Its very humorous how you ” journalis” view Thailand from a zoo visitor point of view. What you want is very badly how Thailand should be. You guys are saying the same things as the first Portuguese that landed. Some kings are well celebrated some are not….this one happeneds to be……if some of these comments are made in front of my face?…I probably muay thia elbow you in the face….just for fun…….and no I wasn’t forced or tricked into loving the king……most thais never have nor never will fully trust the civilian government.
Myanmar is what the dominant ethnic group in Burma has always called itself. Burma is the Mon word for that ethnic group.
When Europeans first went to what is now Burma / Myanmar, they went to the Mon capital of Pegu, where they learned about the Bama people up north. That name stuck even after the Myanmar people conquered the Mons.
This happens a lot. The name Bangkok has stuck to the Thai capital, Yodaya has stuck in Burmese to the Siamese / Thai nation, and the people of Holland (the Netherlands?) are still Dutch.
So I find the old (Mon) name of Burma more inclusive and sensitive to the feelings of the substantial number of ethnic minorities in the country.
As I understand, in Aung San’s time there were some discussions to rename the country Myanmar, but the idea was dropped for this very reason.
And if names are really so important, why didn’t Burma change the names of its states to reflect what the minorities in those states call themselves? Why isn’t Shan State now Tai Yai State? Shouldn’t Kachin State be Jingpaw State? Yakhine or Rakhine?
Best guess is that the country and various towns like Pagan were re-named, not for reasons of political correctness, but rather for reasons of yadaya chei.
You are named on page 6, in a long list of people, after the statement: “The publishing team is grateful to the following individuals for their assistance and advice.” That is the only mention of you in the whole tome as far as I can see.
Nich Farrelly is also one of the names on the list.
Thank you for sharing your experiences. What I am missing though is the point of the story. While the start makes one curious to read further the end is a rather lukewarm narrative.
I probably would never have noticed, but an FCCT crony pointed out that I am credited as a contributor to this book. I certainly was never asked for permission and I’m not so keen on reading this immense volume to find my place in it.
If any kind reader finds me herein, please let me know what I said!
Looking at satellite images of Ratanakiri and Mondulkiri , a sea of rubber plantations dominate much of the landscape. At this very moment, as I sit in a cafe in Mondulkiri I can see land clearing equipment slowing making its way out into the districts. The community forests, and land of indigenous communities going through land registration, are merely small islands under intense pressure from incursion and degradation which is part of a much larger state wide process (with intra state connections). Rather than the use of force, which is not a particularly effective technique of control, the state uses bureaucratisation to pacify the claims on those on valuable land (although last week the state reverted back to using force in Borei Gayla in Phnom Penh). It is also strange, to say the least, that the number of those in jail has doubled in a little over two years which coincides with a period of intense protests around land issues.
So it is difficult to see how the presence of laws, decrees praks or number of community forestry area/registered indigenous land would be the sole or only indicator of progress in land tenure. I think it’s the opposite – elite exploitation of valuable resources is contingent on the increasing presence of laws and state institutions in charge of land management in areas where land is contested.
Donors and NGO’s have in some cases effectively subsidised this process. Jumping straight into land registration or community forestry registration should be recognised as a strategy with extensive risks rather than a silver bullet – regardless of what elites in Phnom Penh claim. These risks are not only in terms of wasted money, ramifications to local communities, but the much bigger risk of legitimising a state strategy where the rules of the game are set by the state actors, and NGOs and local communities are stuck in a process of endless hoops with limited options – i.e rendering technical. NGOs are putting their own concerns of securing resources ahead of those of those they claim to work for, when they ‘jump’ into land registration (or ‘climate change adaption’ for that matter too!). There is a rich literature on neo patrimonialism in Cambodia so it does not make sense to continue to see the Cambodian governance system as a premature liberal democracy – which just needs some tweaking and ‘good governance’ to get it on its way.
