Just to be clear – this notion of “quiet effective diplomacy” as the only route available to foreign governments to protest LM laws being used to incarcerate their nationals is completely and entirely spurious.
It seems more like a way to shut down meaningful and direct protest to spare the blushes of Thailand’s international partners.
And lets get this right – the likes of the US and Australia are key allies of Thailand. That they should “quietly” ask for their citizens to be released from the application of censorious charges that are almost certainly a breach of international law and Thailand’s own international HR obligations just reveals how implicated these governments are in sustaining Thailand’s present power structures.
The real question is not how effective clandestine, unaccountable “quiet diplomacy” is but why wasn’t the Australian government raising merry hell about their citizen being incarcerated under LM?
I mean the USA and Australian governments have raised their voices continually and extremely loudly to get a Burmese national, Aung San Suu Kyi, released from incarceration in Burma so why on earth can’t they create the same noise when their own nationals are imprisoned in equally unjust circumstances in Thailand?
Or does moral relativism and cultural sensitivity only apply to the Thais?
Three prominent Malaysian Muslims (Marina Mahathir, Khairy Jamaluddin and Nik Nazmi) discuss rising racial and religious tensions in Malaysia on Al-Jazeera.
Thank you for sharing your views. I’m an optimist too (but not an opportunist).
On corruption – its a Catch 22 situation. There are two ways to reduce corruption (difficult to eliminate) in my view.
(1) Strengthen institutions and the rule of law. The government through its institutions (Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission, Royal Malaysian Police, The Attorney General’s Chambers, The Judiciary) arrest, charge, put on trial and sentence offenders to jail.
But does any Malaysian trust any of these institutions. I’m sure you’ve read about Nazri Aziz (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and de facto Law Minister) instructing Government Linked Companies to “settle” their cases with Tajuddin Ramli (Responsible for looting billions of dollars in state assets. His defence – listen to this – He was doing this for UMNO) or the many high profile cases of corruption involving judges, the AG, Malaysia’s top cops, top politicians, etc.
(2) The people rise up and kick out this corrupt government (and any future corrupt government) through the ballot box.
Your point about Malay poverty.
I agree with you that there are poor Malays but the poorest are the Orang Asals of Peninsular and Sabah and Sarawak. And we often forget that poverty affects all Malaysians. However, the non – Muslims receive very little or no support compared to the Malay Muslims.
Rich Chinese
You point out that Chinese are the richest in Malaysia as a defence that there is no Malay Supremacy. I argue the reverse. That “disproportionate” success by non – Malays as interpreted by Malays are the very reason for Malay Supremacy (read analysis of UMNO demands and Hansard of UMNO MPs debates in the 60s). Hence the determined efforts to ensure ex-post equalisation of performance between Malays and non – Malays.
This is the wrong logic which has seriously undermined Malaysia’s national competitiveness and one of the key reason of all the problems that we see in Malaysia (as I have pointed out in the essay).
A concrete example: Look at our public sector or look at our universities – are the best academicians and administrators heading our public sector and universities. Are they heading these departments or universities because they are respected by their peers, with an excellent track record, or simply that they are the correct type of Malay (an UMNO supporter)?
As Neptunian pointed out – now it is understood that all heads of public service, statutory bodies, government linked corporations, etc are all headed by Malays (who support UMNO ofcourse). No questions asked. And look at the outcome to all Malaysians.
So the correct question should be, “Why are they (some Chinese Malaysians) rich”
If they are rich because they are capable (innovative, industrious, etc), then the correct response should be – let’s learn from them. The engine of growth is human capital and especially human capital embedded in the private sector. These entrepreneurs are critical to driving the private sector.
However, if they are rich because they are “cronies” or “proxies” to BN and in turn prop up BN – then we better punish them. But to punish them, we must first punish the government that made them rich.
