Is SG Than Shwe, the inventor of ’7 steps towards Disciplined Democracy’ must be Prescient.
With, N. Korea as example, history has shown that the only prescience any dictator has is to perpetuate dictatorship
In the struggle b/t the west vs SPDC:
1) SPDC has prevailed simply by existing. Quelle existence effet!
2) Now obviously using DASSK as a counter-poster child to bid their claim, Très rusé en effet!
Anyone who believe that these dictators are now letting Thein Sein government, their very chosen own, seemingly run amok towards western nefarious expectations here:
Either forgotten #1 above or think Sidney Opera house ┬о is for sale, for cheap.
Litner might be correct about his projection of eventual result of ongoing razzle dazzzle.
Concentrating, still, the failed premises of ‘punishing the dictators’ he is absolutely wrong, to perpetuate the useless careless policy a little while longer.
The present policy absolutely in any way failed to punish the dictators.
Time to try helping the Citizenry of Myanmar instead.
Lifting sanctions= Alleviating Citizenry misery, period
Sorry, aiontay. ‘In God We Trust’, like other things they profess to believe in, seems what the poor ethnic people tend to take at face value although they are being let down every time whether gently or rudely. You are right as Heinrich Heine commented a long time ago about who they really worship.
I would be interested in what Lintner means by “genuine democracy?” Constitutional structures and normative guarantees mean very little if governments fail to enforce and honor constitutional processes and protections constitutionally guaranted.. The Yudhoyono government refuses to or is incapable of enforcing the Indonesian peoples constitutionally protected freedom of religion. Does that make Indonesia less than a “genuine democracy?” Is Thailand an ersatz democracy because its government functions under the military-dictated constitution that replaced Southeast Asia’s most democratic constituion. And of course, there is the Philippines. Cory Aquino’s legacy was the the 1987 constitution considered to be a model for democracy. Behind it, however, the oligarchs continue to rule with their provincial minions backed by goons, thugs, and militias To answer Farrelly’s question, constitutions only matter if governments are willing to abide by them. Constitutions are not self-enforcing. The test of “genuine democracy” is not the consitution but political will. It is too soon to make a judgement about Myanmar.
Comment #54
“On the other hand, to employ Handley or Streckfuss in order to discredit Marshall is unwarranted”
I don’t think that is what is happening here. It is a simple fact that David Streckfuss is a writer employed on this book (and I think everyone would agree that he is a highly respected academic authority in his field) and there is also a significant disparity in both content and tone between Handley and Marshall in their judgements on this book. Personally I think Handley is the fairer and more balanced. That is not to ‘discredit’ Andrew, it is simply to point out a reality. Andrew is getting a bit of a kicking here, which is probably not pleasant, but whatever one may disagree with in his recent writings, he has expressed his views stridently and is being disagreed with stridently. He is quite clearly a very honorable character and he knew this was likely to happen when he published what he published, although I think he might have been surprised by Handley’s take on the book.
I think we are entering an area where so-called intellectual discourse is edging toward slightly kiltered personal devilishness. Let’s remain humble and desist from self-serving innuendo which, while possibly deserved, does the flavor of the soup little good.
As to who knows how much about Thais and what they think, not many Thais that I know can tell you what their wives, husbands or children are thinking at any particular moment, or even where they are.
The spry century-old growths still peer upward toward the Redwoods, and while their own leaves may provide lost of shade, the essence of what a tree is, and what a tree IS, changes with time and scale.
Sort of metaphorically, to wit, wondering why academics sometimes pride themselves on putting down others of their kind. If that was the case here. Having been in academic environments, though not so lofty, I know politics, jealousy, pecking order and so-called authoritative sources have their drathers, but surely we can stick to the straight and narrow without becoming too abrasive…even in laconic fashion.
What about the home of democracy in the US where bankers and politicians routinely engage in enormous fraud and corruption completely ignored by law enforcement plus their corporate owned media has its own agenda little related to free speech. Voters can choose Democrat or Republican, both are similar and kowtow to the same money interests and have little hesitation in trashing their constitution.