On the ethnic aspect of land registration, I share the concerns you raise. NGOs and state departments are starting to develop very strong ethnocentric approaches to development. Of course it is always important to recognise the unique and distinctive nature of non Khmer societies – especially in a context where Khmer linguistic and cultural norms are spread on the back of powerful state institutions and mass media (although of course people have an opportunity to enjoy the Khmer literary tradition as well, and many already have been for a long time already). But there is a very strong narrative on land use change which is overly deterministic in its ethnic categories – not all that dissimilar to the Karen consensus in Thailand. It over emphasises the bucolic nature of indigenous society and locks them into vague notions of traditionalism while blaming low land Khmer and Cham farmers and labours for land alienation– who are surely the most marginalised within Ratanakiri. The Lao are stuck somewhere in the middle sometimes being with the indigenous victims, at other times with the Khmer as greedy land speculators. You can find all this in the 2001 land law which talks about ‘traditional’ land uses of indigenous people and fails to recognise that many indigenous people farm cash crops and paddy rice (for a significant amount of people, more than ‘traditional’ subsistence crops). There was little consultation with indigenous people over what type of system they wanted and it was just assumed that a communal system would be more appropriate. I read a consultancy report from 1997 that showed around half of those asked in Ratanakiri preferred private ownership – especially those near urban areas and with cash crops, yet the report concluded that a communal system would be ‘more equitable’. It seems to be very similar to what Tania Murray Li describes in The Will to Improve. The sub decree on indigenous land rights is causing absolute chaos in the northeast. It is not clear whether all land which indigenous people use is considered state public land or just that which they register. Few people I have spoken too clearly understand the land regime and without a clear system which can allow land exchange (and access to recourse when it goes wrong) people are forced to illegally depart with their land on highly exploitative terms. Of course many indigenous people do want communal land registration -but looking at cases such as Kong Yu in Ratanakiri where Jarai people brought forward cases of incursion on to community land and were counter sued – many people have low expectations of the entire process.
Constructing ‘indigenous’ people as unable to speak Khmer and as victims locked in traditionalism – which is what is increasingly occurring, not only disrespects the enormous linguistic and cultural diversity of those living in the northeast but plays into a larger narrative of state building which sees indigenous people in need of modernisation who ought to be complacent with dams, mines and plantations which devastate their livelihoods.
i also fall into the non-farang & non-thai grey category. but it could not bother me less because my compassion for Thais makes everything closer between me and them. i GUESS this is also the point of this journal?
Even Buddhism is forced on you in first grade, kindergarten even. If you marked your info as ‘no religion’, you’re encouraged by your teacher to put ‘Buddhist’ there instead. You’re then required to study 2 hrs of mandatory lessons each week in Buddhism.
It helps that most Thais are gullible enough that they don’t question where their ‘choice’ came from.
And your love for the Monarchy starts mysteriously from the same age/same place. Isn’t that wonderful?
All well and good, perhaps, but I have yet to run into a non-Thai English teacher who makes the same error. Perhaps you have?
As to the wish for correct pronunciation of Bangkok, I confess to using the Westernized pronunciation in almost all conversation and do not plan to make any adjustments in the near future pending a convincing reason other than it is merely a need to pronounce as Thais pronounce it, or whether I and others have the right, without being ignorant, to pronounce it internationally.
Ever listened to most Arabs pronounce Pattaya? It’s three syllables, with normal pronunciation on the first. But most Arabs not familiar or not needing in their social circles to pronounce it correctly call it “Pat THA ya.”
As to Chevrolet, why are Thais taking so much trouble to pronounce the “T” at the end when it is not pronounced? How did this very wrong pronunciation get started and why is it accepted?
The initial response to you was that you seemed as if you were asking in a somewhat condescending tone for “all Farangs” to accommodate your personal preferences at pronouncing Bangkok, as correct as it is. However, as you are likely well-aware not all farangs come from the same place and their pronunciations of Bangkok will also likely vary. So when you ask “all Farangs” not to make the mistake of mispronouncing Bangkok as a farang many of us wonder just how it is that your message is to penetrate the international farang community on the one hand, and on the other, is your point valid for its own sake or is it somewhat kiltered? I think that many Asians will use the international pronunciation of Bangkok. They are not farangs.
Finally, my own pet peeve as an English teacher and a long-time one. This “And also” we are exposed to constantly is and was a no-no from kindergarten on. Use either one or the other but not both. Yet BBC and CNN and Reuters and the Bangkok Post and people I run into, those i listen to on TV and radio are “and also” – ing everything to death. Why don’t people wake up?
