If AI and HRW come out and say something it helps shapes the perception of what is going on in Thailand.
So far they seem to have been wilfully misleading the international community on the situation in Thailand and also peddling misrepresentations and, at times, complete lies.
It doesn’t mean that if AI/HRW start actually doing their jobs everything in Thailand will suddenly be hunky dory – only a naif would think that.
But if they did the kind of governments that are supplying the Thai military and other anti-democratic forces with arms and access to markets etc would have difficult questions to answer.
1)”each incremental step toward openness is used to bring greater national and international scrutiny ”
I very much doubt you intend to include the resulting scourge of the still ongoing useless careless policy, together with the well known military government solving “everything militarily”?
2)”grotesque reality faced by millions of Burmese”
Is 1 child out of every 5 in Myanmar will NEVER see their 5th birthday, proven statistic, grotesque enough. Be it Bamar or other ethnic groups.
Democracy, Political Prisoner, Brutal suppression of unarmed protesters, did not doing enough to help the Nagis victims, Drug trafficking and now revamped minority suppression issues.
The only undeniable fact is the West useless careless policy of last 2+ decades
1)Precipitate negatively every conditions describe above if not cause 2)the creation of some new ones that wasn’t there b/f.
Your wait and see “nascent political reform” of present maneuvering of military controlled transition absolutely contradict your “hammer to nail” view of the military.
Resistance to plantations and logging in Cambodia have been occurring a lot longer than this article seems to imply. The Khmer Rouge revolution against Sihanouk began in Ratanakiri Province largely due to evictions for rubber plantations, and corvee labour for working on the same plantations throughout the province, in the mid-1960s. There were also various conflicts in Ratanakiri throughout much of the 1990s and 2000s, both in relation to logging and plantations. There were also lots of struggles in many other parts of the country during this period. Maybe people are taking more notice of it now, which is good, but unfortunately this sort of thing has been going on for a long time already. It may be more intense now, but for people who have been fighting similar battles for years, it probably doesn’t feel that way. In any case, thanks for helping to alert people about what is happening.
On your second question, The King Never Smiles is listed in the bibliography. King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work has, for such a big book, only a relatively small number of footnotes. And Handley’s work is referenced in, by my count, two of those. Intriguingly those references are to his paper on the privy council presented, in absentia, at the 2008 Thai Studies Conference in Bangkok. That paper is available here.
Then on p.179 there is the following paragraph:
The King Never Smiles, written by an American journalist, Paul Handley, and published by Yale University Press in 2006, was a harbinger of this more intense journalistic and academic scrutiny of the crown. The only critical biography of King Bhumibol ever printed, many in Thailand dismissed it for its gossipy content, inaccuracies and mean spiritedness. It was nevertheless a new departure in commentaries on Thai society and its workings. The book, which has not been distributed in Thailand, offers a stark counterpoint to any treatment of the monarchy hitherto seen.
Although I am yet to check the entire text, according to the index this is the only direct mention of Handley’s famous book.
This is how you got a PhD on Arakan history? You are a great disgrace even to your own motherland, Bangladesh!
You never said in the 11th century most of the Chittagong and Comilla areas of Bangladesh were bones of contention for both Rakhine (Arakan) and Tripura kings. The presence of the name Mogh Bazaar in Dhaka proves that Dhaka was once part of the Rakhine kingdom. If not why does the name is still there?
Even during the ninth and tenth century Arakan there were Buddhists and Hindus living mutually peacefully in the country. The Ananda Chandra pillar inscription proves it. Were these Hindu kings (as you said about the kings of Vesali) Muslims or Rohingyas? Inn your earlier writings you said these Arakan kings were Hindus. Remember?
It is sad you are a one-eyed monster and the least of an Arakan historian!
I don’t think AI or HRW were responsible for the end of apartheid in South Africa…in fact in the end the refusal of sporting teams to play in South Africa (notably cricket both of which were/are dear to the hearts of at least White South African males) arguably had more of an impact. Similarly in Myanmar aka Burma I would hazard a guess but realpolitiks has had more to do with perceived changes there. And in a place like Vietnam HR organizations have minimal or no impact on human rights. Stil I stand to be corrected if it can be demonstrated that the tireless campaigns of HR organizations do have real impacts.