China is a corrupt socialist dictatorship. Next door democratic and corrupt Thailand operates with a biased censured media and the degree of law enforcement is in proportion to your wealth and connections. Yet many US expats say for all that it is still freer than back home.
As such how much can we really expect from Burma, let’s just hope that at whatever level of nepotism, corruption and authoritarianism they settle to that at least life for the people will improve.
I am mesmerised by Thongchai’s comment (which is full of metaphors I cannot understand their relevant), but, honestly, I still cannot figure out clearly his logics. Perhaps, despite my age (and some small knowledge of the Thai monarchy), I am too “simplistic and…immature”, and not “sophisicated” enough. But once agina, it seems to me, he came to the rescue/defence of someone with better arguments – or at least better stlye – than that person himself can give.
“For KBAALW, one sees lies and misinformation, the other sees the respectable efforts that fall far short.”
This is typical of what I say above. Does Thongchai wants us to see with more “sophisication” and “erudition” that spreading “lies and misinformation” can be “respectable efforts” (Hence, if Handley does not see and say they are lies and misinformation, it means he has more “class, style, intelligence” and is more “effective”.)? I must really be too “immature”, because for the life of me, I really cannot understand how spreading lies and imsinformation can be regarded as “repectable”.
@ Constant Petit 38
To be fair, Thais cannot pronounce the ‘correct’ names of any foreign countries either. For example, United States is pronounced ‘may ga’ р╣Ар╕бр╕Бр╕▓ (short for America). But that is normal for any language/country. And to be additionally fair, 90% of Thais don’t even know the full name of Bangkok (all ~100 syllables of it). But I do, and I enjoy putting them to shame =P
“…Myanmar will not become a genuine democracy any time soon”
Probably not, but it will end 50 years of isolation beginning in 1962 and with this will likely come progress in every sphere of life ranging from business to education to medicine to the legal system.
What Southeast Asia “experts” or pundits need to start doing is paying more attention to the details, to measurable outcomes in important areas that affect lives such as medicine, agriculture, education, legal system, economy, work and jobs, etc. (Albeit, there is little financial support and opportunity within western academic “Southeast Asian Studies” to do this. )
Personal Example: When the issue of a kidney transplant for my Burmese mother-in-law arose in 2002, I learned that there had been some ridiculously low number of kidney transplants in Burma, if I remember correctly about 7 total by one doctor in Yangon, miniscule compared to other countries like its neighbor Thailand. I have never seen this sort of issue or statistic addressed in Southeast Asian Studies academic analyses or even references to sources that do so. In contrast, Thailand has very good public health statistics but students need to be taught how to access them and use them better in writing research papers.
How exactly the vague future ideal of “democracy” is linked to concrete outcomes in the lives of flesh and blood people in these areas and whether “democracy” precedes and is more important than other factors is unclear. For example, feedback from export markets seems to have had more of an effect on food safety to-date in China than the still elusive ideal of “democracy”. South Korea, China, Singapore, Thailand, have all made progress in these areas, despite the fact that they lacked or still lack pure unalloyed “democracy”.
A”fighter” boxer is different from a “boxing” boxer.
That’s how I see the differences between Marshall’s and Handley’s reviews. I disagree with any who takes Handley or Streckfuss to discredit Marshall.
Given how TKNS and Handley have been treated by Thai authorities, it might be commonsensical and straightforward to expect him to retaliate with direct punches. But such expectation is simplistic and perhaps immature. A “fighter” with direct punches may be good in some case but it is not the only approach in an intellectual fight.
Indeed, because Handley is aware — more than any of us can say we are– of the punishment to people who translated and quoted his TKNS, the approach and style of his review of KBAALW reflects how serious and committed he is to take on this issue. Here I cannot claim that I know for sure how Handley feels. But I can understand why the more serious he is the more he would fight like a mature rival of the royalist intelligentsia. Perhaps contrary to one’s commonsense, the more painful one experiences, the higher respect one may have to the opponent, and a classy battle goes on with more sophistication between them.