@ Peter O’Hara,
As a retired professional soldier who has been in and around Asia for years I tend to disagree. I didn’t base my observations casually, I based them as, firstly a combat soldier, secondly as a professional and thirdly what is the accepted standard of professionals.
Professional soldiers take pride in their dress, arms and bearing and as a frequent visitor to various units in and around Bangkok (Supreme Command HQ for one) I am often appalled at what I see.
When I said “I believe it is simply not enough to discuss apostasy in an academic way without understanding the whole truth in Islam; the pillars of Islam; the concept of ‘ibadah’ and how all these finally relates to the Judgment Day. To discuss only specifically on apostasy is like a blind man holding an elephant’s tail and trying to describe how big the animal is.” – is referring to the other responses and commentators of the articles; not in any way is referring to the individuals you quote in the article. The article that you wrote was academically justified with the citations and references given; more or less I am agreeable to your point that Muslim jurisprudence have different view if to talk on the apostasy issue.
There is no problem in differences of opinion within the Islamic scholars as long it is not about the ‘usul’ (the fundamental issue). What is punishable up to what extent is always debatable because there is always ‘maslahah’ (public interest) in it. The situation 100 years ago in ultimately not the same as today. Islam is progressive in nature and remain relevant even if the ozone layer is thinning.
Given your illustration and your question, again that is a different issue. As I still remember a case in Penang which took place somewhere in 2008, where a Chinese woman (Siti Fatimah Tan) who converted to Islam and married an Iranian guy who then after a couple of years left her. She file for a divorce which was granted and later after that files to renounce Islam. Her lawyer at that time was Ahmad Jailani Abdul Ghani and together they file the case in Sharia’ Court. After going through the case facts and hearing the woman reason for leaving Islam (she told that she no longer practice solat, she continues eating and drinking what is not permissible in Islam), and the Sharia Court Judge permits her application as she was no longer a Muslim.
As for Lina Joy case, she files her case in the High Court which told that they had no power in saying who is Islam or who is not.
Again, Islam is always truth and justice to the followers. If you or any other reader knows any person who no longer wanted to take Islam as his/her religion, go file a case with the Sharia Court. They already had a preceding case with Siti Fatimah Tan. No fuss, even her status in myKad was changed. Again.
Dear Mr. Anderson:
My point is not that Thais don’t make mistakes about things English. In fact, they have made a lot of them, and so what we can do is to put at least some of them right the best we can. It’s nothing tit for tat about it. And about the aspirated “h”, it’s hardly anything “usually taught by Thais”. Being an English teacher, I fight it as hard as many of my fellow English teachers around Thailand.
Thanks for your responses. I think a lot of people recognise the basic problem that you well articulate. But there are also some difficulties with trying to arrive at what could be done about it, given the ‘character of the ruling regime in Cambodia.’
I fully agree that this project of “rendering technical” and de-politicizing the political ecology of land and resource rights, through legal tenure reforms in Cambodia, has real limitations.
Just look at the apparent ease through which large scale land concessions are allocated to private investors (through what appears as a model of bureaucratic efficiency), and compare that to the hugely complex and time consuming bureaucratic hurdles that are required to register a community forest site, or to successfully register for indigenous communal tenure.
When I have raised these up with a colleague who works on the legal forest-land sector framework in Cambodia, his usual reply is something along the lines of:
‘Yes, but some patience is also required. Rome was not built in a day. Establishing the basis for rule of law and due process around land tenure is a very complex task for any country, let alone one with the recent history of Cambodia. This issue requires time, a long term commitment, and continued international support.’
This colleague would also point to how some progress is indeed being made, for example around registration of community forestry sites in Cambodia.
After a slow first few years for example, the new RGC National Forestry Program– approved by the MAFF in early 2010 and passed by the PM in November 2010– now signals the intent of the government to increase the coverage of community forestry up to an impressive 2 million hectares by 2020 (which is 19% of the National Forest Estate). As of mid 2010, 94 community forest sites, covering 113,000 hectares had been officially approved from the MAFF, with more than 200-300 community forestry sites awaiting final approval. RECOFTC for instance has been working on this issue quite a bit and seem to have had some real successes with community forest registration.