Constant attention, continued awareness, frequent reminders, reiteration of wrongs done and by whom, urging of accountability…these are some of the byproducts of hard-work by these human rights organizations. Actually getting the prey of dictators out of prison is another issue. Look at Burma. And before that, South Africa. And before that, two similar issues still not resolved – the people of Palestine and the Native American.
It is unfortunate and even tragic in some respects that appointments to positions of honor are political, such as Thailand’s position on the UN Human Rights council. Political positions are part of the human equation, though, and preventing them is pretty tough. This is another task of those NGOs but they need public awareness and commitment.
To those of you who seek solace in international human rights organizations being able to effectively influence governments or public opinion I ask to what extent has AI or HRW really been effective? I don’t ask this just in relation to Thailand but there are numerous examples from around the world where in the final analysis not much notice is taken of such organizations (e.g. look at Timor Leste when it was invaded and occupied by Indonesia. Nothiong wrong with HR lobby groups but don’t expect much from them!
“Burman” suppression of non-Burman ethnic groups is likely to continue as long as the army controls policy. When 30-40% of a country’s population does not belong to the dominant ethnic group, the country faces the necessity of political accommodation. But the Burma army looks at the “minority issue” as a military problem, and seeks to impose a military solution (remember the old saying, “When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”).
An optimist can hope that the nascent “political reforms” might eventually lead to a recognition of the need to deal with the political issue of accommodation with the minority population using political, not military means.
Until that happens, one can only hope that each incremental step toward openness is used to bring greater national and international scrutiny to the grotesque reality faced by millions of Burmese from the non-Burman ethnic groups.
“Until the Burmese generals quit murdering minorities – and purposely killing civilians is murder – there will never be peace.”
“Until Charles F. and his ilks quit advocating murdering Myanmar citizenry – and purposely killing civilians is murder – there will never be peace.”
“Your unending defense of, and apologies for, the junta never ceases to amaze me.”
“Your unending defense of, and no apologies for, the West Policy never ceases to amaze me.”
Give me ONE academic especially, in History, that support the west policy and I will show you the Charlatan.
Your limited capacity to comprehend the tree for the forest or is it Crusoe’s ‘Not a Man Friday does not count’ attitude, make you, not an apologist but ‘The Running dog’ of the West.
Thanks for your piece which gives me an opportunity to rebutt.
Your writeup has some interesting assertions but are factually inaccurate. You state “Most of the Rohingyas look like Bengalis because Bengalis have similar historic backgrounds as the Rohingyas have from the past.” This implies Bengalis of Chittagong (in itself a Rakhine word) Division are Rohingyas. Perhaps you’re implicitly suggesting Chittagonians are not Bengalis.
How can you assert “Arakan was an Indian land but occupied by the racially mongoloid people during the 11th century removing the Indian Chandra dynasty?” Because the word Chandra is Indian? So, are Sumatra, Singapore, Putrajaya, Delhi (in the US), Cincinnati Bengals all Indian? I like your term “occupied by racially mongoloid people,” presumably they were parachuted in in the 11th century (from China?).
Your writing is also self serving. You talk about name change from Mogh to Rakhine with a scholarly reference (3), which turns out to be yours!
[An observation that I have found generally with Muslim writers from the Indian sub-continent is they refer to anything Indian when they feel it is to their advantage, but then shun away from anything Hindu]
After reading the comments here, I wonder if the otherwise highly respected authors, who must be aware that they would face such criticism, feel cajoled into having to write this sort of thing… in order to prove their allegiance?
