The history of foreign funding of Bersih and confirmation of foreign funding of Bersih came from the very lips of its loud mouth chief Ambiga Sreenivasan. She promised the Malaysia Kini reporter and two others standing nearby who caught that promise and much more on their iPhones to reveal the sources of funding (foreign funding) . Of course she failed to deliver on that promise.
What is a mature democracy? Certainly not Australia or the US both of who have the best governments money can buy. They put into office a coeterie of lobbyists each term and the result os what you get there today. In Australia of course there is an abunadance of walth to go round from a small population and a vast and diverse resources base. No magic there.
It was not till Dr. Martin Luther King took his fight to the streets, long after Rosa Parkes and Brown vs the Board of Education that the US understood the concept of democracy. Malaysia for all its faults enjoyed a better form of democracy then. More mature than the US’s cosmetic version for Hollywood. The Australians fared no better with their failure to even recognize their Aboriginal population as humans. Not till 1970 did this change. It was nearly 2 decades since Malaysia’ independence. They then wrote off the legislative imperatives of the White Australia policy but maintain the convention till this day.
The Lowy institute is squarely behind the destabilization of the region. They act as a conduit of the Soros and other US sources of funding for the purpose. Anwar is still funded by Australians and you can count on the ANU where trainee ASIO officers are often sent apart from the UNSW to learn their craft.
In order for the changes Ambiga Sreenivasan demands to succeed she has o first as any half baked lawyer should know, take her case to the courts and establish the credibility of her allegations of unfair practices in the electoral system sufficient to warrant the changes she and her controllers demand.
What the woman does not realise is that the country is a sovereign state. What we have is better than what she or any one else wants. She may be biting of more than she can chew. By demeaning the Malays which is the real thrust of her arguments, she radicalises and galvanises them in a majority to demand perhaps what one sees as Ketuanan Melayu or the primacy of Malays in the system. It will eventually happen if not by gradual means then by radical sudden means.
Bersih is not something we ought to be afraid of but rather contemptuous of. It is a front for the destabilisation of the region. And for it to succeed we need house boys and house girls like the Rose Chans and Sybyil Karthigesu’s of the past who sucked up to the British at all costs because they suffered from a lack of self esteem.
Of them Mahatma Gandhi had this to say:
“Monuments to European Adultery in the east, possessing the virtues o neither but the vices of both”.
I’m not so sure it is an astounding miscalculation; clearly a miscalculation, but not astounding. I think Chip Chasterton’s comment on the thread on Burma’s Independence explains the logic behind the move. The military regime is trying to consolidate its power, both political and economic, and as he notes it is vital that these areas be opened for further economic exploitation. You’ve got to pay the Chinese for all those weapons somehow. If not now, then when?
The military isn’t the only one miscalculating. I’d say the Burman opposition, including ASSK is missing the boat. The best ASSK can do is say solving the situation is important? I think she ought to be loudly raising this issue every day. The reality is she is proving what her critics among the ethnic minorities have always said, that she’s just another Burman politician with no understanding of the situation in the minority areas. I think Moe Aung’s analysis of ASSK in the Burma’s Independence thread holds true here as well.
As a typical Khawtaw Kala, you have again said Arakan is an Arabic word. Then again you also said “Neither in China, nor in India, or in Thailand or in Bangladesh the existence of such minorities is questioned as in Arakan of Burma.”
For the first halucinatory invention of yours, let me make it clear: should ‘ARAKAN’ come from ‘al-rokon’, the term should meand ‘the-rokon’. Unfortunately the Arabian languge has degective vowels and ‘rakan’ is closer to ‘rakhine’ – rather than to ‘rokon.’ In Arabic, al-rokon can be spelled as ‘alif lam –ra-qaf-nun’. this particular ra-qaf-nun can be pronounced as rakan, rikan, rakin, rukun, ….. anything. For Chittagong, the Arabic equivalent is Jaaaataam. And if any Arabian came and settled in Arakan, that could well be in Chittagong, since Chittagong was part of Arakan at that time. Should they settle in Arakan proper, they must have become Buddhists, without going into details as to why.
For the next comment, Hasina recently in more than a dozen occasions said that there are no ‘adivasis’ or indigenous people in Bangladesh. She particularly made the comment to deny the right of these people including Rakhine, Saontal, Chakma, Manipuri, Tripura, Khasia, etc. unwelcome and deny their rights of being indigenous people! You should understand that the Bangladesh constitution and the Pakistan Constitution (before 1971) recognized these people as ‘tribes’ and adivasis or indigenous people, because many parts of Bangladesh were part of India and Burma. (Anyone can check this from the old British archives in London).
Denial of Chittagong being not part of Arakan or Rakhine-pray is as puerile as any jaundiced historian could be. Besides, the people of Burma came to know Rakhine-pray not from their old history, but from the British invaders and their agents, the Bengalis, who came from the neighbouring countries with them. They helped the British understand that the area is Arakan and not Rakhine-pray. FYI, in the Ananda Candra pillar inscription, the name of the country is mentioned in Sanskrit as Araksa-desa, and not Arakan. Then again commenting the Mahamuni as a Mahayana image is as stupid as anything could be, and for all practical purposes, the Mahayana and the Hinayana or Teravadi schools of Buddhism are not like your Shiaas and Sunnis. Even today if you go to Nepal there you will see both the schools running side by side and with no conflict. Then these Buddhist people are also going to Shiva mandirs. On my last trip to Nepal last February I spend a night at Horse Shoe Mountain resort in Nepal. The owner spend two years in a Theravadi or Hinayana monastery as a Buddhist priest, while he also goes to the Mahayana Buddhist monastery, and worships the Shakti. Should such practice coexist today, the case of Arakan of course was the same.
The oldest Sima Ordination Hall (a symbol of Theravada Buddhism) of Myanmar was unearthed in Rakhine Vesali, when the old city remains were excavated. So you cannot brand Arakan as Mahayana, and the difference between Mahayana and Hinayana remains not in Philosophy and criticism of each other, it remains only in the languages they were propagated – Pali was the language for the Theracada school, and Sanskrit for the Mahayana School.
There is no blood feud like the Shia and Sunni Muslims between the two sects. While visiting Tibet, of course, I go to the Mahayana priest, in Thailand of course to the Theravada school. Buddhists make no distinctions, and in terms of the Sanskrit language inscriptions in Arakan or Rakhine, many scholars came to this conclusion that Arakan was Mahayana. But when the Sima Ordination Hall of Wethali was unearthed, people know the truth.