Indigenous communal titling has been moving ahead more slowly, and my last information is that 44 communities are in the process of obtaining collective land title. As of July 2010, 31 Indigenous Communities had already been certified by the Ministry of Rural Development and 13 were registered as full legal entities. Another 89 indigenous communities are applying in Ratanakiri and Mondulki.
Part of the problem with indigenous communal tenure of course is that there are also difficult questions concerning which communities or peoples would actually be considered as ‘indigenous’ in the context of Cambodia. Some people argue that it was a mistake to try to develop a parallel legal framework based on ethno-territorial claims, and specifically in relation to indigeneity– and I would be interested in your thoughts on that.
There seems to have been some tangible progress made around forest-land tenure rights, at least from my reading of the available documentation (I have not done extensive fieldwork in Cambodia). In my honest opinion, I don’t think that one can simply abandon this work on the legal-bureaucratic tenure reform process.
Nevertheless, as Hall, Hirsch and Li write in the conclusion to their book “Powers of Exclusion”: “Contentious land issues.. are resolved not only in the arena of policy and regulation, but viscerally through force, and through the logic of the market.”
Clearly, the ‘balance of social forces’ inside Cambodia is what will ultimately decide the day, although external interventions can support or hinder their emergence.
I suppose it might come down to where you think it is best to invest your own energies.
You write:
“Cambodia’s unique history and future trajectory has to be fully appreciated and respected. I personally believe in the idea of secure land title. The question is more how to get there, what are the lessons from past mistakes and most importantly what do the diverse group of people who live on Cambodian soil want and expect from new land use regimes?”
This sounds very right to me.. now looking forward to your next post, on the vexing problem of “how to get there…” !
The Thai army is far away from being a “professional” army in Huntington’s sense.
I recommend the article of Pavin Chachavalpongpun in the book “Political Resurgence of the Military in Southeast Asia: Conflict and Leadership” (Routledge Contemporary Southeast Asia Series) edited by Marcus Mietzner (2011). Great articles on civil-military relations in different countries of SEA.
@ Roger
Whether an army is professional or non-professional can barely be decided by casual observations of soldiers’ behaviors.
I still endorse the argument that the Thai army is, in part, “increasingly professional”. As we say in this brief article: “there is little sign that this investment in professionalism is reflected in the army’s organisation or many of its operations”. Indeed we outline “three reasons why greater investment has not created an entirely depoliticised and professional army”. We could go on, but in a short piece there is only so much we can say. If Thailand is going to be a more peaceful, more stable and more democratic place then the role of the armed forces, especially its most “professional” components, is a big issue.
Explaining some of the reasons why all the investments in professionalisation still haven’t made enough difference seems like a good start.
We adopt it on the grounds of neutrality is as lame as they come.
Come off it, it just makes good business sense for the FT.
And there I was thinking this one has been done to death.
‘Myanmar Pye’ is Burmese speaker call the country.
Well, I ‘ll have you know that I say Bamar Pyi like everyone my generation and before. Officially and in formal writing the country has always been Myanmar in the Burmese language from the dawn of history. The Union of Burma was Pyidaungsu Myanmar Naingandaw.
And I don’t buy the claim that ethnic people prefer it – both have always meant the bloody Burmese like me a Bamar. So in English we say Burma and Burmese. Most foreigners can’t say Myanmar right, and some extend the use to Myanmarese?!! Even the Burmese themselves do that to coin a term talking to foreigners.
The minorities probably don’t give a damn so long as they are treated fairly and not being murdered on a fairly regular basis.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Dear Phayao, Thailand; Postcard from Singapore
The purpose of this posting is very unclear.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Its very humorous how you ” journalis” view Thailand from a zoo visitor point of view. What you want is very badly how Thailand should be. You guys are saying the same things as the first Portuguese that landed. Some kings are well celebrated some are not….this one happeneds to be……if some of these comments are made in front of my face?…I probably muay thia elbow you in the face….just for fun…….and no I wasn’t forced or tricked into loving the king……most thais never have nor never will fully trust the civilian government.
Name games and Myanmar
Myanmar is what the dominant ethnic group in Burma has always called itself. Burma is the Mon word for that ethnic group.