It is very important that we should have debates to clear up things. For that I would like to thank the New Mandala to allow me respond to Mr Mong Pru and Min Shwe and others but as a matter of introduction, first I like the readers to kindly read the following short piece published in several places:
————————————————————————————
Living in the Racial Fault line: Rohingyas Look like Bengalis but are the People of Burma
Abid Bahar
Who are the Rohingyas? An Arakani xenophob named Aye Chan says they are “Bengalis” from Bangladesh, and many of his followers even call Rohingyas the “Talibans”; some even call them as “terrorists” perhaps because most Rohingyas are Muslims and to some racist people it is easy to find all Muslims as being terrorists. However, research shows that Rohingyas look like Bengalis but aren’t Bengalis. If Rohingyas are not Bengalis, who are they? Rohingyas are a mixture of people beginning from indigenous Chandra people of pre 10th century Arakan, and also Rohingyas in them had Arab and Persian traders from the 7th century settled in Arakan, and the Bengali Sultan’s soldiers send to Arakan with General Sindi Khan to help restore Noromikhala in the mid-15th century, and finally they also had in their people Bengali slaves captured from lower Bengal during the 16th and early 17th century from raids by Mogh (Rakhine) pirates in the Bay. These flows of people from the north and west of Arakan are recorded in history.1 These people who looked like Indians and Bengalis were scattered all around Arakan but due to their racial differences, eventually were pushed out to the Mayu frontier in the north. “Rohingya” as an official name adapted during the 50’s in the last century by its leaders to serve as a survival mechanism for its people to unitedly face the destiny of attack and expulsion by the brutal military regime and its Arakanese collaborators. However, the name “Rohingya was in use recorded by an early British historian of Burma.2 In Arakan not surprisingly, “Rakhine” is also a new name changed from the historic name “Mogh” Most of the Rohingyas look like Bengalis because Bengalis have similar historic backgrounds as the Rohingyas have from the past. The racially motivated discrimination and expulsion of the Rohingya people has been an ongoing phenomenon for years for these people. The latest large scale push was during 1942, the 1978 and 1993 and even now in a smaller scale.3
Historically speaking, Arakan was an Indian land but occupied by the racially mongoloid people during the 11th century removing the Indian Chandra dynasty. The dark skinned Rohingyas called by the Rakhines as “Kalas” are the indigenous Rohingyas. Rohingyas look like Bengalis but aren’t Bengalis. Like the Rakhines (Moghs) are racially like Burmese, so racially Rohingyas are like Bengalis. This is clearly because Arakan is a racial fault line. It is for this reason that there are Rakhines, Chakmas, Thanchaingas, Moghs, who are racially mongoloid people in Bangladesh. They are now Bangladeshi citizens. In contrast the Rohingyas in Arakan, Burma were denied of their citizenship in the 1982 constitutional reform by the racist military government of Burma. This change was done unfortunately (on record) with the help of some Arakani xenophobs like Aye Kyaw, Aye Chan and Ashin Nayaka who enjoy freedom and democracy in abroad but keep racist skeletons at home in Arakan; calling the Rohingya people as the “Influx Viruses”. In this act of suffering of a people, causing genocide and crime against humanity, the xenophobes even call themselves as democrats-ofcourse, it is acceptable in Burma to the military’s Burmese way to democracy. Thus Rohingya issue remains unresolved and the suffering of these racially different Burmese people living in the faultline continues.
References:
(1) O, Malley, Chittagong Gazettier, p.20, Abid Bahar, Burma’s Missing Dots, p.54, D.H.L. Hall, Burma, 37, Phayre, History of Burma, p. 172
(2) Francis Buchanon,”A Comparative vocabulary of some of the languages spoken, in the Burmese empire”SOAS, p. 40-57.
(3) Abid Bahar, Burma’s Missing Dots, 23-50.
(4) Abid Bahar, Dynamics of Ethnic Relations in Burmese Society. An Unpublished thesis on Burma 1982.
(Dr. Abid Bahar is a playwright and public speaker teaches in Canada)
Maratjp said that Thailand doesn’t need a book glorifying a king. Instead, it needs discussion all throughout Thailand on ‘where’ and ‘what’ anything Monarchy related are located in a modern Thai nation.
Regarding this discussion, I can tell you the “things” I have about the Thai Monarchy and the “places” where I store them..
1) on my bookshelf-I have the book “The King Never Smiles” and Andrew Marshall’s Thaistory 1-3, printed in a folder.
2) in my laptop-I have 200+ beautiful and stunning pictures of Princess Srirasmi and Ploypailin Jensen.