The respect Handley has given to Anand and KBAALW does not reflect the limits he could write or any change of his view, but it reflects how he chooses to fight the intellectual apologists of the network monarchy with erudition. In my opinion, the way TKNS is addressed in KBAALW actually hints at how much TKNS has hurt these “enlightened” royalists. They chose to deal with TKNS subtly, by mentioning it only once and not in a berserk manner but in fact making the whole KBAALW a response to TKNS. Handley’s review of KBAALW is a return call with subtlety and in classy manner too.
Handley’s approach may not satisfy the “fighters”. For Marshall and Somsak, the KBAALW should be knocked out by exposing its lies and wickedness. For Handley, those direct punches are helpful. But 1) he is in a different position in this fight from those fighters; 2) it is not his style and 3) perhaps for the KBAALW a direct punch may not be as effective as, for example, exposing the “Forrest Gump” approach to King Bhumibol’s bio. Handley’s in this battle may seem “bland” to the straight fighters, but I appreciate how it counters KBAALW with class, style, intelligence, and for many readers it is more effective too. I am not even sure in an intellectual battle which one hurts the royalist apologists more –the punches from the fighters or a gentle reminder that despite the admirable efforts the emperor is still half-naked.
Some might say there are a lot between the lines in Handley’s review. I would say a lot are on those lines to be seen, not even hidden between or under them. Those “a lot” don’t require direct hits or “punch lines”. I wish I could write only half that well.
On the other hand, to employ Handley or Streckfuss in order to discredit Marshall is unwarranted. Similarly unnecessary like the demand from the fighters for Handley to hit harder and more bluntly, the trash of one in favor of the other is misguided and unsavory. No one approach can fit all. There are of course differences and disagreements between the different approaches both in style and to some extent in substance too. But those differences are usually not as important as some might claim. They are often complimentary, pointing to different problems and shortcomings.For KBAALW, one sees lies and misinformation, the other sees the respectable efforts that fall far short. Handley, I assume, knows the lies and misinformation in KBAALW too. But he chooses to point out what these smart apologists are trying to do to rescue the monarchy at this point in history and in the current crisis of loyalty.
Handley says that the book is not a whitewash. But his review gives me an impression of a whitewash without making it obvious or a whitewash with poor cover-up — “a whitewash 2.0”. A new hagiography of the 21st century must be different from the hagiography of the past years.
I believe that this sophisticated whitewashing is not for the general Thai public – at least not the primary politics of the book or for now. The primary audience is the same as the one of TKNS. Even if the book is available in Thai in the future, it will be taken by typical Thai readers differently, i.e. not in any relations to TKNS. Look at how the Thai hi-so showed up at the launching of the book and how a few Thai media reported about the event. To them, KBAALW is another celebration of the king’s unquestionable accomplishments. Rare photos alone make the book worthy for possession, like possessing an amulet. The royalists do not need to produce a whitewash 2.0 because Thais have been under a different regime of washing and a different approach to quell the dissenters.
CT…. Some do not understand the difference between criticism and calumny. It would appear, sadly, that you are one of those people. Chill out. Nor am I Thai…. I am Scottish.
Lena (#40) said:
Andrew Macgregor marshall is floundering badly. The problems are these: “A. he knows little of the country he writes about and has problems justifying his own over forceful views. Hios reasoning is often flimsy and inept.”
Apart from the blatant misspelling you made, you have failed to use any evidence to support your assertion. You claim that Andrew’s reasoning is often flimsy and inept. However, like most Thais who lack an ability to demonstrate in a scholastic manner that their assertion has weight, you fail to take the second step by pointing out evidences from his writing, make a specific reference to the page number where this sentence exists, and explain why this statement is ‘flimsy and inept’. Thus, your assertion remains an assertion which carries no weight.
Now, let me get to this ‘he knows very little about the country he writes about’. I have heard Thais say this for a million times that foreigners do not understand Thailand. Can you tell me what are the things which foreigners would not understand?
Learn to provide evidences as samples to elaborate your assertion. Until you can do that, you will only be seen as a Royalist fanboy who displays annoying and rabid paranoia of the King whom you are highly fanatical to.
“And like so many newly arrived backpackers, he has blown a few circuits…. There are a hundred like him right now looking a wee bit bug eyed on the Khao San Road…. He will settle down…. He just has to grow up first.”