Dear Abid Bahar, as I have always requested you, please don’t keep your one eye shut and shout one sided views, you were not born with one eye only.
As an ex Malaysian myself, initially I was devastated to leave the country and my family behind, but as the years passed, I could see that I was treated like a 3rd class citizen in the country of my birth, while in NZ, I am treated as an equal. No regrets whatsoever. I stand with pride when the Kiwi anthem is sung. How many non Bumis feel the same pride as they sing ‘Negaraku’ when they are not treated as rightful citizens, often being told to return to where they came from? Eventually, Malaysia will be left with the ‘leftovers’ and second best.
Interesting article; as an ex-Malaysian who now resides as a US citizen in California, I do have some perspective on the issue of migration and citizenship. The importance of citizenship (and this is solely my opinion) is much more than what benefits it brings you and is more a question of identity. I took my American citizenship after almost 10 years of living, studying and working here and it was mainly because this is home to me now, I identify with the culture, the people, the drive, the verve, etc. So for me, it was more of an internal need to fully belong and participate rather than a consideration of how much benefits does a US citizenship give me vs a Malaysian citizenship. Just my two cents!
Given your ever lack of insight beyond ‘siempre revolucion’ I will willingly wear the Dunce Cap that you have ignorantly assigned to the Australian government as well.
The ‘ethnic strife’ has been on going since b/f Jan 4 1948. The beginning of the longest civil war, to present Kachin question and all the in between trife such as the WA etc, neither western country nor UN has made ANY effort what so ever, innovative or otherwise to bridge differences.
Instead every new and old conflicts and resulting clearly documented tragic events are re-dug up, magnified only to:
1) use solely against the military government of SPDC
2) Justify the ongoing useless careless policy
3) Detract the simple minded not to see the big picture instead of the piece meal ones by self promoters.
Since the fall of Thathone, evidence of Bamar continuous dominance has been unquestionable and yet refusing to recognize this very fact continue to put Myanmar in Limbo well stated here @ New Mandala by KO Hla Oo.
The contest b/t the west vs SPDC has against prove the very nature of Bamar that make the dominance again ever convincing.
The question is will the west now recognizing this fact and care enough to adjust policy to persuade the generals to see that with dominance MUST come better governance.
Surely this present continuation of less than dignified approach does not project this quality.
Promoting better governance 101 in Myanmar.
1) Re-engagement with the full knowledge of History.
a) Consulting with those such as Thant Myint-U, Derek Tokin as well as all those those who were unreasonably vilified as apologists etc.
b) Diminish input of those who started this ongoing useless careless policy, still unrepentant.
2)Historical similarities are indeed abundant in Taiwan, Korea , Thailand, China and Vietnam as examples.
All with strong governance that promote economics.
I am quiet sure even Turnell can not deny these facts.
“Despite displaying many of the external symbols usually associated with military “professionalism”, the Thai military still descends into being a murderous rabble, with badly maintained equipment leading to multiple accidents, terrible hazing regimes that have caused numerous deaths in the last few years and an extraordinary willingness to turn their guns on the very Thai civilians they are charged to defend.”
John Francis Lee – while the US military certainly have a lot of blood on their hands, particularly in SE Asia, they are not particularly renowned for staging coups or massacring their own citizens. Very likely, if they did, there would be a significant uprising amongst the American population.
I am not implying religious education makes one a criminal etc. All I am saying to Muhamad, is that religious education alone does not make one god, neither does being a Moslem.
Lately, it has been being seen that different people have been giving different opinions on Arakan and making xenophobic statements. After all, we all are humans. Why should we fear of other humans? Ignorance of history can make people blind. And why should we become blind after having two healthy eyes? But repeating bad history or talking back about it can lead to hatred or war. Frankly, in the past, Buddhist Arakanese fought Muslim Arakanese and vice versa. On top of that, Bamars fought Rakhines, Chinese attacked Bamars, Bamars attacked Thais on and on. If we think back of it, whoever we are, certainly our blood will boil up and be willing to revenge. But that’s not the way we have to live. We have to know the history to take steps with precautions so that the bad history doesn’t repeat and look forward how to advance in unity.
In order to achieve that, we have to erase the bad past. There is no race, I think, that doesn’t have a bad historical record in a way or other or that hasn’t committed mistakes in the past. For instances, Spanish were mass murderers of Red Indians, German were of Jews and British were of the people in their colonized countries. Are we still calling them as murderers? We cannot call them so because they have changed and regretted of their mistakes. Similarly, a sub-group of Buddhist Arakanese (i.e. Rakhines) had its share of bad record, too. This sub-group of Rakhines used to be sea-pirates and that’s why they got the tag “Magh.” And we have to, hereby, be careful that not all the Buddhist Arakanese were sea pirates. Besides, the word “Magh”, as I have learned in some historical books, is of Persian Language origin even though it was made popular by the people in Bengal and some people in Arakan.
Therefore, dear Dr. Abid Bahar, we appreciate you as a scholar and we request you to use the word “Rakhine” instead of “Magh” in your (normal) statements because it is sensitive to the Rakhine people. They don’t like to be called so. Why should other people call them so if they no longer to be known so? Furthermore, not all of them were sea-pirates. Calling them as they like will help the boiling situation in Arakan to cool down to some extent. But if you have to unavoidably use it or make direct reference to historical books, please use INVERTED COMMAS over the word.
Similarly, British recorded Muslim Arakanese as Chittagonians as they did Rakhines as Maghs. Nowadays, Muslims in Arakan are known as Kalas, Bengalis or Chittagonians. For information, Kala was originally a neutral word used for foreigners by firstly Bamars. It was not a derogatory word. Later, people have started to use the word for non-mongoloid people irrespective to foreigners or locals. It is quite obvious here (in Malaysia) that Bamars call Kalas to even local Indians of Malaysia, in a land where Bamars are foreigners. They don’t seem to understand or know the meaning of Kala. As I were saying, the word “Kala” is used for non-mongoloid people in Myanmar today. Specifically, the word has been being used to Muslims in Arakan because of their looks. But today, Muslim Arakanese don’t like to be called as Kala, Bengali etc because it gives them a foreigner image even though they have been there for generations. [Note: the name “Rohingya” is seemingly invented in 50s according to scholars. It doesn’t mean that the people didn’t exist before. Remember most of them are of Indo-Arayan stock. Indo-Arayan people have been living in Arakan since B.C. 3323 according to the book with the title “Za Lok Kay Pho Lay?” (written by San Kyaw Tuan, (Maha Wizza), a Rakhine from Rathedaung, foreworded by Dr. Aye Kyaw and contributed by scholars like Dr. Aye Chan, Khin Maung Saw) page No. 8].