3) on the wall-my mum used to hang the photos of the King and Queen. But now she threw them away in the bin already…
I am trying to think what else are the things I have about the Monarchy in my house and where I put them, but I cannot seem to think at the moment. So..here it is, this is one opinion from me about “what” are the things regarding Thai Monarchy which we have, (or we used to have), and where I put them :p
Clearly the last gasp of the monarchy as we know it in Thailand. This book is clearly a response to TKNS published with the false aura of legitimacy.
The way history has been taught in classrooms here in Thailand for the past sixty years is a disgrace to any modern nation. How much have students learned about the important critical voices who have dared to criticize the wealthy, the aristocracy, and the king here in Thailand?
And then this book. I leafed through it last week and I just thought it would be a complete waste of time reading recycled nonsense justifying not the glory of democracy in Thailand, but 18th century glorification of monarchy.
Thailand doesn’t need a book glorifying a king. It needs discussion all throughout Thailand on what place monarchy should have in a modern Thai nation.
A little clarification may help. The cartoon series sanctions and glorifies every aspect of what it means to be Thai and is on every evening before the news. PBS is a state run TV company, formerly called iTV.
Yes, the cartoon is clearly a very disturbing mixture of moralizing and wishful thinking on behalf of the makers and the string pullers behind or above them.
To these people and – I imagine – the intended audience, the token farang is meant to be symbolic of everyone, Thai, farang or other. Blind adherence and unquestioning obedience.
Ralph Kramden: I always thought the 2005 speech was ambiguous and also lamented the fact that there has been no follow up or clarification on the matter, however those on the editorial advisory board are clearly close to the palace, so I want to accept what they say are his wishes.
+ I hope people like Yingluck, Chalerm, Thaksin, Banharn, Newin, Abhisit, Dr Tul, Sondhi L, Mallika B, General Prayuth and any others with the ability to influence law makers, law enforcers & public opinion, will also take the words to heart, abide by the ‘unambiguous’ sentiment of the monarch, and forthwith do all they can to relax the law (and its implementation) accordingly.
Coincidentally, for the past week I’ve been working on a very substantial and detailed review of this book, which should be online within a day or two (even keeping in mind my remarkable ability to miss self-imposed deadlines). I’ll post the link here when it’s done.
Having read the entire tome twice, I remain staggered by quite how dishonest and crass the book is. Contrary to the bold claims made by Anand Panyarachun, it certainly does not present a balanced and credible picture of the Thai monarchy. The dishonesty is not only confined to the content of the book, which is a full-blown unreconstructed ultra-royalist hagiography, but also extends to how some of the authors were brought on board and how their names are being used to promote the book.
The book is divided into three parts – a chronological look at the king’s life, an assessment of his work, and then a look at various aspects of the Thai monarchy. The third section is the only one with any credibility whatsoever. Streckfuss and Porphant worked on specific sections of part 3 – Streckfuss wrote the sections on lese majeste, succession and the privy council, while Porphant wrote about the finances of the Crown Property Bureau. Chris Baker wrote the section on sufficiency economy in part 2 and part of the historical introduction. The vast bulk of parts 1 and 2 on Bhumibol’s life and work was written by the team of journeyman foreign journalists assembled by Nicholas Grossman and Dominic Faulder, and presents a catastrophically inaccurate and partial narrative. Streckfuss, Baker and Porphant had nothing to do with the main body of the book, and the picture it gives of the monarchy is totally at odds with their own views and wholly inaccurate. But their names are being heavily used to promote the book and give it spurious credibility, as if they were involved throughout and approve of the entire content.
It is also hilariously badly written. Among numerous heinous stylistic crimes and hilariously inept phrases, and in the face of fierce competition, my own personal favourite is this line from page 88, introducing Sirikit into the narrative:
“Love came knocking at his door in the shape of a cousin…”
Replace the word “certain someone’s life” with Kim Jong Il or Kim Il Sung and the word “Thai” with “(North) Korean” then you have this disturbing realization that Thailand is not much different from a member of the “Axis of Evil”
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
Shane
If AI and HRW come out and say something it helps shapes the perception of what is going on in Thailand.
So far they seem to have been wilfully misleading the international community on the situation in Thailand and also peddling misrepresentations and, at times, complete lies.