There are hundreds of farangs in Khao San Road who are like Andrew? Name me a farang on Khao San Road who researches on Thailand, knows the content of Wikileak Cables, and analyses and writes his story on internet like Andrew did. Can you find one? I know you can’t, because it is not true.
Please do all of us a favour and do not post your nonsense UNTIL you know how to use evidence to back up your assertion. I don’t want to read this nonsensical BS. To be honest, I don’t even know why your comment has been approved. The quality of your post is even worse than a C grade first year university essay.
Nations change names. Cambodia was not long ago called Kampuchea. Siam renamed herself to Thailand in 1939. In both countries old names continue to prosper. China too in the ‘80s started to enforce use of Pinyin system that saw Peking became Beijing. Changing of Burma to Myanmar was quite similar to Chinese action added with a strange purpose: to show defiance to the West. Since then old names in English were barred from use even in the colloquial sphere. So you can’t probably set up a business in Myanmar using old names: say “Rangoon Bar” or “Burma Digest”. It is not just possible at this moment.
Looking forward there are signs of thaw in relations between Burma and the Western nations therefore we can expect such an adamant position to become relaxed. In the foreseeable future, “Myanmar-Burma” may be openly recognized as interchangeable words in public domain. Perhaps more independent “University of Yangon” may roll back to become “University of Rangoon” to find glory of the past. At the same time, freedoms and liberties notwithstanding, “Myanmar” is likely to retain as the official representation in English for the nation’s name as well as for the language.
So it is lame for FT to blink so fast. But everyone is going to blink sooner or later.
Bertil Lintner has argued consistently that reform in Myanmar is doomed to fail. He has to defend this line. God forbid, he might rethink his argument. No, no. Hence the focus on the SPDC’s constitution. Nich is correct to note that the legalism matters less than the politics.
If Myanmar’s constitution were to be amended (as NLD would like to do via parliamentary process), then Bertil would doubtless find another reason to play Cassandra. You never go broke finding flaws in Myanmar.
Chris, could you please give more information as to whom it is awarded to? Is it outsourced to a private commercial publisher like Amarin, DokYa, etc.? or they set up another committee with high profile people to sit on it and read through the translation?
Sad to say I thought Lintner’s article shows a lack of familiarity with constitutions and how they work. Many constitutions have historical baggage and the translation from constitutional text to practice is often bumpy, especially in SEA. Constitutions and their meaning change over time (Burma’s has only been in effect for a bit over a year). For Americans, our constitution still has the text that slaves are 3/5 of a person, although of course the civil war and subsequent amendments have rendered it a nullity. China’s constitution basically enshrines a role for the Communist Party and for years did not protect private property, but that did not prevent decades of robust growth. Of course, amendment provisions don’t matter a whole lot in transitions to democracy either – often, new democratic governments simply write new constitutions from scratch.
So yes Burma is still an authoritarian regime, but its political reality is fast outpacing the constitution. What we ought to be doing now is encouraging the reformers in the government, not pointing out obvious flaws in the constitutional document that probably have little bearing on how politics will develop over the next few years.
Interesting article, but I just don’t find the Burma/Indonesia comparison useful. Burma’s elites are currently engaging in reform from a position of relative strength, whereas Indonesia’s reformasi was the aftermath of a political and economic crisis. Also, the starting points are very different. Indonesia under Suharto was arguably never as bad as Burma in 2008. In fact, many Burma watchers have said an acceptable scenario would be a transition to something resembling Suharto’s New Order. I think if we want a comparison maybe Thailand in the 80s, with a heavily elite-dominated polity but some gradual liberalization (I’m not a Thailand expert, so maybe Nich or Andrew might have more to say on that).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Can Burma learn from Indonesia?
Hmm
Is SG Than Shwe, the inventor of ’7 steps towards Disciplined Democracy’ must be Prescient.
With, N. Korea as example, history has shown that the only prescience any dictator has is to perpetuate dictatorship
In the struggle b/t the west vs SPDC:
1) SPDC has prevailed simply by existing. Quelle existence effet!
2) Now obviously using DASSK as a counter-poster child to bid their claim, Très rusé en effet!