When Europeans first went to what is now Burma / Myanmar, they went to the Mon capital of Pegu, where they learned about the Bama people up north. That name stuck even after the Myanmar people conquered the Mons.
This happens a lot. The name Bangkok has stuck to the Thai capital, Yodaya has stuck in Burmese to the Siamese / Thai nation, and the people of Holland (the Netherlands?) are still Dutch.
So I find the old (Mon) name of Burma more inclusive and sensitive to the feelings of the substantial number of ethnic minorities in the country.
As I understand, in Aung San’s time there were some discussions to rename the country Myanmar, but the idea was dropped for this very reason.
And if names are really so important, why didn’t Burma change the names of its states to reflect what the minorities in those states call themselves? Why isn’t Shan State now Tai Yai State? Shouldn’t Kachin State be Jingpaw State? Yakhine or Rakhine?
Best guess is that the country and various towns like Pagan were re-named, not for reasons of political correctness, but rather for reasons of yadaya chei.
There is no question…
CJ Hinke, #25
You are named on page 6, in a long list of people, after the statement: “The publishing team is grateful to the following individuals for their assistance and advice.” That is the only mention of you in the whole tome as far as I can see.
Nich Farrelly is also one of the names on the list.
Bests
Dear Phayao, Thailand; Postcard from Singapore
Thank you for sharing your experiences. What I am missing though is the point of the story. While the start makes one curious to read further the end is a rather lukewarm narrative.
There is no question…
I probably would never have noticed, but an FCCT crony pointed out that I am credited as a contributor to this book. I certainly was never asked for permission and I’m not so keen on reading this immense volume to find my place in it.
If any kind reader finds me herein, please let me know what I said!
Land and conflict in Cambodia
Looking at satellite images of Ratanakiri and Mondulkiri , a sea of rubber plantations dominate much of the landscape. At this very moment, as I sit in a cafe in Mondulkiri I can see land clearing equipment slowing making its way out into the districts. The community forests, and land of indigenous communities going through land registration, are merely small islands under intense pressure from incursion and degradation which is part of a much larger state wide process (with intra state connections). Rather than the use of force, which is not a particularly effective technique of control, the state uses bureaucratisation to pacify the claims on those on valuable land (although last week the state reverted back to using force in Borei Gayla in Phnom Penh). It is also strange, to say the least, that the number of those in jail has doubled in a little over two years which coincides with a period of intense protests around land issues.
So it is difficult to see how the presence of laws, decrees praks or number of community forestry area/registered indigenous land would be the sole or only indicator of progress in land tenure. I think it’s the opposite – elite exploitation of valuable resources is contingent on the increasing presence of laws and state institutions in charge of land management in areas where land is contested.
Donors and NGO’s have in some cases effectively subsidised this process. Jumping straight into land registration or community forestry registration should be recognised as a strategy with extensive risks rather than a silver bullet – regardless of what elites in Phnom Penh claim. These risks are not only in terms of wasted money, ramifications to local communities, but the much bigger risk of legitimising a state strategy where the rules of the game are set by the state actors, and NGOs and local communities are stuck in a process of endless hoops with limited options – i.e rendering technical. NGOs are putting their own concerns of securing resources ahead of those of those they claim to work for, when they ‘jump’ into land registration (or ‘climate change adaption’ for that matter too!). There is a rich literature on neo patrimonialism in Cambodia so it does not make sense to continue to see the Cambodian governance system as a premature liberal democracy – which just needs some tweaking and ‘good governance’ to get it on its way.