Moreover, so far as I am concerned, the word “Kala” has become derogatory in Arakan. So, it is obvious why Muslims in Arakan don’t like to be called so. Why should we call someone with a name which he or she doesn’t like? To be fair, we should neither call Rakhine as Maghs nor call Muslims in Arakan as Kalas.
I have seen in some comments above that British used the word “Magh” for Rakhines because people in Bengal called them so and since British came to the Bengal first, they (British) got the word from them. It can be possible. Similarly, it can also be possible that British recorded Muslims in Arakan as Chittagonians because they came to the Bengal first and later to Arakan. As British saw the people with similar appearance in Arakan as in the then Indian side, they (British) called them (Muslims in Arakan) as Chittagonians. Let’s put it in an opposite situation. Had British come to Arakan first and later to Bengal, they (British) would have called people in Chittagong as Arakanese as they look like Muslims in Arakan. Wasn’t that possible? Logically, it was.
Furthermore, unlike Arakan, some parts of Indonesia and Malaysia were Indianised Kingdoms (not Indian Kingdoms), where concept of a nation, ruling systems, religions and languages were inherited from India due to their close relationships and missionary works. That is the reason why some Indians in Malaysia can claim that they have been living in the regions for many centuries even though most of the Indians were brought by British. But, as I mentioned earlier referring to the book “Za Lok Kay Pho Lay,” Arakan was a land of Indo-Aryans (e.g. Chandras who are Indians racially), Mro, Thet etc. But we can compare the above-mentioned Indianised Kingdoms of Malaysia and Indonesia with the Mrauk-U Kingdom established by Narameikh Hla (where the kings adopted Indian style but they were not Indians) with the help of Sultan of Gaur.
More importantly, I would like to point out how some members of Buddhism in Myanmar are deviating from the main concept of Buddhism in their so-called defense of Buddhism. One should wonder why Gautama Buddha left the material world for Jungles in search of “Taaya” (Taara in Rakhine), where he ultimately achieved the highest position, Nirvaana (Nivvan). Buddha was a son of a king, who was not allowed to go out of the royal palace so that he can’t see the sufferings of the normal people in the country. Buddha had a luxurious life before he left the material world. One day, he could get out of the palace and saw the inhumane sufferings of people in the country. He felt disgusted and he couldn’t tolerate the sufferings of people. In his inability to change the situation, he finally left the material world so as to find a way to get out of these sufferings.
In a nutshell, Buddha was strongly against any kind of sufferings of human beings and can be called a pro-peace. Today, some extreme members of Buddhism are ready to give any possible sufferings to human beings (in this case, Muslim people in Arakan) to defense Buddhism. Are they really Buddhists when they are going against Buddha? We have to think of it. Some of them claim that if we give a place to the Muslims, they will convert all of Buddhists into Islam, which is beyond my comprehension. They give examples of Malaysia and Indonesia. But they were no single forced conversion in Malaysia and Indonesia. All of them willing converted to Islam due to a Muslim saint.
In Myanmar, we are 85% Buddhists and 5% Muslims in the whole country. If we fear too much of 5% Muslims, it shows how insecure we are about ourselves and our religion. We should practice according to the constitution of our country, which gives freedom of religions and worships. Let them their missionaries work and let us do our own. There should not be any forced thing which was not done by Buddha himself.
Moreover, having stayed in Maung Daw for two years, I came to know the situation of Arakan. Some people claim that Muslims in Arakan cannot be nationals of Myanmar simply because they can’t speak Burmese. One would be wrong to say so because the educated Muslims in Arakan can speak Burmese fluently. Some of the Rakhines in rural areas of Maung Daw can’t speak Burmese either but they speak Rakhine language which is a different dialect of Burmese Language. Besides, some of Kachins, Chins etc can’t speak Burmese. And some my relatives back to Mon state can’t speak Burmese fluently. Are not they citizens of Myanmar? This fact cannot be a judgmental factor in deciding the nationality of the people in Myanmar.
As far as I am concerned, many Muslims in Arakan can’t speak Burmese because these people are locked mostly in northern Arakan and there are no proximity and close relationships between Bamars and these people. Many of them cannot find a single Bamar to speak with. So, how can they speak Burmese? We have to think logically rather than on arbitrary basis. But those (Muslims) people who have close relationships with local Rakhines can speak Rakhine fluently. The worse thing is that even many high school students in Maung Daw and Buthidaung cannot speak Burmese fluently because they are, in their schools, taught in local Rakhine dialect even though the books are in Burmese language.
Let’s put some arguments regarding this language factor whether or not it affects one’s nationality in other countries of today’s modern world. In India, most of the people like Tamils, Telugus, Malayalams, Tulus etc don’t even know what the (official) Hindi language is let alone speaking it. Are not they citizens of India? In Bangladesh, people in southern regions cannot properly speak original Bengali language. Are not they citizens of Bangladesh? In China, Mandarin and Cantonese are two different languages and there are many more on top of that. In spite of that, are not all they Chinese and citizens of China? In Thailand, people in southern part cannot properly speak Thai. Does it mean that they are not citizens of Thailand? In Malaysia, despite the very close relationships between Malays and Chinese, Chinese can’t properly speak Malay. As all know, Chinese are citizens of Malaysia. I wonder why only Myanmar has so many problems like this. Therefore, it is the high time to stop thinking stereotypically and think out of the box.
(I, hereby, feel responsible to mention that Rakhine people are also not having all the citizenship rights in Arakan as well as in other parts of Myanmar. Rakhines are not given luxurious posts in government especially in military. Even in Arakan, all the high level posts in government are held by the Bamars. Rakhines are also restricted to an extent that they can never become decision makers of the country.)
All in all, in the past, every people might have problems with others. But by giving mutual forgiveness, mutual love and mutual respects can only bring the much and critically required unity in diversity and political stability in Myanmar that will lead our country towards a peaceful, prosperous and properly developed nation. For otherwise, we have to continue our down slope situation from the richest country to the poorest country in South East Asia until we meet the end.