Anyone who believe that these dictators are now letting Thein Sein government, their very chosen own, seemingly run amok towards western nefarious expectations here:
http://www.mizzima.com/news/inside-burma/6419-begin-serious-political-talks-with-ethnic-groups-us.html
Either forgotten #1 above or think Sidney Opera house ┬о is for sale, for cheap.
Litner might be correct about his projection of eventual result of ongoing razzle dazzzle.
Concentrating, still, the failed premises of ‘punishing the dictators’ he is absolutely wrong, to perpetuate the useless careless policy a little while longer.
The present policy absolutely in any way failed to punish the dictators.
Time to try helping the Citizenry of Myanmar instead.
Lifting sanctions= Alleviating Citizenry misery, period
Australia makes Burma move
Sorry, aiontay. ‘In God We Trust’, like other things they profess to believe in, seems what the poor ethnic people tend to take at face value although they are being let down every time whether gently or rudely. You are right as Heinrich Heine commented a long time ago about who they really worship.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
I would be interested in what Lintner means by “genuine democracy?” Constitutional structures and normative guarantees mean very little if governments fail to enforce and honor constitutional processes and protections constitutionally guaranted.. The Yudhoyono government refuses to or is incapable of enforcing the Indonesian peoples constitutionally protected freedom of religion. Does that make Indonesia less than a “genuine democracy?” Is Thailand an ersatz democracy because its government functions under the military-dictated constitution that replaced Southeast Asia’s most democratic constituion. And of course, there is the Philippines. Cory Aquino’s legacy was the the 1987 constitution considered to be a model for democracy. Behind it, however, the oligarchs continue to rule with their provincial minions backed by goons, thugs, and militias To answer Farrelly’s question, constitutions only matter if governments are willing to abide by them. Constitutions are not self-enforcing. The test of “genuine democracy” is not the consitution but political will. It is too soon to make a judgement about Myanmar.
Review of A Life’s Work
“Until you can do that, you will only be seen as a Royalist fanboy”
I would have gone with sock puppet, but fanboy works, I guess.
Review of A Life’s Work
Comment #54
“On the other hand, to employ Handley or Streckfuss in order to discredit Marshall is unwarranted”
I don’t think that is what is happening here. It is a simple fact that David Streckfuss is a writer employed on this book (and I think everyone would agree that he is a highly respected academic authority in his field) and there is also a significant disparity in both content and tone between Handley and Marshall in their judgements on this book. Personally I think Handley is the fairer and more balanced. That is not to ‘discredit’ Andrew, it is simply to point out a reality. Andrew is getting a bit of a kicking here, which is probably not pleasant, but whatever one may disagree with in his recent writings, he has expressed his views stridently and is being disagreed with stridently. He is quite clearly a very honorable character and he knew this was likely to happen when he published what he published, although I think he might have been surprised by Handley’s take on the book.
Review of A Life’s Work
I think we are entering an area where so-called intellectual discourse is edging toward slightly kiltered personal devilishness. Let’s remain humble and desist from self-serving innuendo which, while possibly deserved, does the flavor of the soup little good.
As to who knows how much about Thais and what they think, not many Thais that I know can tell you what their wives, husbands or children are thinking at any particular moment, or even where they are.
The spry century-old growths still peer upward toward the Redwoods, and while their own leaves may provide lost of shade, the essence of what a tree is, and what a tree IS, changes with time and scale.
Sort of metaphorically, to wit, wondering why academics sometimes pride themselves on putting down others of their kind. If that was the case here. Having been in academic environments, though not so lofty, I know politics, jealousy, pecking order and so-called authoritative sources have their drathers, but surely we can stick to the straight and narrow without becoming too abrasive…even in laconic fashion.
Can Burma learn from Indonesia?
What about the home of democracy in the US where bankers and politicians routinely engage in enormous fraud and corruption completely ignored by law enforcement plus their corporate owned media has its own agenda little related to free speech. Voters can choose Democrat or Republican, both are similar and kowtow to the same money interests and have little hesitation in trashing their constitution.
China is a corrupt socialist dictatorship. Next door democratic and corrupt Thailand operates with a biased censured media and the degree of law enforcement is in proportion to your wealth and connections. Yet many US expats say for all that it is still freer than back home.