On the ethnic aspect of land registration, I share the concerns you raise. NGOs and state departments are starting to develop very strong ethnocentric approaches to development. Of course it is always important to recognise the unique and distinctive nature of non Khmer societies – especially in a context where Khmer linguistic and cultural norms are spread on the back of powerful state institutions and mass media (although of course people have an opportunity to enjoy the Khmer literary tradition as well, and many already have been for a long time already). But there is a very strong narrative on land use change which is overly deterministic in its ethnic categories – not all that dissimilar to the Karen consensus in Thailand. It over emphasises the bucolic nature of indigenous society and locks them into vague notions of traditionalism while blaming low land Khmer and Cham farmers and labours for land alienation– who are surely the most marginalised within Ratanakiri. The Lao are stuck somewhere in the middle sometimes being with the indigenous victims, at other times with the Khmer as greedy land speculators. You can find all this in the 2001 land law which talks about ‘traditional’ land uses of indigenous people and fails to recognise that many indigenous people farm cash crops and paddy rice (for a significant amount of people, more than ‘traditional’ subsistence crops). There was little consultation with indigenous people over what type of system they wanted and it was just assumed that a communal system would be more appropriate. I read a consultancy report from 1997 that showed around half of those asked in Ratanakiri preferred private ownership – especially those near urban areas and with cash crops, yet the report concluded that a communal system would be ‘more equitable’. It seems to be very similar to what Tania Murray Li describes in The Will to Improve. The sub decree on indigenous land rights is causing absolute chaos in the northeast. It is not clear whether all land which indigenous people use is considered state public land or just that which they register. Few people I have spoken too clearly understand the land regime and without a clear system which can allow land exchange (and access to recourse when it goes wrong) people are forced to illegally depart with their land on highly exploitative terms. Of course many indigenous people do want communal land registration -but looking at cases such as Kong Yu in Ratanakiri where Jarai people brought forward cases of incursion on to community land and were counter sued – many people have low expectations of the entire process.
Constructing ‘indigenous’ people as unable to speak Khmer and as victims locked in traditionalism – which is what is increasingly occurring, not only disrespects the enormous linguistic and cultural diversity of those living in the northeast but plays into a larger narrative of state building which sees indigenous people in need of modernisation who ought to be complacent with dams, mines and plantations which devastate their livelihoods.
Dear Phayao, Thailand; Postcard from Singapore
i also fall into the non-farang & non-thai grey category. but it could not bother me less because my compassion for Thais makes everything closer between me and them. i GUESS this is also the point of this journal?
New Mandala: cowardly, stupid and lacking in wisdom
Even Buddhism is forced on you in first grade, kindergarten even. If you marked your info as ‘no religion’, you’re encouraged by your teacher to put ‘Buddhist’ there instead. You’re then required to study 2 hrs of mandatory lessons each week in Buddhism.
It helps that most Thais are gullible enough that they don’t question where their ‘choice’ came from.
And your love for the Monarchy starts mysteriously from the same age/same place. Isn’t that wonderful?
New Mandala: cowardly, stupid and lacking in wisdom
All well and good, perhaps, but I have yet to run into a non-Thai English teacher who makes the same error. Perhaps you have?
As to the wish for correct pronunciation of Bangkok, I confess to using the Westernized pronunciation in almost all conversation and do not plan to make any adjustments in the near future pending a convincing reason other than it is merely a need to pronounce as Thais pronounce it, or whether I and others have the right, without being ignorant, to pronounce it internationally.
Ever listened to most Arabs pronounce Pattaya? It’s three syllables, with normal pronunciation on the first. But most Arabs not familiar or not needing in their social circles to pronounce it correctly call it “Pat THA ya.”
As to Chevrolet, why are Thais taking so much trouble to pronounce the “T” at the end when it is not pronounced? How did this very wrong pronunciation get started and why is it accepted?
The initial response to you was that you seemed as if you were asking in a somewhat condescending tone for “all Farangs” to accommodate your personal preferences at pronouncing Bangkok, as correct as it is. However, as you are likely well-aware not all farangs come from the same place and their pronunciations of Bangkok will also likely vary. So when you ask “all Farangs” not to make the mistake of mispronouncing Bangkok as a farang many of us wonder just how it is that your message is to penetrate the international farang community on the one hand, and on the other, is your point valid for its own sake or is it somewhat kiltered? I think that many Asians will use the international pronunciation of Bangkok. They are not farangs.
Finally, my own pet peeve as an English teacher and a long-time one. This “And also” we are exposed to constantly is and was a no-no from kindergarten on. Use either one or the other but not both. Yet BBC and CNN and Reuters and the Bangkok Post and people I run into, those i listen to on TV and radio are “and also” – ing everything to death. Why don’t people wake up?
Thailand’s political soldiers
@ Peter O’Hara,
As a retired professional soldier who has been in and around Asia for years I tend to disagree. I didn’t base my observations casually, I based them as, firstly a combat soldier, secondly as a professional and thirdly what is the accepted standard of professionals.