To determine this, we should ask the correct economic (not race based)questions such as how were these government contracts/licenses given out – was it through open tender, following proper government procedures, and subject to public scrutiny? Were they evaluated properly? Are there independent regulators to monitor these government created monopolies? Are these entrepreneurs being taxed optimally? All of these I raise in my essay.
But we should not associate rich non – Malays with other Malaysians of non – Muslim heritage, who suffer disproportionately because of Malay Supremacy.
More importantly, Malaysia needs a serious restructuring of its economy to move to higher levels of growth and income. As I have argued in my article, this requires reforming affirmative action, subsidies, taxation, business laws, etc. Some of these administrative reforms have been addressed through the GTP and ETP but they are piecemeal and of marginal significance because the overriding institutional arrangement reflect the prevailing ideology. To address these issues in a rational manner with the national interest in mind, the Malay Supremacy ideology must be replaced.
I also humbly believe that Malay Muslims will find their dignity and capacity to excel under a government/leadership that liberates them and not make them dependent in a master-slave relationship by promising them Supremacy.
I’m in agreement with the majority of what Mr Damage says. Tinkering with the constitution can be done through a number of pathways. I’m sure not every Thailand lawyer or political analyst may agree with me, but in recent times Thailand has seen a series of mass censorship campaigns. This is not limited to laws related to Lese Majeste, but also media in general, such as newspapers, television news, magazines, books, etc. The usual pattern of legal enforcement in Thailand is that it’s far from being consistent. Newspapers and TV stations report on certain cases related to Lese Majeste (such as in the case of Daranee) fearless of being charged with Lese Majeste, though in past cases the law has been used against media that reported on individual cases in an effort to intimidate public discussion. In addition, laws are not always consistently enforced across the social spectrum in Thailand.
In Thailand (and in other countries as well according to the Thai royalist way of thinking), any and all open discussion and analysis of the central role the Thai monarchy actually plays in Thailand’s politics and the inherent problems in the upcoming succession have been “criminalized” to such an extreme that such discussion and analysis takes place only “in the dark and in secret” for fear of the 15 plus years hard time in a multi-person Thai prison cell with a hole in the corner for a toilet, leg shackles for court appearances and rice gruel for daily nutrition.
Not exactly the Tourist Authority Thailand’s “Land of Smiles” marketing/pr image that much of the world still has in their head when they think of Thailand.
The provisions that Khun Pavin describes and quotes here say
(1) in the absence of a prince, Parliament could select a princess [Pavin’s words] and
(2) “In the case where the Throne becomes vacant and the King has not appointed His Heir … , the Privy Council shall submit the name of the Successor … for approval. For this purpose, the name of a Princess may be submitted.” [Translation of 2007 Constitution.]
These allow the parliament to approve a princess as successor when there is no prince or the King has not selected a successor. That does not cover all possible scenarios.
Unaddressed here is the King’s authority to appoint a princess when there is a prince. The 1924 law did not allow that, as Pavin notes. No amendment is described here that would allow it.
Has there been an amendment to the 1924 law that allows the King to appoint a princess when there is a prince?
I believe we still have a choice. I’m a bit opportunistic in nature that Malaysia still has a good future if the Malaysian government puts more emphasis in combating rampart corruption. In my opinion, corruption is the biggest problem, not the institution.
Malays are the majority but they also consist of the poorest in the nation. The NEP introduced to overcome this problem was the catalyst that created so many middle class malays in the first place however it did come with a price, the help introduced created people with mediocre performance in the top management. Hence in very oversimplified conclusion, results in very mediocre results. This system was also open to abuse by the power that be, still it’s a corruption problem more that an institution problem.
I also don’t believe race affirmative actions equates to race discrimination. For a layman like me, I just look at the top 10 richest people in Malaysia. Only 1 is Malay. The rest are non-Malay. Again I’m just speaking in very layman terms. What the people on the street understands.