As such how much can we really expect from Burma, let’s just hope that at whatever level of nepotism, corruption and authoritarianism they settle to that at least life for the people will improve.
Review of A Life’s Work
I am mesmerised by Thongchai’s comment (which is full of metaphors I cannot understand their relevant), but, honestly, I still cannot figure out clearly his logics. Perhaps, despite my age (and some small knowledge of the Thai monarchy), I am too “simplistic and…immature”, and not “sophisicated” enough. But once agina, it seems to me, he came to the rescue/defence of someone with better arguments – or at least better stlye – than that person himself can give.
“For KBAALW, one sees lies and misinformation, the other sees the respectable efforts that fall far short.”
This is typical of what I say above. Does Thongchai wants us to see with more “sophisication” and “erudition” that spreading “lies and misinformation” can be “respectable efforts” (Hence, if Handley does not see and say they are lies and misinformation, it means he has more “class, style, intelligence” and is more “effective”.)? I must really be too “immature”, because for the life of me, I really cannot understand how spreading lies and imsinformation can be regarded as “repectable”.
New Mandala: cowardly, stupid and lacking in wisdom
@ Constant Petit 38
To be fair, Thais cannot pronounce the ‘correct’ names of any foreign countries either. For example, United States is pronounced ‘may ga’ р╣Ар╕бр╕Бр╕▓ (short for America). But that is normal for any language/country. And to be additionally fair, 90% of Thais don’t even know the full name of Bangkok (all ~100 syllables of it). But I do, and I enjoy putting them to shame =P
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
“…Myanmar will not become a genuine democracy any time soon”
Probably not, but it will end 50 years of isolation beginning in 1962 and with this will likely come progress in every sphere of life ranging from business to education to medicine to the legal system.
What Southeast Asia “experts” or pundits need to start doing is paying more attention to the details, to measurable outcomes in important areas that affect lives such as medicine, agriculture, education, legal system, economy, work and jobs, etc. (Albeit, there is little financial support and opportunity within western academic “Southeast Asian Studies” to do this. )
Personal Example: When the issue of a kidney transplant for my Burmese mother-in-law arose in 2002, I learned that there had been some ridiculously low number of kidney transplants in Burma, if I remember correctly about 7 total by one doctor in Yangon, miniscule compared to other countries like its neighbor Thailand. I have never seen this sort of issue or statistic addressed in Southeast Asian Studies academic analyses or even references to sources that do so. In contrast, Thailand has very good public health statistics but students need to be taught how to access them and use them better in writing research papers.
How exactly the vague future ideal of “democracy” is linked to concrete outcomes in the lives of flesh and blood people in these areas and whether “democracy” precedes and is more important than other factors is unclear. For example, feedback from export markets seems to have had more of an effect on food safety to-date in China than the still elusive ideal of “democracy”. South Korea, China, Singapore, Thailand, have all made progress in these areas, despite the fact that they lacked or still lack pure unalloyed “democracy”.
Review of A Life’s Work
A”fighter” boxer is different from a “boxing” boxer.
That’s how I see the differences between Marshall’s and Handley’s reviews. I disagree with any who takes Handley or Streckfuss to discredit Marshall.
Given how TKNS and Handley have been treated by Thai authorities, it might be commonsensical and straightforward to expect him to retaliate with direct punches. But such expectation is simplistic and perhaps immature. A “fighter” with direct punches may be good in some case but it is not the only approach in an intellectual fight.
Indeed, because Handley is aware — more than any of us can say we are– of the punishment to people who translated and quoted his TKNS, the approach and style of his review of KBAALW reflects how serious and committed he is to take on this issue. Here I cannot claim that I know for sure how Handley feels. But I can understand why the more serious he is the more he would fight like a mature rival of the royalist intelligentsia. Perhaps contrary to one’s commonsense, the more painful one experiences, the higher respect one may have to the opponent, and a classy battle goes on with more sophistication between them.