If I have made any mistakes, please forgive me as I am nothing more than a normal human being.
Unconditionally apology to anyone if he or she feels offended by my writings here!
My all writings are dedicated to peace-loving people!
Dear R.N
I interviewed two expats who told me ‘they pretty much wrote the sub decree on indigenous land registration’. This has been hailed as a ground breaking piece of legislation – especially as it recognises the communal rights of indigenous people to land they have ‘traditionally’ farmed. In fact it is likely more progressive than Australia’s laws on indigenous land ownership. Yet why is it that 10 years after the release of this law only three communities have actually gained land through this sub decree and the entire process remains so confusing and convoluted that even those responsible for implementing it don’t understand it! There is not a lack of laws or institutions in Cambodia – the Cambodian state is already comprised of one of the largest number of government departments in the world! You’d also be surprised about the diversity of laws and their progressive nature – for instance in the constitution the work of women in the house has to be legally recognised as equal to the paid work of men. Yet look at the way in which seemingly straightforward bureaucratic process have simplify defied every expectation of how the state operates – from the multi-million dollar World Bank land titling scheme to the current Khmer Rouge Tribunals. It not simply a matter of stating what laws Cambodia needs or what aspect of the judicial apparatus needs to be strengthened, and then getting on with it. The lesson from the last two decades, where millions of dollars have been invested in this manner and thousands of experts enlisted in this project, is that it doesn’t work like that. 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?
Causation and correlation are entirely different matters altogether.
Moreover, social phenomena are multifaceted with religion, culture, socio-economic status being one of the many explanatory variables.
However, at the same time, we should question if religion or culture is a force for good or bad.
In Catholicism, the debate on safe-sex on containing AIDS is a good example.
@ Namaku Muhammad
In you view, considering the issues raised (corruption, social issues, failure of the rule of law, etc) has Islam been a force for good or bad in Malaysia?
I think Nich makes a good point. Literally a locked and loaded term with the military. Is the US military professional?
They’re a paid military force, not conscript, and now many are not even in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. They’re purely ‘professional’ assassins.
They lost 4,500 people in Iraq but managed to kill at least 100, maybe 200, times that many Iraqis : Why do we ignore the civilians killed by American Wars?. If they had been that professional in Vietnam they’d have killed 5 million Vietnamese. As it is they only managed to kill half that many, give or take a half million. Real ‘progress’. Of course due to the long term effects of their wars against the planet itself, via Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium, the totals will continue climbing for decades longer.
Professionals are teachers, doctors, lawyers… the word professional, like intelligence, doesn’t belong in the same sentence as military.
1) “Malays in Malaysia, are brought up from kindergarten age till Uni with Islam as a pillar of insruction. Religious classes from age of 4 or something. YET, statistics shows that… a)drug addicts, b) Mat Rempits.. c) rapes and molestation by relatives.. d) etc etc are largely pepetrated by Malays.” – It is simply because Malays are the majority in Malaysia. If in Thailand the Siamese would be championing all of the statistics as well. And on what base do you relate those offenders i.e- drug addicts, mat rempits, incest and etc. are the people who receives Islamic education from kindy to uni? It might be those people are school drop-out. So what statistics are you using here?
2) “Please explain to me how all the religious instructions has help people to be better (as people)? OR , as you said, being a hypocrite is better, then, being a religious (moslem), pious rapist is better than being a compassionate Atheist who helps the needy?” – If a person is a rapist, then how on earth can you call him pious anymore? Well maybe in Neptune or any other planet, but not from planet earth I reckon 🙂 . Plus, by wearing a white ‘kopiah’ or ‘songkok’, doesn’t make a person pious, its simply an act to get the sympathy from the judge, to show that he repented. Can you judge a piousness or religious from physical appearance? On what scale? Same goes with a priest who molested a boy or sexually abused him, it does not mean he is a pious priest. He might be just another man who has been lured by the devil.
Malays in Malaysia, are brought up from kindergarten age till Uni with Islam as a pillar of insruction. Religious classes from age of 4 or something. YET, statistics shows that… a)drug addicts, b) Mat Rempits.. c) rapes and molestation by relatives.. d) etc etc are largely pepetrated by Malays.
Please explain to me how all the religious instructions has help people to be better (as people)? OR , as you said, being a hypocrite is better, then, being a religious (moslem), pious rapist is better than being a compassionate Atheist who helps the needy?
I really doubt that Allah would share the same view as you…. maybe it is just me talking!
Observers agree that in many respects Thailand’s army has become more professional over the past two decades. It has more resources than ever before, with consistent access to overseas training, especially at prestigious institutions like West Point, the Virginia Military Institute and the Australian Defence Force Academy. It also enjoys grand investments in cutting-edge technologies and is now one of the best-equipped armies in Southeast Asia, arguably second only to high-tech Singapore. Thai army units that were deployed to East Timor for the UN peacekeeping mission demonstrated respectable standards and were well regarded by other foreign forces.
Yet there is little sign that this investment in professionalism is reflected in the army’s organisation or many of its operations…
…the increasingly professional cadre of technologically competent and foreign-trained officers is still largely captured by the culture which has consistently dragged the Thai army into the heart of national politics.
Of course, not all observers would agree with these statements, or others. Professionalism is, as ever, a loaded term.
I do wonder, however, about the way that governments such as Australia’s will deal with the ongoing strife in ethnic areas during this period of gradual re-engagement.
Look the other way while the Burmese take care of business?
Secure land tenure is one of the foundations of civilisation. Trigonometry was developed in ancient Egypt as an aid to it. It does not matter whether the land owner is the Duke of Devonshire or a collective farm, land tenure needs to have a solid legal basis to stop people fighting over it, and to encourage people to invest in it. Establishing a legal system of entitlement to land, where no satisfactory one has existed, is always disruptive, and the government always gets the blame. There is no doubt that Hun Sen’s reforms are being made more difficult by corruption, which is endemic in south east Asia, and in his government. But if you want high levels of poverty and violence to continue indefinitely, and a system where the most thuggish family rules, then stick by the old culture and oppose the reforms. And while you are in this culture-conservative mood, why not oppose constitutionalism in Thailand as an unwanted European import, and support the resurgence of absolutism?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
There is no question…
Just wondering, since I wouldn’t be getting the book either. Do they referred to any of the wikileak documents?
Malaysia in turmoil?