The struggles in Malaysia comes down to the people at the middle class level. Who knows the virtues of human rights, transparency and fair governance but sees the corruption perpetrated by the powers that be but can’t quite pin point which ones thus easily blaming the ruling government. Why? Because it’s easy to put a face to blame. Which by the way BN is comprise by a coalition of many political parties (Malay and non Malay parties) that rules Malaysia. This coalition parties does soften down in what you believe the sole Malay supremacy in action.
Seh Fah (c4 & c6) – I’m struck by your colourful use of language.
The two guys arriving to lay the wreath were “beaten up by ten Red Shirt thugs”? Really? As in really “beaten up” with all that that implies – i.e. one would expect the need for hospital treatment? And really “ten Red Shirt thugs”? You seem rather defensive about the “thugs” bit – claiming in your second comment that it’s the 10-2 ratio that makes them “thugs”. If they were actually “beating up” the two wreath-layers, what do the numbers have to do with it? Surely it’s what they do and not how many there are that justify the term? So – forgive me if I remain a bit sceptical about the objectivity/accuracy of your account. The video of the pair being led away (https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=239539792749473¬if_t=video_processed) also calls into question just what level of “beating up” had taken place. Even The Nation only says “manhandled” – why would they be quite so reticent when there was what you term a “beating up” to milk?
Let me be clear, I don’t need the “defend to the death your right to say it” cliche (anyway “more honour’d in the breach than the observance”) to roundly condemn any physical interference with the two guys bringing the wreath – quite an effective theatrical stunt, by the way. Whether the two are who they say they are or paid/unpaid stooges set on provoking a violent response, the assembled Red Shirts were wrong in every conceivable way to respond as they did – morally, legally and common-sensically.
Finally, your closing “The Red Shirt action in front of parliament yesterday was yet another example of the corruption of democracy.” strikes me as not just colourful but a woeful overcooking of a fracas. The Red Shirts were completely in the wrong and did themselves no favours – and that’s it.
For a transition to ever be smooth, the first thing to do is to allow for open discussions about the role and the status of the monarchy…can individuals do that with the existing lese majeste law?
Only one strategy can help ordinary people – buying goods and services from businesses that employ people. How can ‘aid’ help Lao businesses to employ people? If one has an answer to that question, there is a basis for leveraging some benefit for aid dollars.
You’ve got to hand it to the diplomatic corps for taking the rhetoric up a notch from the usual feature section of The Economist; I can’t shake the sense that these guys are frustrated authors, yearning for an audience that could appreciate this kind of vitriol. “Although GoL ministers and officials with salaries of less that 75 dollars per month sport villas and cars worthy of Monte Carlo, GDP
per capita is still officially less than $400 (probably a lot less – GoL figures have a good deal of wish fulfillment to them). Debt amounts to 80 percent of GDP. […] The tiny banking sector is opaque and remains an non-performing loan (NPL) factory for SOEs and other forms of crony lending, despite IFI attempts to install reforms. […] It’s no accident that these economic ills are not addressed. There is almost no rule of law or basic human freedom in Laos, and education is in the hands of a corrupt and ideologically hidebound ministry that uses ADB money to build a grandiose but unnecessary new ministry building while rural children sit on logs and try to remember what a teacher looked like.”
I really wasn’t expecting the cables to be this catty; it’s almost as if the bureaucratic context encourages them to step it up, in order not to be ignored amidst the pile of such reports that comes and goes with each season.
Another quote from the same cable:“[The new] ADB guidelines for continued assistance [have been imposed] following GoL recalcitrance in promised reforms over more than a decade of easy money.”
Of course… there have been sweeping reforms, both economic and political, and any history of Laos 1990-2010 would be preoccupied with describing those changes… this particular diplomatic cable, however, is just a review of the A.D.B.’s shifting priorities, and is not an evaluation of those reforms. I would be interested to see any cables broaching the current Lao mode of having elections: there’s only one party on the ballot, but they also allow “non-party” candidates to be elected to (hypothetically) oppose that one party… although a great many of them become members of the party soon after their election (and thus are de facto elected into the ruling party, not into the opposition… not that there is any opposition…).