It doesn’t mean that if AI/HRW start actually doing their jobs everything in Thailand will suddenly be hunky dory – only a naif would think that.
But if they did the kind of governments that are supplying the Thai military and other anti-democratic forces with arms and access to markets etc would have difficult questions to answer.
It all helps.
Telling lies just helps perpetuate things.
Burma’s independence and the year ahead
LD
1)”each incremental step toward openness is used to bring greater national and international scrutiny ”
I very much doubt you intend to include the resulting scourge of the still ongoing useless careless policy, together with the well known military government solving “everything militarily”?
2)”grotesque reality faced by millions of Burmese”
Is 1 child out of every 5 in Myanmar will NEVER see their 5th birthday, proven statistic, grotesque enough. Be it Bamar or other ethnic groups.
Democracy, Political Prisoner, Brutal suppression of unarmed protesters, did not doing enough to help the Nagis victims, Drug trafficking and now revamped minority suppression issues.
The only undeniable fact is the West useless careless policy of last 2+ decades
1)Precipitate negatively every conditions describe above if not cause 2)the creation of some new ones that wasn’t there b/f.
Your wait and see “nascent political reform” of present maneuvering of military controlled transition absolutely contradict your “hammer to nail” view of the military.
Land and conflict in Cambodia
Resistance to plantations and logging in Cambodia have been occurring a lot longer than this article seems to imply. The Khmer Rouge revolution against Sihanouk began in Ratanakiri Province largely due to evictions for rubber plantations, and corvee labour for working on the same plantations throughout the province, in the mid-1960s. There were also various conflicts in Ratanakiri throughout much of the 1990s and 2000s, both in relation to logging and plantations. There were also lots of struggles in many other parts of the country during this period. Maybe people are taking more notice of it now, which is good, but unfortunately this sort of thing has been going on for a long time already. It may be more intense now, but for people who have been fighting similar battles for years, it probably doesn’t feel that way. In any case, thanks for helping to alert people about what is happening.
There is no question…
Thanks passer by,
Useful wondering.
On your second question, The King Never Smiles is listed in the bibliography. King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work has, for such a big book, only a relatively small number of footnotes. And Handley’s work is referenced in, by my count, two of those. Intriguingly those references are to his paper on the privy council presented, in absentia, at the 2008 Thai Studies Conference in Bangkok. That paper is available here.
Then on p.179 there is the following paragraph:
Although I am yet to check the entire text, according to the index this is the only direct mention of Handley’s famous book.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
abid bahar
This is how you got a PhD on Arakan history? You are a great disgrace even to your own motherland, Bangladesh!
You never said in the 11th century most of the Chittagong and Comilla areas of Bangladesh were bones of contention for both Rakhine (Arakan) and Tripura kings. The presence of the name Mogh Bazaar in Dhaka proves that Dhaka was once part of the Rakhine kingdom. If not why does the name is still there?
Even during the ninth and tenth century Arakan there were Buddhists and Hindus living mutually peacefully in the country. The Ananda Chandra pillar inscription proves it. Were these Hindu kings (as you said about the kings of Vesali) Muslims or Rohingyas? Inn your earlier writings you said these Arakan kings were Hindus. Remember?
It is sad you are a one-eyed monster and the least of an Arakan historian!
Ha .. ha … ha ….
There is no question…
I just wonder
1. what Paul Handley would say about this book.
2. what this book says about Paul’s
If books publishing worked in the same way as scholarly article publication, Mr Handley would be the most appropriate authority to comment on it.
FYI: Mr Handley did comment on books published before his.
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
I don’t think AI or HRW were responsible for the end of apartheid in South Africa…in fact in the end the refusal of sporting teams to play in South Africa (notably cricket both of which were/are dear to the hearts of at least White South African males) arguably had more of an impact. Similarly in Myanmar aka Burma I would hazard a guess but realpolitiks has had more to do with perceived changes there. And in a place like Vietnam HR organizations have minimal or no impact on human rights. Stil I stand to be corrected if it can be demonstrated that the tireless campaigns of HR organizations do have real impacts.