The history of foreign funding of Bersih and confirmation of foreign funding of Bersih came from the very lips of its loud mouth chief Ambiga Sreenivasan. She promised the Malaysia Kini reporter and two others standing nearby who caught that promise and much more on their iPhones to reveal the sources of funding (foreign funding) . Of course she failed to deliver on that promise.
What is a mature democracy? Certainly not Australia or the US both of who have the best governments money can buy. They put into office a coeterie of lobbyists each term and the result os what you get there today. In Australia of course there is an abunadance of walth to go round from a small population and a vast and diverse resources base. No magic there.
It was not till Dr. Martin Luther King took his fight to the streets, long after Rosa Parkes and Brown vs the Board of Education that the US understood the concept of democracy. Malaysia for all its faults enjoyed a better form of democracy then. More mature than the US’s cosmetic version for Hollywood. The Australians fared no better with their failure to even recognize their Aboriginal population as humans. Not till 1970 did this change. It was nearly 2 decades since Malaysia’ independence. They then wrote off the legislative imperatives of the White Australia policy but maintain the convention till this day.
The Lowy institute is squarely behind the destabilization of the region. They act as a conduit of the Soros and other US sources of funding for the purpose. Anwar is still funded by Australians and you can count on the ANU where trainee ASIO officers are often sent apart from the UNSW to learn their craft.
In order for the changes Ambiga Sreenivasan demands to succeed she has o first as any half baked lawyer should know, take her case to the courts and establish the credibility of her allegations of unfair practices in the electoral system sufficient to warrant the changes she and her controllers demand.
What the woman does not realise is that the country is a sovereign state. What we have is better than what she or any one else wants. She may be biting of more than she can chew. By demeaning the Malays which is the real thrust of her arguments, she radicalises and galvanises them in a majority to demand perhaps what one sees as Ketuanan Melayu or the primacy of Malays in the system. It will eventually happen if not by gradual means then by radical sudden means.
Bersih is not something we ought to be afraid of but rather contemptuous of. It is a front for the destabilisation of the region. And for it to succeed we need house boys and house girls like the Rose Chans and Sybyil Karthigesu’s of the past who sucked up to the British at all costs because they suffered from a lack of self esteem.
Of them Mahatma Gandhi had this to say:
“Monuments to European Adultery in the east, possessing the virtues o neither but the vices of both”.
10 January: War and Manau
I’m not so sure it is an astounding miscalculation; clearly a miscalculation, but not astounding. I think Chip Chasterton’s comment on the thread on Burma’s Independence explains the logic behind the move. The military regime is trying to consolidate its power, both political and economic, and as he notes it is vital that these areas be opened for further economic exploitation. You’ve got to pay the Chinese for all those weapons somehow. If not now, then when?
The military isn’t the only one miscalculating. I’d say the Burman opposition, including ASSK is missing the boat. The best ASSK can do is say solving the situation is important? I think she ought to be loudly raising this issue every day. The reality is she is proving what her critics among the ethnic minorities have always said, that she’s just another Burman politician with no understanding of the situation in the minority areas. I think Moe Aung’s analysis of ASSK in the Burma’s Independence thread holds true here as well.
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
Abid Bahar
As a typical Khawtaw Kala, you have again said Arakan is an Arabic word. Then again you also said “Neither in China, nor in India, or in Thailand or in Bangladesh the existence of such minorities is questioned as in Arakan of Burma.”
For the first halucinatory invention of yours, let me make it clear: should ‘ARAKAN’ come from ‘al-rokon’, the term should meand ‘the-rokon’. Unfortunately the Arabian languge has degective vowels and ‘rakan’ is closer to ‘rakhine’ – rather than to ‘rokon.’ In Arabic, al-rokon can be spelled as ‘alif lam –ra-qaf-nun’. this particular ra-qaf-nun can be pronounced as rakan, rikan, rakin, rukun, ….. anything. For Chittagong, the Arabic equivalent is Jaaaataam. And if any Arabian came and settled in Arakan, that could well be in Chittagong, since Chittagong was part of Arakan at that time. Should they settle in Arakan proper, they must have become Buddhists, without going into details as to why.
For the next comment, Hasina recently in more than a dozen occasions said that there are no ‘adivasis’ or indigenous people in Bangladesh. She particularly made the comment to deny the right of these people including Rakhine, Saontal, Chakma, Manipuri, Tripura, Khasia, etc. unwelcome and deny their rights of being indigenous people! You should understand that the Bangladesh constitution and the Pakistan Constitution (before 1971) recognized these people as ‘tribes’ and adivasis or indigenous people, because many parts of Bangladesh were part of India and Burma. (Anyone can check this from the old British archives in London).
Denial of Chittagong being not part of Arakan or Rakhine-pray is as puerile as any jaundiced historian could be. Besides, the people of Burma came to know Rakhine-pray not from their old history, but from the British invaders and their agents, the Bengalis, who came from the neighbouring countries with them. They helped the British understand that the area is Arakan and not Rakhine-pray. FYI, in the Ananda Candra pillar inscription, the name of the country is mentioned in Sanskrit as Araksa-desa, and not Arakan. Then again commenting the Mahamuni as a Mahayana image is as stupid as anything could be, and for all practical purposes, the Mahayana and the Hinayana or Teravadi schools of Buddhism are not like your Shiaas and Sunnis. Even today if you go to Nepal there you will see both the schools running side by side and with no conflict. Then these Buddhist people are also going to Shiva mandirs. On my last trip to Nepal last February I spend a night at Horse Shoe Mountain resort in Nepal. The owner spend two years in a Theravadi or Hinayana monastery as a Buddhist priest, while he also goes to the Mahayana Buddhist monastery, and worships the Shakti. Should such practice coexist today, the case of Arakan of course was the same.
The oldest Sima Ordination Hall (a symbol of Theravada Buddhism) of Myanmar was unearthed in Rakhine Vesali, when the old city remains were excavated. So you cannot brand Arakan as Mahayana, and the difference between Mahayana and Hinayana remains not in Philosophy and criticism of each other, it remains only in the languages they were propagated – Pali was the language for the Theracada school, and Sanskrit for the Mahayana School.
There is no blood feud like the Shia and Sunni Muslims between the two sects. While visiting Tibet, of course, I go to the Mahayana priest, in Thailand of course to the Theravada school. Buddhists make no distinctions, and in terms of the Sanskrit language inscriptions in Arakan or Rakhine, many scholars came to this conclusion that Arakan was Mahayana. But when the Sima Ordination Hall of Wethali was unearthed, people know the truth.