The respect Handley has given to Anand and KBAALW does not reflect the limits he could write or any change of his view, but it reflects how he chooses to fight the intellectual apologists of the network monarchy with erudition. In my opinion, the way TKNS is addressed in KBAALW actually hints at how much TKNS has hurt these “enlightened” royalists. They chose to deal with TKNS subtly, by mentioning it only once and not in a berserk manner but in fact making the whole KBAALW a response to TKNS. Handley’s review of KBAALW is a return call with subtlety and in classy manner too.
Handley’s approach may not satisfy the “fighters”. For Marshall and Somsak, the KBAALW should be knocked out by exposing its lies and wickedness. For Handley, those direct punches are helpful. But 1) he is in a different position in this fight from those fighters; 2) it is not his style and 3) perhaps for the KBAALW a direct punch may not be as effective as, for example, exposing the “Forrest Gump” approach to King Bhumibol’s bio. Handley’s in this battle may seem “bland” to the straight fighters, but I appreciate how it counters KBAALW with class, style, intelligence, and for many readers it is more effective too. I am not even sure in an intellectual battle which one hurts the royalist apologists more –the punches from the fighters or a gentle reminder that despite the admirable efforts the emperor is still half-naked.
Some might say there are a lot between the lines in Handley’s review. I would say a lot are on those lines to be seen, not even hidden between or under them. Those “a lot” don’t require direct hits or “punch lines”. I wish I could write only half that well.
On the other hand, to employ Handley or Streckfuss in order to discredit Marshall is unwarranted. Similarly unnecessary like the demand from the fighters for Handley to hit harder and more bluntly, the trash of one in favor of the other is misguided and unsavory. No one approach can fit all. There are of course differences and disagreements between the different approaches both in style and to some extent in substance too. But those differences are usually not as important as some might claim. They are often complimentary, pointing to different problems and shortcomings.For KBAALW, one sees lies and misinformation, the other sees the respectable efforts that fall far short. Handley, I assume, knows the lies and misinformation in KBAALW too. But he chooses to point out what these smart apologists are trying to do to rescue the monarchy at this point in history and in the current crisis of loyalty.
Handley says that the book is not a whitewash. But his review gives me an impression of a whitewash without making it obvious or a whitewash with poor cover-up — “a whitewash 2.0”. A new hagiography of the 21st century must be different from the hagiography of the past years.
I believe that this sophisticated whitewashing is not for the general Thai public – at least not the primary politics of the book or for now. The primary audience is the same as the one of TKNS. Even if the book is available in Thai in the future, it will be taken by typical Thai readers differently, i.e. not in any relations to TKNS. Look at how the Thai hi-so showed up at the launching of the book and how a few Thai media reported about the event. To them, KBAALW is another celebration of the king’s unquestionable accomplishments. Rare photos alone make the book worthy for possession, like possessing an amulet. The royalists do not need to produce a whitewash 2.0 because Thais have been under a different regime of washing and a different approach to quell the dissenters.
Review of A Life’s Work
CT…. Some do not understand the difference between criticism and calumny. It would appear, sadly, that you are one of those people. Chill out. Nor am I Thai…. I am Scottish.
Review of A Life’s Work
Lena (#40) said:
Andrew Macgregor marshall is floundering badly. The problems are these:
“A. he knows little of the country he writes about and has problems justifying his own over forceful views. Hios reasoning is often flimsy and inept.”
Apart from the blatant misspelling you made, you have failed to use any evidence to support your assertion. You claim that Andrew’s reasoning is often flimsy and inept. However, like most Thais who lack an ability to demonstrate in a scholastic manner that their assertion has weight, you fail to take the second step by pointing out evidences from his writing, make a specific reference to the page number where this sentence exists, and explain why this statement is ‘flimsy and inept’. Thus, your assertion remains an assertion which carries no weight.
Now, let me get to this ‘he knows very little about the country he writes about’. I have heard Thais say this for a million times that foreigners do not understand Thailand. Can you tell me what are the things which foreigners would not understand?
Learn to provide evidences as samples to elaborate your assertion. Until you can do that, you will only be seen as a Royalist fanboy who displays annoying and rabid paranoia of the King whom you are highly fanatical to.
“And like so many newly arrived backpackers, he has blown a few circuits…. There are a hundred like him right now looking a wee bit bug eyed on the Khao San Road…. He will settle down…. He just has to grow up first.”