I believe the case of “Da Torpedo” was based on an inflammatory Bolshevik rendering to the assembled throng which could not go unanswered by the powers that be. An actual transcript is hard to trackdown. Could anyone here reprint the alleged statements made for a considered and objective analysis?
I just wonder if a muslim leader in Australia made statements to a street assembly threatening the lives of members of government how it would be perceived and dealt with?
The recent parliament debate on policy announcement was a race between PT and Dem on who is more royal to the monarch so I dont see things change anytime soon.
Clive Kessler has this very interesting article in The Malaysian Insider. He de-constructs the “Malay Unity” myth. His central theme focuses on UMNO’s concern with “Malay unity” and not Malaysian unity.
“It is no surprise, then, that calls to restore the long-lost and now largely irretrievable, indeed chimerical, political unity of “the Malays” are now voiced by leading religious personalities and officials, no less than by the prominent, mainstream political leaders of the UMNO.”
While the Reformasi movement in 1998 was driven mainly by Anwar’s supporters, a decade on, reforms are driven by Malaysians of all race and creed, and most importantly, driven by Malaysia’s burgeoning intelligent, technologically savy and yes, very humourous young middle class. And they’r brave.
Significantly, the protesters were racially mixed, including ethnic Malays, Chinese-Malaysians and Indian-Malaysians, the three main ethnic groups in a country where politics are often played on racial lines.
That the demonstration took place at all was a testimony to the protesters’ determination in the face of a police lockdown, though whether it proves to be a game-changer in Malaysia’s politics remains to be seen.
Joe Gordon would rather hear that from the US government than “disappointment.” Lisa Gardner has a new report on Joe Gordon on Prachatai: “‘Disappointment’ from the United States is not enough”.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Just to be clear – this notion of “quiet effective diplomacy” as the only route available to foreign governments to protest LM laws being used to incarcerate their nationals is completely and entirely spurious.
It seems more like a way to shut down meaningful and direct protest to spare the blushes of Thailand’s international partners.
And lets get this right – the likes of the US and Australia are key allies of Thailand. That they should “quietly” ask for their citizens to be released from the application of censorious charges that are almost certainly a breach of international law and Thailand’s own international HR obligations just reveals how implicated these governments are in sustaining Thailand’s present power structures.
The real question is not how effective clandestine, unaccountable “quiet diplomacy” is but why wasn’t the Australian government raising merry hell about their citizen being incarcerated under LM?
I mean the USA and Australian governments have raised their voices continually and extremely loudly to get a Burmese national, Aung San Suu Kyi, released from incarceration in Burma so why on earth can’t they create the same noise when their own nationals are imprisoned in equally unjust circumstances in Thailand?
Or does moral relativism and cultural sensitivity only apply to the Thais?
Amrita Malhi on Malaysian “Allah”
Three prominent Malaysian Muslims (Marina Mahathir, Khairy Jamaluddin and Nik Nazmi) discuss rising racial and religious tensions in Malaysia on Al-Jazeera.
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
Fadhli #19,
Thank you for sharing your views. I’m an optimist too (but not an opportunist).
On corruption – its a Catch 22 situation. There are two ways to reduce corruption (difficult to eliminate) in my view.
(1) Strengthen institutions and the rule of law. The government through its institutions (Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission, Royal Malaysian Police, The Attorney General’s Chambers, The Judiciary) arrest, charge, put on trial and sentence offenders to jail.
But does any Malaysian trust any of these institutions. I’m sure you’ve read about Nazri Aziz (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and de facto Law Minister) instructing Government Linked Companies to “settle” their cases with Tajuddin Ramli (Responsible for looting billions of dollars in state assets. His defence – listen to this – He was doing this for UMNO) or the many high profile cases of corruption involving judges, the AG, Malaysia’s top cops, top politicians, etc.