Dear Abid Bahar, as I have always requested you, please don’t keep your one eye shut and shout one sided views, you were not born with one eye only.
Everyday lives of the Malaysian diaspora
As an ex Malaysian myself, initially I was devastated to leave the country and my family behind, but as the years passed, I could see that I was treated like a 3rd class citizen in the country of my birth, while in NZ, I am treated as an equal. No regrets whatsoever. I stand with pride when the Kiwi anthem is sung. How many non Bumis feel the same pride as they sing ‘Negaraku’ when they are not treated as rightful citizens, often being told to return to where they came from? Eventually, Malaysia will be left with the ‘leftovers’ and second best.
Everyday lives of the Malaysian diaspora
Interesting article; as an ex-Malaysian who now resides as a US citizen in California, I do have some perspective on the issue of migration and citizenship. The importance of citizenship (and this is solely my opinion) is much more than what benefits it brings you and is more a question of identity. I took my American citizenship after almost 10 years of living, studying and working here and it was mainly because this is home to me now, I identify with the culture, the people, the drive, the verve, etc. So for me, it was more of an internal need to fully belong and participate rather than a consideration of how much benefits does a US citizenship give me vs a Malaysian citizenship. Just my two cents!
Burma’s independence and the year ahead
Ko Moe Aung
Given your ever lack of insight beyond ‘siempre revolucion’ I will willingly wear the Dunce Cap that you have ignorantly assigned to the Australian government as well.
http://www.newmandala.org/2012/01/10/australia-makes-burma-move/
As a Bamar, when will your concern for humanity overcome your hatred for the generals?
Australia makes Burma move
john francis lee
The ‘ethnic strife’ has been on going since b/f Jan 4 1948. The beginning of the longest civil war, to present Kachin question and all the in between trife such as the WA etc, neither western country nor UN has made ANY effort what so ever, innovative or otherwise to bridge differences.
Instead every new and old conflicts and resulting clearly documented tragic events are re-dug up, magnified only to:
1) use solely against the military government of SPDC
2) Justify the ongoing useless careless policy
3) Detract the simple minded not to see the big picture instead of the piece meal ones by self promoters.
http://www.dvb.no/interview/what-beckons-for-burma-in-2012/19534
The big picture!
Since the fall of Thathone, evidence of Bamar continuous dominance has been unquestionable and yet refusing to recognize this very fact continue to put Myanmar in Limbo well stated here @ New Mandala by KO Hla Oo.
The contest b/t the west vs SPDC has against prove the very nature of Bamar that make the dominance again ever convincing.
The question is will the west now recognizing this fact and care enough to adjust policy to persuade the generals to see that with dominance MUST come better governance.
Surely this present continuation of less than dignified approach does not project this quality.
Promoting better governance 101 in Myanmar.
1) Re-engagement with the full knowledge of History.
a) Consulting with those such as Thant Myint-U, Derek Tokin as well as all those those who were unreasonably vilified as apologists etc.
b) Diminish input of those who started this ongoing useless careless policy, still unrepentant.
2)Historical similarities are indeed abundant in Taiwan, Korea , Thailand, China and Vietnam as examples.
All with strong governance that promote economics.
I am quiet sure even Turnell can not deny these facts.
Thailand’s political soldiers
I think a better way to phrase it would be
“Despite displaying many of the external symbols usually associated with military “professionalism”, the Thai military still descends into being a murderous rabble, with badly maintained equipment leading to multiple accidents, terrible hazing regimes that have caused numerous deaths in the last few years and an extraordinary willingness to turn their guns on the very Thai civilians they are charged to defend.”
John Francis Lee – while the US military certainly have a lot of blood on their hands, particularly in SE Asia, they are not particularly renowned for staging coups or massacring their own citizens. Very likely, if they did, there would be a significant uprising amongst the American population.
Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view
Hai Greg,
I am not implying religious education makes one a criminal etc. All I am saying to Muhamad, is that religious education alone does not make one god, neither does being a Moslem.
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
Lately, it has been being seen that different people have been giving different opinions on Arakan and making xenophobic statements. After all, we all are humans. Why should we fear of other humans? Ignorance of history can make people blind. And why should we become blind after having two healthy eyes? But repeating bad history or talking back about it can lead to hatred or war. Frankly, in the past, Buddhist Arakanese fought Muslim Arakanese and vice versa. On top of that, Bamars fought Rakhines, Chinese attacked Bamars, Bamars attacked Thais on and on. If we think back of it, whoever we are, certainly our blood will boil up and be willing to revenge. But that’s not the way we have to live. We have to know the history to take steps with precautions so that the bad history doesn’t repeat and look forward how to advance in unity.
In order to achieve that, we have to erase the bad past. There is no race, I think, that doesn’t have a bad historical record in a way or other or that hasn’t committed mistakes in the past. For instances, Spanish were mass murderers of Red Indians, German were of Jews and British were of the people in their colonized countries. Are we still calling them as murderers? We cannot call them so because they have changed and regretted of their mistakes. Similarly, a sub-group of Buddhist Arakanese (i.e. Rakhines) had its share of bad record, too. This sub-group of Rakhines used to be sea-pirates and that’s why they got the tag “Magh.” And we have to, hereby, be careful that not all the Buddhist Arakanese were sea pirates. Besides, the word “Magh”, as I have learned in some historical books, is of Persian Language origin even though it was made popular by the people in Bengal and some people in Arakan.
Therefore, dear Dr. Abid Bahar, we appreciate you as a scholar and we request you to use the word “Rakhine” instead of “Magh” in your (normal) statements because it is sensitive to the Rakhine people. They don’t like to be called so. Why should other people call them so if they no longer to be known so? Furthermore, not all of them were sea-pirates. Calling them as they like will help the boiling situation in Arakan to cool down to some extent. But if you have to unavoidably use it or make direct reference to historical books, please use INVERTED COMMAS over the word.