There are hundreds of farangs in Khao San Road who are like Andrew? Name me a farang on Khao San Road who researches on Thailand, knows the content of Wikileak Cables, and analyses and writes his story on internet like Andrew did. Can you find one? I know you can’t, because it is not true.
Please do all of us a favour and do not post your nonsense UNTIL you know how to use evidence to back up your assertion. I don’t want to read this nonsensical BS. To be honest, I don’t even know why your comment has been approved. The quality of your post is even worse than a C grade first year university essay.
Name games and Myanmar
Nations change names. Cambodia was not long ago called Kampuchea. Siam renamed herself to Thailand in 1939. In both countries old names continue to prosper. China too in the ‘80s started to enforce use of Pinyin system that saw Peking became Beijing. Changing of Burma to Myanmar was quite similar to Chinese action added with a strange purpose: to show defiance to the West. Since then old names in English were barred from use even in the colloquial sphere. So you can’t probably set up a business in Myanmar using old names: say “Rangoon Bar” or “Burma Digest”. It is not just possible at this moment.
Looking forward there are signs of thaw in relations between Burma and the Western nations therefore we can expect such an adamant position to become relaxed. In the foreseeable future, “Myanmar-Burma” may be openly recognized as interchangeable words in public domain. Perhaps more independent “University of Yangon” may roll back to become “University of Rangoon” to find glory of the past. At the same time, freedoms and liberties notwithstanding, “Myanmar” is likely to retain as the official representation in English for the nation’s name as well as for the language.
So it is lame for FT to blink so fast. But everyone is going to blink sooner or later.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Bertil Lintner has argued consistently that reform in Myanmar is doomed to fail. He has to defend this line. God forbid, he might rethink his argument. No, no. Hence the focus on the SPDC’s constitution. Nich is correct to note that the legalism matters less than the politics.
If Myanmar’s constitution were to be amended (as NLD would like to do via parliamentary process), then Bertil would doubtless find another reason to play Cassandra. You never go broke finding flaws in Myanmar.
Review of A Life’s Work
Chris, could you please give more information as to whom it is awarded to? Is it outsourced to a private commercial publisher like Amarin, DokYa, etc.? or they set up another committee with high profile people to sit on it and read through the translation?
Review of A Life’s Work
Whether in Thai or English, the work will be a glowing tribute. Certainly the Thai will be more decorative.
Burma’s constitution in 2012 and beyond
Sad to say I thought Lintner’s article shows a lack of familiarity with constitutions and how they work. Many constitutions have historical baggage and the translation from constitutional text to practice is often bumpy, especially in SEA. Constitutions and their meaning change over time (Burma’s has only been in effect for a bit over a year). For Americans, our constitution still has the text that slaves are 3/5 of a person, although of course the civil war and subsequent amendments have rendered it a nullity. China’s constitution basically enshrines a role for the Communist Party and for years did not protect private property, but that did not prevent decades of robust growth. Of course, amendment provisions don’t matter a whole lot in transitions to democracy either – often, new democratic governments simply write new constitutions from scratch.
So yes Burma is still an authoritarian regime, but its political reality is fast outpacing the constitution. What we ought to be doing now is encouraging the reformers in the government, not pointing out obvious flaws in the constitutional document that probably have little bearing on how politics will develop over the next few years.
Can Burma learn from Indonesia?
Interesting article, but I just don’t find the Burma/Indonesia comparison useful. Burma’s elites are currently engaging in reform from a position of relative strength, whereas Indonesia’s reformasi was the aftermath of a political and economic crisis. Also, the starting points are very different. Indonesia under Suharto was arguably never as bad as Burma in 2008. In fact, many Burma watchers have said an acceptable scenario would be a transition to something resembling Suharto’s New Order. I think if we want a comparison maybe Thailand in the 80s, with a heavily elite-dominated polity but some gradual liberalization (I’m not a Thailand expert, so maybe Nich or Andrew might have more to say on that).
Review of A Life’s Work
Ralph #44 etc
I’ve heard from a very reliable source that a contract to translate the book into Thai has already been awarded.