Professional soldiers take pride in their dress, arms and bearing and as a frequent visitor to various units in and around Bangkok (Supreme Command HQ for one) I am often appalled at what I see.
Lese majeste: Royal perspectives
Does anyone have a good copy of the 2005 speech? The one linked to at PPT is difficult to follow. But then again, maybe that is as good as it gets.
Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view
Thank you Joshua,
When I said “I believe it is simply not enough to discuss apostasy in an academic way without understanding the whole truth in Islam; the pillars of Islam; the concept of ‘ibadah’ and how all these finally relates to the Judgment Day. To discuss only specifically on apostasy is like a blind man holding an elephant’s tail and trying to describe how big the animal is.” – is referring to the other responses and commentators of the articles; not in any way is referring to the individuals you quote in the article. The article that you wrote was academically justified with the citations and references given; more or less I am agreeable to your point that Muslim jurisprudence have different view if to talk on the apostasy issue.
There is no problem in differences of opinion within the Islamic scholars as long it is not about the ‘usul’ (the fundamental issue). What is punishable up to what extent is always debatable because there is always ‘maslahah’ (public interest) in it. The situation 100 years ago in ultimately not the same as today. Islam is progressive in nature and remain relevant even if the ozone layer is thinning.
Given your illustration and your question, again that is a different issue. As I still remember a case in Penang which took place somewhere in 2008, where a Chinese woman (Siti Fatimah Tan) who converted to Islam and married an Iranian guy who then after a couple of years left her. She file for a divorce which was granted and later after that files to renounce Islam. Her lawyer at that time was Ahmad Jailani Abdul Ghani and together they file the case in Sharia’ Court. After going through the case facts and hearing the woman reason for leaving Islam (she told that she no longer practice solat, she continues eating and drinking what is not permissible in Islam), and the Sharia Court Judge permits her application as she was no longer a Muslim.
As for Lina Joy case, she files her case in the High Court which told that they had no power in saying who is Islam or who is not.
Again, Islam is always truth and justice to the followers. If you or any other reader knows any person who no longer wanted to take Islam as his/her religion, go file a case with the Sharia Court. They already had a preceding case with Siti Fatimah Tan. No fuss, even her status in myKad was changed. Again.
New Mandala: cowardly, stupid and lacking in wisdom
Dear Mr. Anderson:
My point is not that Thais don’t make mistakes about things English. In fact, they have made a lot of them, and so what we can do is to put at least some of them right the best we can. It’s nothing tit for tat about it. And about the aspirated “h”, it’s hardly anything “usually taught by Thais”. Being an English teacher, I fight it as hard as many of my fellow English teachers around Thailand.
Name games and Myanmar
Ko Moe Aung
“both have always meant the bloody Burmese like me a Bamar”
OUCH!
Can’t wait for a none Myanmarese to put you down, go figure.
Land and conflict in Cambodia
Hi Tim:
Thanks for your responses. I think a lot of people recognise the basic problem that you well articulate. But there are also some difficulties with trying to arrive at what could be done about it, given the ‘character of the ruling regime in Cambodia.’
I fully agree that this project of “rendering technical” and de-politicizing the political ecology of land and resource rights, through legal tenure reforms in Cambodia, has real limitations.
Just look at the apparent ease through which large scale land concessions are allocated to private investors (through what appears as a model of bureaucratic efficiency), and compare that to the hugely complex and time consuming bureaucratic hurdles that are required to register a community forest site, or to successfully register for indigenous communal tenure.
When I have raised these up with a colleague who works on the legal forest-land sector framework in Cambodia, his usual reply is something along the lines of:
‘Yes, but some patience is also required. Rome was not built in a day. Establishing the basis for rule of law and due process around land tenure is a very complex task for any country, let alone one with the recent history of Cambodia. This issue requires time, a long term commitment, and continued international support.’
This colleague would also point to how some progress is indeed being made, for example around registration of community forestry sites in Cambodia.