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
Constant attention, continued awareness, frequent reminders, reiteration of wrongs done and by whom, urging of accountability…these are some of the byproducts of hard-work by these human rights organizations. Actually getting the prey of dictators out of prison is another issue. Look at Burma. And before that, South Africa. And before that, two similar issues still not resolved – the people of Palestine and the Native American.
It is unfortunate and even tragic in some respects that appointments to positions of honor are political, such as Thailand’s position on the UN Human Rights council. Political positions are part of the human equation, though, and preventing them is pretty tough. This is another task of those NGOs but they need public awareness and commitment.
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
To those of you who seek solace in international human rights organizations being able to effectively influence governments or public opinion I ask to what extent has AI or HRW really been effective? I don’t ask this just in relation to Thailand but there are numerous examples from around the world where in the final analysis not much notice is taken of such organizations (e.g. look at Timor Leste when it was invaded and occupied by Indonesia. Nothiong wrong with HR lobby groups but don’t expect much from them!
Burma’s independence and the year ahead
“Burman” suppression of non-Burman ethnic groups is likely to continue as long as the army controls policy. When 30-40% of a country’s population does not belong to the dominant ethnic group, the country faces the necessity of political accommodation. But the Burma army looks at the “minority issue” as a military problem, and seeks to impose a military solution (remember the old saying, “When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”).
An optimist can hope that the nascent “political reforms” might eventually lead to a recognition of the need to deal with the political issue of accommodation with the minority population using political, not military means.
Until that happens, one can only hope that each incremental step toward openness is used to bring greater national and international scrutiny to the grotesque reality faced by millions of Burmese from the non-Burman ethnic groups.
Burma’s independence and the year ahead
Charles F.
“déja vu”? Not even close.
“Until the Burmese generals quit murdering minorities – and purposely killing civilians is murder – there will never be peace.”
“Until Charles F. and his ilks quit advocating murdering Myanmar citizenry – and purposely killing civilians is murder – there will never be peace.”
“Your unending defense of, and apologies for, the junta never ceases to amaze me.”
“Your unending defense of, and no apologies for, the West Policy never ceases to amaze me.”
Give me ONE academic especially, in History, that support the west policy and I will show you the Charlatan.
Your limited capacity to comprehend the tree for the forest or is it Crusoe’s ‘Not a Man Friday does not count’ attitude, make you, not an apologist but ‘The Running dog’ of the West.
Definitely beyond ‘re-education’.
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
Mr. Abid Bahar,
Thanks for your piece which gives me an opportunity to rebutt.
Your writeup has some interesting assertions but are factually inaccurate. You state “Most of the Rohingyas look like Bengalis because Bengalis have similar historic backgrounds as the Rohingyas have from the past.” This implies Bengalis of Chittagong (in itself a Rakhine word) Division are Rohingyas. Perhaps you’re implicitly suggesting Chittagonians are not Bengalis.
How can you assert “Arakan was an Indian land but occupied by the racially mongoloid people during the 11th century removing the Indian Chandra dynasty?” Because the word Chandra is Indian? So, are Sumatra, Singapore, Putrajaya, Delhi (in the US), Cincinnati Bengals all Indian? I like your term “occupied by racially mongoloid people,” presumably they were parachuted in in the 11th century (from China?).
Your writing is also self serving. You talk about name change from Mogh to Rakhine with a scholarly reference (3), which turns out to be yours!
[An observation that I have found generally with Muslim writers from the Indian sub-continent is they refer to anything Indian when they feel it is to their advantage, but then shun away from anything Hindu]
There is no question…
After reading the comments here, I wonder if the otherwise highly respected authors, who must be aware that they would face such criticism, feel cajoled into having to write this sort of thing… in order to prove their allegiance?
