. Dr. Porphant Ouyyanont’s area of knowledge on the business dealings is recognised. None of them could be described as activists. They are a wide ranging team of professional writers, academics and journalists as Handley points out in his review even though he is not a fan of the book.
Revolutionary statues reloaded
It is especially interesting that, like Souphanouvong himself, Sithon and Faydang are known to have expressed considerable unhappiness with aspects of the Lao PDR government after 1975. Faydang is even rumoured to have planned a revolt against the government in 1976-77. So, it is not only those who actually really supported the government after 1975 who are being promoted, but even those who were seemingly quite critical of the government. Sure, they were strong Pathet Lao supporters before 1975 but things got muddier after 1975. I think the positions of Sithon and Faydang were more than simply “ambiguous” after 1975, and their positioning within the government’s official historiography is really quite ironic.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Pla B #12 said:
“What make the Rhohingya so unique that this ethnic group among 100+ deserve more attention than others including the Bamar, the whole Citizenry of Myanmar?”
It is about saving innocent lives!
Rohingya issue is supremely important because it to stop genocide. It is to chose life over improving life style-the essence of protecting human rights. To the Nazis during the 30’s it was about improving their life style but to the German Jews, it was to save lives.
Can Malaysia trust Najib?
Moderates, led by Prime Minister Najib Razak are meeting in Malaysia to discuss a global compact to promote “moderation.”
The big question – Is Najib Razak a moderate?
I join Radio Australia to discuss the idea and the man.
Review of A Life’s Work
“Lena” #69
Your comments do raise one interesting issue which could be usefully discussed here. You describe me as “a political activist in a country that is not his own”.
Would you concede that KBAALW is an explicitly activist work? And if so, that therefore the foreign authors who worked on it are also political activists in a country that is not their own?
Just asking.
Andrew
Review of A Life’s Work
“Lena” #69
I’ve said this twice already. I’ll repeat it a third time in the hope the message gets through. I won’t respond to personal attacks in this discussion because they are a distraction from the debate on KBAALW and most readers have no interest in reading them. So if you feel the urge to denounce me further, a more appropriate place to do it would be here http://www.newmandala.org/2012/01/13/reviewing-king-bhumibols-life/ and I would be happy to respond to you on that thread.
As Somsak Jeamteerasakul said in comment #16, the issue of whether or not I am a clueless idiot really has no bearing on the issue under discussion here, which is the quality or otherwise of KBAALW.
Best wishes.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Most people I know would not see that CPJ report as reflective of reality inside Myanmar. I think Reporters Without Borders has been more accurate. The CPJ report is also quite out of date. Reporters are allowed into the parliament (and were even when this report was published on September 20). Foreign journalists, including exile media, have been invited to visit on jouranlist visas, although only to cover the visits of foreign dignitaries. A number of reporters, mostly from DVB, imprisoned under the military government were released last week.
And I’m not really sure what you mean when you ask who my friends work for. Most of the major news journals in the country? Nobody is saying that censorship has disappeared. In fact for most the process hasn’t changed. However, the relaxation of censorship has been significant. The diversity of media ownership in Myanmar and the lack of political affiliations among the publishers means the industry is better placed than some of its counterparts elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
And by going around the constitution I meant Thein Sein used the criminal code (I can’t remember the exact section) rather than the constitution to issue the amnesty.
Yes the constitution doesn’t enshrine media freedom but what I meant was journalists will use its ambiguity (who says what is contrary to the security of the state, for example) to advocate for more freedom. And why you inferred that I was saying that was a negative thing I have no idea.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Kyaw,
Why would your journalist friends be offended? Who do they work for? Please see this recent report by the Committee to Protect Journalists:
http://cpj.org/reports/2011/09/in-burma-transition-neglects-press-freedom.php
A flawed constitution is still a constitution and there to be amended. Of course, the constitution is used by all groups (and all people) for their own interests. Are you implying that this is a bad thing? The world would surely collapse if people pursued their own interests!
How did Thein Sein ‘go around’ the constitution? The 2008 constitution is rather amorphous.
Section 354 of the constitution does not enshrine media freedom at all. It merely mentions that people can express their convictions and opinions freely with the proviso that it does not interfere with the security of the state. With the direction of the state being based on the extremely insecure objective of ‘not to disintegrate’, this is an highly prohibitive proviso as anything could be interfering with the security of the state if deemed so by the people whose interests the current constitution really serves: as you say, those who were in power when it was written.
Review of A Life’s Work
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2012/01/16/review-of-a-life’s-work-tlcnmrev-xxxi/ […]
Review of A Life’s Work
This is a very strange thread, here we are reviewing a Review of a Book that none of us have read ………so we decide to kill the messenger …….
I thought I was in Thaivisa when I saw some of the comments.
“I am confuse” as my Thai girlfriend would say.
But don’t despair folks, I saw copies of the book in Asia Books today,
I think I will wait until the paperback comes out ….
Review of A Life’s Work
#68
Not certain what it is that you have against the Scots….
The fact is that Mr Macgregor Marshall’s writings lean heavily on those of Mr Handley. He quotes him constantly. Essentially his writing can be be seen as an extended appendix update of Mr Handley’s original text employing some new source material. The difference between the two commentators is clear though. Whilst not doubting Macgregor Marshall’s past work for the wire service which until recently employed him, he is not now acting as a journalist but rather as a political activist in a country that is not his own. This is not something one could accuse Mr Handley of doing in spite of the radical nature of his work as witnessed by the banning of his book and the incarceration of those poor souls who have been deemed guilty of propagating it….