Similarly, British recorded Muslim Arakanese as Chittagonians as they did Rakhines as Maghs. Nowadays, Muslims in Arakan are known as Kalas, Bengalis or Chittagonians. For information, Kala was originally a neutral word used for foreigners by firstly Bamars. It was not a derogatory word. Later, people have started to use the word for non-mongoloid people irrespective to foreigners or locals. It is quite obvious here (in Malaysia) that Bamars call Kalas to even local Indians of Malaysia, in a land where Bamars are foreigners. They don’t seem to understand or know the meaning of Kala. As I were saying, the word “Kala” is used for non-mongoloid people in Myanmar today. Specifically, the word has been being used to Muslims in Arakan because of their looks. But today, Muslim Arakanese don’t like to be called as Kala, Bengali etc because it gives them a foreigner image even though they have been there for generations. [Note: the name “Rohingya” is seemingly invented in 50s according to scholars. It doesn’t mean that the people didn’t exist before. Remember most of them are of Indo-Arayan stock. Indo-Arayan people have been living in Arakan since B.C. 3323 according to the book with the title “Za Lok Kay Pho Lay?” (written by San Kyaw Tuan, (Maha Wizza), a Rakhine from Rathedaung, foreworded by Dr. Aye Kyaw and contributed by scholars like Dr. Aye Chan, Khin Maung Saw) page No. 8].
Moreover, so far as I am concerned, the word “Kala” has become derogatory in Arakan. So, it is obvious why Muslims in Arakan don’t like to be called so. Why should we call someone with a name which he or she doesn’t like? To be fair, we should neither call Rakhine as Maghs nor call Muslims in Arakan as Kalas.
I have seen in some comments above that British used the word “Magh” for Rakhines because people in Bengal called them so and since British came to the Bengal first, they (British) got the word from them. It can be possible. Similarly, it can also be possible that British recorded Muslims in Arakan as Chittagonians because they came to the Bengal first and later to Arakan. As British saw the people with similar appearance in Arakan as in the then Indian side, they (British) called them (Muslims in Arakan) as Chittagonians. Let’s put it in an opposite situation. Had British come to Arakan first and later to Bengal, they (British) would have called people in Chittagong as Arakanese as they look like Muslims in Arakan. Wasn’t that possible? Logically, it was.
Furthermore, unlike Arakan, some parts of Indonesia and Malaysia were Indianised Kingdoms (not Indian Kingdoms), where concept of a nation, ruling systems, religions and languages were inherited from India due to their close relationships and missionary works. That is the reason why some Indians in Malaysia can claim that they have been living in the regions for many centuries even though most of the Indians were brought by British. But, as I mentioned earlier referring to the book “Za Lok Kay Pho Lay,” Arakan was a land of Indo-Aryans (e.g. Chandras who are Indians racially), Mro, Thet etc. But we can compare the above-mentioned Indianised Kingdoms of Malaysia and Indonesia with the Mrauk-U Kingdom established by Narameikh Hla (where the kings adopted Indian style but they were not Indians) with the help of Sultan of Gaur.
More importantly, I would like to point out how some members of Buddhism in Myanmar are deviating from the main concept of Buddhism in their so-called defense of Buddhism. One should wonder why Gautama Buddha left the material world for Jungles in search of “Taaya” (Taara in Rakhine), where he ultimately achieved the highest position, Nirvaana (Nivvan). Buddha was a son of a king, who was not allowed to go out of the royal palace so that he can’t see the sufferings of the normal people in the country. Buddha had a luxurious life before he left the material world. One day, he could get out of the palace and saw the inhumane sufferings of people in the country. He felt disgusted and he couldn’t tolerate the sufferings of people. In his inability to change the situation, he finally left the material world so as to find a way to get out of these sufferings.
In a nutshell, Buddha was strongly against any kind of sufferings of human beings and can be called a pro-peace. Today, some extreme members of Buddhism are ready to give any possible sufferings to human beings (in this case, Muslim people in Arakan) to defense Buddhism. Are they really Buddhists when they are going against Buddha? We have to think of it. Some of them claim that if we give a place to the Muslims, they will convert all of Buddhists into Islam, which is beyond my comprehension. They give examples of Malaysia and Indonesia. But they were no single forced conversion in Malaysia and Indonesia. All of them willing converted to Islam due to a Muslim saint.
In Myanmar, we are 85% Buddhists and 5% Muslims in the whole country. If we fear too much of 5% Muslims, it shows how insecure we are about ourselves and our religion. We should practice according to the constitution of our country, which gives freedom of religions and worships. Let them their missionaries work and let us do our own. There should not be any forced thing which was not done by Buddha himself.
Moreover, having stayed in Maung Daw for two years, I came to know the situation of Arakan. Some people claim that Muslims in Arakan cannot be nationals of Myanmar simply because they can’t speak Burmese. One would be wrong to say so because the educated Muslims in Arakan can speak Burmese fluently. Some of the Rakhines in rural areas of Maung Daw can’t speak Burmese either but they speak Rakhine language which is a different dialect of Burmese Language. Besides, some of Kachins, Chins etc can’t speak Burmese. And some my relatives back to Mon state can’t speak Burmese fluently. Are not they citizens of Myanmar? This fact cannot be a judgmental factor in deciding the nationality of the people in Myanmar.
As far as I am concerned, many Muslims in Arakan can’t speak Burmese because these people are locked mostly in northern Arakan and there are no proximity and close relationships between Bamars and these people. Many of them cannot find a single Bamar to speak with. So, how can they speak Burmese? We have to think logically rather than on arbitrary basis. But those (Muslims) people who have close relationships with local Rakhines can speak Rakhine fluently. The worse thing is that even many high school students in Maung Daw and Buthidaung cannot speak Burmese fluently because they are, in their schools, taught in local Rakhine dialect even though the books are in Burmese language.
Let’s put some arguments regarding this language factor whether or not it affects one’s nationality in other countries of today’s modern world. In India, most of the people like Tamils, Telugus, Malayalams, Tulus etc don’t even know what the (official) Hindi language is let alone speaking it. Are not they citizens of India? In Bangladesh, people in southern regions cannot properly speak original Bengali language. Are not they citizens of Bangladesh? In China, Mandarin and Cantonese are two different languages and there are many more on top of that. In spite of that, are not all they Chinese and citizens of China? In Thailand, people in southern part cannot properly speak Thai. Does it mean that they are not citizens of Thailand? In Malaysia, despite the very close relationships between Malays and Chinese, Chinese can’t properly speak Malay. As all know, Chinese are citizens of Malaysia. I wonder why only Myanmar has so many problems like this. Therefore, it is the high time to stop thinking stereotypically and think out of the box.