(2) The people rise up and kick out this corrupt government (and any future corrupt government) through the ballot box.
Your point about Malay poverty.
I agree with you that there are poor Malays but the poorest are the Orang Asals of Peninsular and Sabah and Sarawak. And we often forget that poverty affects all Malaysians. However, the non – Muslims receive very little or no support compared to the Malay Muslims.
Rich Chinese
You point out that Chinese are the richest in Malaysia as a defence that there is no Malay Supremacy. I argue the reverse. That “disproportionate” success by non – Malays as interpreted by Malays are the very reason for Malay Supremacy (read analysis of UMNO demands and Hansard of UMNO MPs debates in the 60s). Hence the determined efforts to ensure ex-post equalisation of performance between Malays and non – Malays.
This is the wrong logic which has seriously undermined Malaysia’s national competitiveness and one of the key reason of all the problems that we see in Malaysia (as I have pointed out in the essay).
A concrete example: Look at our public sector or look at our universities – are the best academicians and administrators heading our public sector and universities. Are they heading these departments or universities because they are respected by their peers, with an excellent track record, or simply that they are the correct type of Malay (an UMNO supporter)?
As Neptunian pointed out – now it is understood that all heads of public service, statutory bodies, government linked corporations, etc are all headed by Malays (who support UMNO ofcourse). No questions asked. And look at the outcome to all Malaysians.
So the correct question should be, “Why are they (some Chinese Malaysians) rich”
If they are rich because they are capable (innovative, industrious, etc), then the correct response should be – let’s learn from them. The engine of growth is human capital and especially human capital embedded in the private sector. These entrepreneurs are critical to driving the private sector.
However, if they are rich because they are “cronies” or “proxies” to BN and in turn prop up BN – then we better punish them. But to punish them, we must first punish the government that made them rich.
To determine this, we should ask the correct economic (not race based)questions such as how were these government contracts/licenses given out – was it through open tender, following proper government procedures, and subject to public scrutiny? Were they evaluated properly? Are there independent regulators to monitor these government created monopolies? Are these entrepreneurs being taxed optimally? All of these I raise in my essay.
But we should not associate rich non – Malays with other Malaysians of non – Muslim heritage, who suffer disproportionately because of Malay Supremacy.
More importantly, Malaysia needs a serious restructuring of its economy to move to higher levels of growth and income. As I have argued in my article, this requires reforming affirmative action, subsidies, taxation, business laws, etc. Some of these administrative reforms have been addressed through the GTP and ETP but they are piecemeal and of marginal significance because the overriding institutional arrangement reflect the prevailing ideology. To address these issues in a rational manner with the national interest in mind, the Malay Supremacy ideology must be replaced.
I also humbly believe that Malay Muslims will find their dignity and capacity to excel under a government/leadership that liberates them and not make them dependent in a master-slave relationship by promising them Supremacy.
Are secret trials compatible with liberties and rights?
I’m in agreement with the majority of what Mr Damage says. Tinkering with the constitution can be done through a number of pathways. I’m sure not every Thailand lawyer or political analyst may agree with me, but in recent times Thailand has seen a series of mass censorship campaigns. This is not limited to laws related to Lese Majeste, but also media in general, such as newspapers, television news, magazines, books, etc. The usual pattern of legal enforcement in Thailand is that it’s far from being consistent. Newspapers and TV stations report on certain cases related to Lese Majeste (such as in the case of Daranee) fearless of being charged with Lese Majeste, though in past cases the law has been used against media that reported on individual cases in an effort to intimidate public discussion. In addition, laws are not always consistently enforced across the social spectrum in Thailand.
Thailand’s succession planning
In Thailand (and in other countries as well according to the Thai royalist way of thinking), any and all open discussion and analysis of the central role the Thai monarchy actually plays in Thailand’s politics and the inherent problems in the upcoming succession have been “criminalized” to such an extreme that such discussion and analysis takes place only “in the dark and in secret” for fear of the 15 plus years hard time in a multi-person Thai prison cell with a hole in the corner for a toilet, leg shackles for court appearances and rice gruel for daily nutrition.