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
It is very important that we should have debates to clear up things. For that I would like to thank the New Mandala to allow me respond to Mr Mong Pru and Min Shwe and others but as a matter of introduction, first I like the readers to kindly read the following short piece published in several places:
————————————————————————————
Living in the Racial Fault line: Rohingyas Look like Bengalis but are the People of Burma
Abid Bahar
Who are the Rohingyas? An Arakani xenophob named Aye Chan says they are “Bengalis” from Bangladesh, and many of his followers even call Rohingyas the “Talibans”; some even call them as “terrorists” perhaps because most Rohingyas are Muslims and to some racist people it is easy to find all Muslims as being terrorists. However, research shows that Rohingyas look like Bengalis but aren’t Bengalis. If Rohingyas are not Bengalis, who are they? Rohingyas are a mixture of people beginning from indigenous Chandra people of pre 10th century Arakan, and also Rohingyas in them had Arab and Persian traders from the 7th century settled in Arakan, and the Bengali Sultan’s soldiers send to Arakan with General Sindi Khan to help restore Noromikhala in the mid-15th century, and finally they also had in their people Bengali slaves captured from lower Bengal during the 16th and early 17th century from raids by Mogh (Rakhine) pirates in the Bay. These flows of people from the north and west of Arakan are recorded in history.1 These people who looked like Indians and Bengalis were scattered all around Arakan but due to their racial differences, eventually were pushed out to the Mayu frontier in the north. “Rohingya” as an official name adapted during the 50’s in the last century by its leaders to serve as a survival mechanism for its people to unitedly face the destiny of attack and expulsion by the brutal military regime and its Arakanese collaborators. However, the name “Rohingya was in use recorded by an early British historian of Burma.2 In Arakan not surprisingly, “Rakhine” is also a new name changed from the historic name “Mogh” Most of the Rohingyas look like Bengalis because Bengalis have similar historic backgrounds as the Rohingyas have from the past. The racially motivated discrimination and expulsion of the Rohingya people has been an ongoing phenomenon for years for these people. The latest large scale push was during 1942, the 1978 and 1993 and even now in a smaller scale.3
Historically speaking, Arakan was an Indian land but occupied by the racially mongoloid people during the 11th century removing the Indian Chandra dynasty. The dark skinned Rohingyas called by the Rakhines as “Kalas” are the indigenous Rohingyas. Rohingyas look like Bengalis but aren’t Bengalis. Like the Rakhines (Moghs) are racially like Burmese, so racially Rohingyas are like Bengalis. This is clearly because Arakan is a racial fault line. It is for this reason that there are Rakhines, Chakmas, Thanchaingas, Moghs, who are racially mongoloid people in Bangladesh. They are now Bangladeshi citizens. In contrast the Rohingyas in Arakan, Burma were denied of their citizenship in the 1982 constitutional reform by the racist military government of Burma. This change was done unfortunately (on record) with the help of some Arakani xenophobs like Aye Kyaw, Aye Chan and Ashin Nayaka who enjoy freedom and democracy in abroad but keep racist skeletons at home in Arakan; calling the Rohingya people as the “Influx Viruses”. In this act of suffering of a people, causing genocide and crime against humanity, the xenophobes even call themselves as democrats-ofcourse, it is acceptable in Burma to the military’s Burmese way to democracy. Thus Rohingya issue remains unresolved and the suffering of these racially different Burmese people living in the faultline continues.
References:
(1) O, Malley, Chittagong Gazettier, p.20, Abid Bahar, Burma’s Missing Dots, p.54, D.H.L. Hall, Burma, 37, Phayre, History of Burma, p. 172
(2) Francis Buchanon,”A Comparative vocabulary of some of the languages spoken, in the Burmese empire”SOAS, p. 40-57.
(3) Abid Bahar, Burma’s Missing Dots, 23-50.
(4) Abid Bahar, Dynamics of Ethnic Relations in Burmese Society. An Unpublished thesis on Burma 1982.
(Dr. Abid Bahar is a playwright and public speaker teaches in Canada)
There is no question…
Maratjp said that Thailand doesn’t need a book glorifying a king. Instead, it needs discussion all throughout Thailand on ‘where’ and ‘what’ anything Monarchy related are located in a modern Thai nation.
Regarding this discussion, I can tell you the “things” I have about the Thai Monarchy and the “places” where I store them..
1) on my bookshelf-I have the book “The King Never Smiles” and Andrew Marshall’s Thaistory 1-3, printed in a folder.
2) in my laptop-I have 200+ beautiful and stunning pictures of Princess Srirasmi and Ploypailin Jensen.