(I, hereby, feel responsible to mention that Rakhine people are also not having all the citizenship rights in Arakan as well as in other parts of Myanmar. Rakhines are not given luxurious posts in government especially in military. Even in Arakan, all the high level posts in government are held by the Bamars. Rakhines are also restricted to an extent that they can never become decision makers of the country.)
All in all, in the past, every people might have problems with others. But by giving mutual forgiveness, mutual love and mutual respects can only bring the much and critically required unity in diversity and political stability in Myanmar that will lead our country towards a peaceful, prosperous and properly developed nation. For otherwise, we have to continue our down slope situation from the richest country to the poorest country in South East Asia until we meet the end.
If I have made any mistakes, please forgive me as I am nothing more than a normal human being.
Unconditionally apology to anyone if he or she feels offended by my writings here!
My all writings are dedicated to peace-loving people!
Land and conflict in Cambodia
Dear R.N
I interviewed two expats who told me ‘they pretty much wrote the sub decree on indigenous land registration’. This has been hailed as a ground breaking piece of legislation – especially as it recognises the communal rights of indigenous people to land they have ‘traditionally’ farmed. In fact it is likely more progressive than Australia’s laws on indigenous land ownership. Yet why is it that 10 years after the release of this law only three communities have actually gained land through this sub decree and the entire process remains so confusing and convoluted that even those responsible for implementing it don’t understand it! There is not a lack of laws or institutions in Cambodia – the Cambodian state is already comprised of one of the largest number of government departments in the world! You’d also be surprised about the diversity of laws and their progressive nature – for instance in the constitution the work of women in the house has to be legally recognised as equal to the paid work of men. Yet look at the way in which seemingly straightforward bureaucratic process have simplify defied every expectation of how the state operates – from the multi-million dollar World Bank land titling scheme to the current Khmer Rouge Tribunals. It not simply a matter of stating what laws Cambodia needs or what aspect of the judicial apparatus needs to be strengthened, and then getting on with it. The lesson from the last two decades, where millions of dollars have been invested in this manner and thousands of experts enlisted in this project, is that it doesn’t work like that. 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?
Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view
@ Neptunian #30
Statistics/empiric should be used cautiously.
Causation and correlation are entirely different matters altogether.
Moreover, social phenomena are multifaceted with religion, culture, socio-economic status being one of the many explanatory variables.
However, at the same time, we should question if religion or culture is a force for good or bad.
In Catholicism, the debate on safe-sex on containing AIDS is a good example.
@ Namaku Muhammad
In you view, considering the issues raised (corruption, social issues, failure of the rule of law, etc) has Islam been a force for good or bad in Malaysia?
Thailand’s political soldiers
I think Nich makes a good point. Literally a locked and loaded term with the military. Is the US military professional?
They’re a paid military force, not conscript, and now many are not even in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. They’re purely ‘professional’ assassins.
They lost 4,500 people in Iraq but managed to kill at least 100, maybe 200, times that many Iraqis : Why do we ignore the civilians killed by American Wars?. If they had been that professional in Vietnam they’d have killed 5 million Vietnamese. As it is they only managed to kill half that many, give or take a half million. Real ‘progress’. Of course due to the long term effects of their wars against the planet itself, via Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium, the totals will continue climbing for decades longer.
Professionals are teachers, doctors, lawyers… the word professional, like intelligence, doesn’t belong in the same sentence as military.
Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view
Neptunian,
1) “Malays in Malaysia, are brought up from kindergarten age till Uni with Islam as a pillar of insruction. Religious classes from age of 4 or something. YET, statistics shows that… a)drug addicts, b) Mat Rempits.. c) rapes and molestation by relatives.. d) etc etc are largely pepetrated by Malays.” – It is simply because Malays are the majority in Malaysia. If in Thailand the Siamese would be championing all of the statistics as well. And on what base do you relate those offenders i.e- drug addicts, mat rempits, incest and etc. are the people who receives Islamic education from kindy to uni? It might be those people are school drop-out. So what statistics are you using here?
2) “Please explain to me how all the religious instructions has help people to be better (as people)? OR , as you said, being a hypocrite is better, then, being a religious (moslem), pious rapist is better than being a compassionate Atheist who helps the needy?” – If a person is a rapist, then how on earth can you call him pious anymore? Well maybe in Neptune or any other planet, but not from planet earth I reckon 🙂 . Plus, by wearing a white ‘kopiah’ or ‘songkok’, doesn’t make a person pious, its simply an act to get the sympathy from the judge, to show that he repented. Can you judge a piousness or religious from physical appearance? On what scale? Same goes with a priest who molested a boy or sexually abused him, it does not mean he is a pious priest. He might be just another man who has been lured by the devil.
That’s what I think. Allahu a’lam bissawab.
Malaysia in turmoil?
Hai Greg,
“In a mature democracy”.. Nobody in their right mind would consider Malaysia to be a mature democracy.
Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view
Malays in Malaysia, are brought up from kindergarten age till Uni with Islam as a pillar of insruction. Religious classes from age of 4 or something. YET, statistics shows that… a)drug addicts, b) Mat Rempits.. c) rapes and molestation by relatives.. d) etc etc are largely pepetrated by Malays.
Please explain to me how all the religious instructions has help people to be better (as people)? OR , as you said, being a hypocrite is better, then, being a religious (moslem), pious rapist is better than being a compassionate Atheist who helps the needy?
I really doubt that Allah would share the same view as you…. maybe it is just me talking!
Thailand’s political soldiers
Thanks for these comments.
We go on to state that:
Of course, not all observers would agree with these statements, or others. Professionalism is, as ever, a loaded term.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Australia makes Burma move
Look the other way while the Burmese take care of business?
Land and conflict in Cambodia
Secure land tenure is one of the foundations of civilisation. Trigonometry was developed in ancient Egypt as an aid to it. It does not matter whether the land owner is the Duke of Devonshire or a collective farm, land tenure needs to have a solid legal basis to stop people fighting over it, and to encourage people to invest in it. Establishing a legal system of entitlement to land, where no satisfactory one has existed, is always disruptive, and the government always gets the blame. There is no doubt that Hun Sen’s reforms are being made more difficult by corruption, which is endemic in south east Asia, and in his government. But if you want high levels of poverty and violence to continue indefinitely, and a system where the most thuggish family rules, then stick by the old culture and oppose the reforms. And while you are in this culture-conservative mood, why not oppose constitutionalism in Thailand as an unwanted European import, and support the resurgence of absolutism?