Not exactly the Tourist Authority Thailand’s “Land of Smiles” marketing/pr image that much of the world still has in their head when they think of Thailand.
Thailand’s succession planning
The provisions that Khun Pavin describes and quotes here say
(1) in the absence of a prince, Parliament could select a princess [Pavin’s words] and
(2) “In the case where the Throne becomes vacant and the King has not appointed His Heir … , the Privy Council shall submit the name of the Successor … for approval. For this purpose, the name of a Princess may be submitted.” [Translation of 2007 Constitution.]
These allow the parliament to approve a princess as successor when there is no prince or the King has not selected a successor. That does not cover all possible scenarios.
Unaddressed here is the King’s authority to appoint a princess when there is a prince. The 1924 law did not allow that, as Pavin notes. No amendment is described here that would allow it.
Has there been an amendment to the 1924 law that allows the King to appoint a princess when there is a prince?
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
I believe we still have a choice. I’m a bit opportunistic in nature that Malaysia still has a good future if the Malaysian government puts more emphasis in combating rampart corruption. In my opinion, corruption is the biggest problem, not the institution.
Malays are the majority but they also consist of the poorest in the nation. The NEP introduced to overcome this problem was the catalyst that created so many middle class malays in the first place however it did come with a price, the help introduced created people with mediocre performance in the top management. Hence in very oversimplified conclusion, results in very mediocre results. This system was also open to abuse by the power that be, still it’s a corruption problem more that an institution problem.
I also don’t believe race affirmative actions equates to race discrimination. For a layman like me, I just look at the top 10 richest people in Malaysia. Only 1 is Malay. The rest are non-Malay. Again I’m just speaking in very layman terms. What the people on the street understands.
The struggles in Malaysia comes down to the people at the middle class level. Who knows the virtues of human rights, transparency and fair governance but sees the corruption perpetrated by the powers that be but can’t quite pin point which ones thus easily blaming the ruling government. Why? Because it’s easy to put a face to blame. Which by the way BN is comprise by a coalition of many political parties (Malay and non Malay parties) that rules Malaysia. This coalition parties does soften down in what you believe the sole Malay supremacy in action.
Just, fair, accountable!
Seh Fah (c4 & c6) – I’m struck by your colourful use of language.
The two guys arriving to lay the wreath were “beaten up by ten Red Shirt thugs”? Really? As in really “beaten up” with all that that implies – i.e. one would expect the need for hospital treatment? And really “ten Red Shirt thugs”? You seem rather defensive about the “thugs” bit – claiming in your second comment that it’s the 10-2 ratio that makes them “thugs”. If they were actually “beating up” the two wreath-layers, what do the numbers have to do with it? Surely it’s what they do and not how many there are that justify the term? So – forgive me if I remain a bit sceptical about the objectivity/accuracy of your account. The video of the pair being led away (https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=239539792749473¬if_t=video_processed) also calls into question just what level of “beating up” had taken place. Even The Nation only says “manhandled” – why would they be quite so reticent when there was what you term a “beating up” to milk?
Let me be clear, I don’t need the “defend to the death your right to say it” cliche (anyway “more honour’d in the breach than the observance”) to roundly condemn any physical interference with the two guys bringing the wreath – quite an effective theatrical stunt, by the way. Whether the two are who they say they are or paid/unpaid stooges set on provoking a violent response, the assembled Red Shirts were wrong in every conceivable way to respond as they did – morally, legally and common-sensically.
Finally, your closing “The Red Shirt action in front of parliament yesterday was yet another example of the corruption of democracy.” strikes me as not just colourful but a woeful overcooking of a fracas. The Red Shirts were completely in the wrong and did themselves no favours – and that’s it.