3) on the wall-my mum used to hang the photos of the King and Queen. But now she threw them away in the bin already…
I am trying to think what else are the things I have about the Monarchy in my house and where I put them, but I cannot seem to think at the moment. So..here it is, this is one opinion from me about “what” are the things regarding Thai Monarchy which we have, (or we used to have), and where I put them :p
There is no question…
Clearly the last gasp of the monarchy as we know it in Thailand. This book is clearly a response to TKNS published with the false aura of legitimacy.
The way history has been taught in classrooms here in Thailand for the past sixty years is a disgrace to any modern nation. How much have students learned about the important critical voices who have dared to criticize the wealthy, the aristocracy, and the king here in Thailand?
And then this book. I leafed through it last week and I just thought it would be a complete waste of time reading recycled nonsense justifying not the glory of democracy in Thailand, but 18th century glorification of monarchy.
Thailand doesn’t need a book glorifying a king. It needs discussion all throughout Thailand on what place monarchy should have in a modern Thai nation.
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
CT @ 95
A little clarification may help. The cartoon series sanctions and glorifies every aspect of what it means to be Thai and is on every evening before the news. PBS is a state run TV company, formerly called iTV.
Yes, the cartoon is clearly a very disturbing mixture of moralizing and wishful thinking on behalf of the makers and the string pullers behind or above them.
To these people and – I imagine – the intended audience, the token farang is meant to be symbolic of everyone, Thai, farang or other. Blind adherence and unquestioning obedience.
Although I sincerely hope not.
There is no question…
Ralph Kramden: I always thought the 2005 speech was ambiguous and also lamented the fact that there has been no follow up or clarification on the matter, however those on the editorial advisory board are clearly close to the palace, so I want to accept what they say are his wishes.
+ I hope people like Yingluck, Chalerm, Thaksin, Banharn, Newin, Abhisit, Dr Tul, Sondhi L, Mallika B, General Prayuth and any others with the ability to influence law makers, law enforcers & public opinion, will also take the words to heart, abide by the ‘unambiguous’ sentiment of the monarch, and forthwith do all they can to relax the law (and its implementation) accordingly.
There is no question…
Coincidentally, for the past week I’ve been working on a very substantial and detailed review of this book, which should be online within a day or two (even keeping in mind my remarkable ability to miss self-imposed deadlines). I’ll post the link here when it’s done.
Having read the entire tome twice, I remain staggered by quite how dishonest and crass the book is. Contrary to the bold claims made by Anand Panyarachun, it certainly does not present a balanced and credible picture of the Thai monarchy. The dishonesty is not only confined to the content of the book, which is a full-blown unreconstructed ultra-royalist hagiography, but also extends to how some of the authors were brought on board and how their names are being used to promote the book.
The book is divided into three parts – a chronological look at the king’s life, an assessment of his work, and then a look at various aspects of the Thai monarchy. The third section is the only one with any credibility whatsoever. Streckfuss and Porphant worked on specific sections of part 3 – Streckfuss wrote the sections on lese majeste, succession and the privy council, while Porphant wrote about the finances of the Crown Property Bureau. Chris Baker wrote the section on sufficiency economy in part 2 and part of the historical introduction. The vast bulk of parts 1 and 2 on Bhumibol’s life and work was written by the team of journeyman foreign journalists assembled by Nicholas Grossman and Dominic Faulder, and presents a catastrophically inaccurate and partial narrative. Streckfuss, Baker and Porphant had nothing to do with the main body of the book, and the picture it gives of the monarchy is totally at odds with their own views and wholly inaccurate. But their names are being heavily used to promote the book and give it spurious credibility, as if they were involved throughout and approve of the entire content.
It is also hilariously badly written. Among numerous heinous stylistic crimes and hilariously inept phrases, and in the face of fierce competition, my own personal favourite is this line from page 88, introducing Sirikit into the narrative:
“Love came knocking at his door in the shape of a cousin…”
Watch this space for the full review.
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
JohnH -94
Replace the word “certain someone’s life” with Kim Jong Il or Kim Il Sung and the word “Thai” with “(North) Korean” then you have this disturbing realization that Thailand is not much different from a member of the “Axis of Evil”