The fact is that Mr Macgregor Marshall has thrown a a huge party here in expectations a feast…. But devastatingly for him, the two most respected guests of honour declined to turn up.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Colum Graham,
I think most of my journalist friends working inside the country would be offended by your remark on the lack of media freedom! You’ve obviously not been paying a lot of attention lately.
On the constitution’s “uselessness”, I know quite a few people that see exactly what is happening now – top-down reform – as the value of a flawed constitution that managed to secure the interests of those who were in power when it was written.
Also, the way that President Thein Sein seemingly went around the constitution (and National Defence and Security Council) to release political prisoners last week shows the constitution is not all-powerful in Myanmar in 2012. I think most groups will use the constitution to push their own interests, however. Journalists say it enshrines freedom of press, for example, and then use it as justification to call for ending of censorship.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Abid Bahar #10
What make the Rhohingya so unique that this ethnic group among 100+ deserve more attention than others including the Bamar, the whole Citizenry of Myanmar?
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Mr. Lintner has blinders on, and is a prisoner of his own misunderstandings about the functionings and creation of a democracy.
While of course there severe hamperings in the constitution regarding mostly, the military’s role, I am constantly fascinated by how no pundits or writers pick up on some of the more positive developments the constitution has provided, such as:
– a certain level of decentralization
– autonomous zones for some ethnic groups
– the creation of a bicameral legislature
– the outlawing of effective military rule of states/divisions by replacing regional commanders with Chief Ministers and their cabinets.
– the discussion in both parliaments, of what were previously extremely sensitive issues. government officials publicly defending and explaining their policies for the first time.
I’m not arguing that its a 100% benevolent constitution, but find it interesting that no one focuses on some of the less sexy progress thats happened in the past year…
Dear Phayao, Thailand; Postcard from Singapore
This is indeed a moving account, especially the last paragraph presented here. Thank you for the message.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Burma’s Ethnic Issue
————————–
Optimism is good, we all are happy at the changes the new government has undertaken. But here by not dealing with the main issue, the problem remains hidden and perhaps unsolved as well. The main issue is the ethnic problems.
Constitutional changes truly matters especially in countries like Burma with many strong ethnic minorities because Burma’s problem is not fundamentally a democracy problem; in its essence it is the problem of sharing power with ethnic minorities. Burma failed miserably in this sharing experiment. ( Read Abid Bahar’s book, “BURMA’s MISSING DOTS,” 2010 for details)
If past experience is any guide we see it was U Nu accepting the minority’s federalist demands that led to the toppling of his elected government. Ne Win and his fellow military coup leader ever since have been fighting against the rebels.
The latest changes we can see in democratic reforms is coming from India playing behind the scene to remove Burma from Chinese influence and in exchange the sweetener the military is getting is that its sins perhaps will be erased. But Burma will never go against China, it will continue to play its cat and mouse game it is familiar with.
Change or no change, nothing significant has happened in the direction of the roadblocks in ethnic areas. If we recall, the denying of the Rohingya citizenship rights was done in 1982 by Ne Win passing a constitutional Act. This black Act was not yet revoked to show the world at least superficially that genocide in ethnic minority areas were brought to an end. ( See “What is Rohingya genocide? http://burmadigest.info/2012/01/18/tell-me-what-is-rohingya-genocide-in-burma/)
Talking about the Rohingya genocide, of course Arakan is a triangle where the Rakhine-Rohingya Buma tri parties and racial favoritism by the military deployed in the region makes the issue more complicated. Furthermore, Rakhines are only 5% of the Burmese population but are 30% in the army, making the issue more tilting toward the Rakhines.
Recent report shows that while there has been small changes taking place in Rangoon and in the new capital Naypyidaw but nothing significant has happened yet in ethnic areas like in Kachine, Karen, Chin or in Arakan areas.
It seems that more than constitutional changes what is urgently needed is the changes in education to demystify that Buma people are not a master race and minorities are not the guest people or foreigners in Burma. So constitutional changes are necessary particularly to stop genocide of Rohingyas and other ethnic groups demanding their rights codified in a federalist constitution. But again more importantly, the dominant Buma people have to be educated in to respect and tolerate ethnic minorities as equal human beings.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Debating whether this dictator will be different is akin to predicting the weather in hell will be at anytime.
Ne Win went constitutional with BSPP, with great respect and affection manipulated to the hilt to his own advantages with little benefit to the citizenry, and the west described him, “enigmatic”.
1) No independent Judiciary, as everywhere else in Asia except Singapore
2)Almost impossible to be an independently elected Hluttaw, even with Daw AUng San Suu Kyi in it.
3) With a perpetual chosen insider to the dictator as a President
The west is now discussing nonsensical possibilities. All the expats are chiming in.
Either this is an attempt to being obtuse or continuing the white washing of the iniquities of the ongoing policy.
This ‘much to do about nothing’ at best, over compensating for the fantasy of changes by the dictators at worst will again put the Citizenry of Myanmar benefits 2┬║ to every thing else in the ongoing engagement.
This rather contradict the concept of changes must come from within.
Review of A Life’s Work
@Lena “Nor am I Thai…. I am Scottish.”
That explains a lot.
Review of A Life’s Work
“Instead, it gives Queen Sirikit and Vajiralongkorn all the arguments needed to not change. Somehow that does not seem a strategy for survival”
That’s why I expect a rabbit to be pulled out of the hat.
Bangkok May 2010
Dear Nich
Thanks for this.
The book is currently available at ISEAS–you can order through its website.
ISEAS has worked with Silkworm Books in Thailand, and Silkworm will publish the book for sale in Thailand alone (but without accompanying photos to reduce the cost of the book–so it will be more affordable for Thai readers).
I will be able to tell you more later when this book will be available in Thailand.
Pavin