After a slow first few years for example, the new RGC National Forestry Program– approved by the MAFF in early 2010 and passed by the PM in November 2010– now signals the intent of the government to increase the coverage of community forestry up to an impressive 2 million hectares by 2020 (which is 19% of the National Forest Estate). As of mid 2010, 94 community forest sites, covering 113,000 hectares had been officially approved from the MAFF, with more than 200-300 community forestry sites awaiting final approval. RECOFTC for instance has been working on this issue quite a bit and seem to have had some real successes with community forest registration.
Indigenous communal titling has been moving ahead more slowly, and my last information is that 44 communities are in the process of obtaining collective land title. As of July 2010, 31 Indigenous Communities had already been certified by the Ministry of Rural Development and 13 were registered as full legal entities. Another 89 indigenous communities are applying in Ratanakiri and Mondulki.
Part of the problem with indigenous communal tenure of course is that there are also difficult questions concerning which communities or peoples would actually be considered as ‘indigenous’ in the context of Cambodia. Some people argue that it was a mistake to try to develop a parallel legal framework based on ethno-territorial claims, and specifically in relation to indigeneity– and I would be interested in your thoughts on that.
There seems to have been some tangible progress made around forest-land tenure rights, at least from my reading of the available documentation (I have not done extensive fieldwork in Cambodia). In my honest opinion, I don’t think that one can simply abandon this work on the legal-bureaucratic tenure reform process.
Nevertheless, as Hall, Hirsch and Li write in the conclusion to their book “Powers of Exclusion”: “Contentious land issues.. are resolved not only in the arena of policy and regulation, but viscerally through force, and through the logic of the market.”
Clearly, the ‘balance of social forces’ inside Cambodia is what will ultimately decide the day, although external interventions can support or hinder their emergence.
I suppose it might come down to where you think it is best to invest your own energies.
You write:
“Cambodia’s unique history and future trajectory has to be fully appreciated and respected. I personally believe in the idea of secure land title. The question is more how to get there, what are the lessons from past mistakes and most importantly what do the diverse group of people who live on Cambodian soil want and expect from new land use regimes?”
This sounds very right to me.. now looking forward to your next post, on the vexing problem of “how to get there…” !
Thailand’s political soldiers
The Thai army is far away from being a “professional” army in Huntington’s sense.
I recommend the article of Pavin Chachavalpongpun in the book “Political Resurgence of the Military in Southeast Asia: Conflict and Leadership” (Routledge Contemporary Southeast Asia Series) edited by Marcus Mietzner (2011). Great articles on civil-military relations in different countries of SEA.
@ Roger
Whether an army is professional or non-professional can barely be decided by casual observations of soldiers’ behaviors.
Australia makes Burma move
Ko Moe Aung
Keeping your eye on the ball.
Citizenry first then everything will follow.
PICKING which part of citizenry is worth more, let the West justify the unjustifiable.
No winner, last 2+ decades as undeniable proof.
Thailand’s political soldiers
Thanks Andrew,
I still endorse the argument that the Thai army is, in part, “increasingly professional”. As we say in this brief article: “there is little sign that this investment in professionalism is reflected in the army’s organisation or many of its operations”. Indeed we outline “three reasons why greater investment has not created an entirely depoliticised and professional army”. We could go on, but in a short piece there is only so much we can say. If Thailand is going to be a more peaceful, more stable and more democratic place then the role of the armed forces, especially its most “professional” components, is a big issue.
Explaining some of the reasons why all the investments in professionalisation still haven’t made enough difference seems like a good start.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Name games and Myanmar
We adopt it on the grounds of neutrality is as lame as they come.
Come off it, it just makes good business sense for the FT.
And there I was thinking this one has been done to death.
‘Myanmar Pye’ is Burmese speaker call the country.
Well, I ‘ll have you know that I say Bamar Pyi like everyone my generation and before. Officially and in formal writing the country has always been Myanmar in the Burmese language from the dawn of history. The Union of Burma was Pyidaungsu Myanmar Naingandaw.
And I don’t buy the claim that ethnic people prefer it – both have always meant the bloody Burmese like me a Bamar. So in English we say Burma and Burmese. Most foreigners can’t say Myanmar right, and some extend the use to Myanmarese?!! Even the Burmese themselves do that to coin a term talking to foreigners.
The minorities probably don’t give a damn so long as they are treated fairly and not being murdered on a fairly regular basis.