Thailand’s succession planning
For a transition to ever be smooth, the first thing to do is to allow for open discussions about the role and the status of the monarchy…can individuals do that with the existing lese majeste law?
Wikileaks on Laos
Only one strategy can help ordinary people – buying goods and services from businesses that employ people. How can ‘aid’ help Lao businesses to employ people? If one has an answer to that question, there is a basis for leveraging some benefit for aid dollars.
Wikileaks on Laos
You’ve got to hand it to the diplomatic corps for taking the rhetoric up a notch from the usual feature section of The Economist; I can’t shake the sense that these guys are frustrated authors, yearning for an audience that could appreciate this kind of vitriol.
“Although GoL ministers and officials with salaries of less that 75 dollars per month sport villas and cars worthy of Monte Carlo, GDP
per capita is still officially less than $400 (probably a lot less – GoL figures have a good deal of wish fulfillment to them). Debt amounts to 80 percent of GDP. […] The tiny banking sector is opaque and remains an non-performing loan (NPL) factory for SOEs and other forms of crony lending, despite IFI attempts to install reforms. […] It’s no accident that these economic ills are not addressed. There is almost no rule of law or basic human freedom in Laos, and education is in the hands of a corrupt and ideologically hidebound ministry that uses ADB money to build a grandiose but unnecessary new ministry building while rural children sit on logs and try to remember what a teacher looked like.”
I really wasn’t expecting the cables to be this catty; it’s almost as if the bureaucratic context encourages them to step it up, in order not to be ignored amidst the pile of such reports that comes and goes with each season.
Another quote from the same cable:“[The new] ADB guidelines for continued assistance [have been imposed] following GoL recalcitrance in promised reforms over more than a decade of easy money.”
Of course… there have been sweeping reforms, both economic and political, and any history of Laos 1990-2010 would be preoccupied with describing those changes… this particular diplomatic cable, however, is just a review of the A.D.B.’s shifting priorities, and is not an evaluation of those reforms. I would be interested to see any cables broaching the current Lao mode of having elections: there’s only one party on the ballot, but they also allow “non-party” candidates to be elected to (hypothetically) oppose that one party… although a great many of them become members of the party soon after their election (and thus are de facto elected into the ruling party, not into the opposition… not that there is any opposition…).
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
I believe the case of “Da Torpedo” was based on an inflammatory Bolshevik rendering to the assembled throng which could not go unanswered by the powers that be. An actual transcript is hard to trackdown. Could anyone here reprint the alleged statements made for a considered and objective analysis?
I just wonder if a muslim leader in Australia made statements to a street assembly threatening the lives of members of government how it would be perceived and dealt with?
Just, fair, accountable!
The recent parliament debate on policy announcement was a race between PT and Dem on who is more royal to the monarch so I dont see things change anytime soon.
Just, fair, accountable!
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/27/national/Parliament-wreath-layer-denies-paid-for-protest-30163794.html suggest that the event was not as simple as might be claimed.
The survival of Najib and UMNO
Clive Kessler has this very interesting article in The Malaysian Insider. He de-constructs the “Malay Unity” myth. His central theme focuses on UMNO’s concern with “Malay unity” and not Malaysian unity.
Narrative sedition and democratic consolidation
Very interesting, thanks to K. Somsuk and K. Andrew.
I personally think that a narrative that needs to be told in Thailand is from the book ‘Animal Farm’.
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
A shorter version of this article appeared on Asia Times Online. I found one of the comments quite interesting;
I ask the question then – if Malaysia has elections (no matter how imperfect it is), why does one say, they have no choice.
Malaysia’s new generation
While the Reformasi movement in 1998 was driven mainly by Anwar’s supporters, a decade on, reforms are driven by Malaysians of all race and creed, and most importantly, driven by Malaysia’s burgeoning intelligent, technologically savy and yes, very humourous young middle class. And they’r brave.
Extracted from “Malaysia nips an hibiscus uprising“, Simon Roughneen, Asia Times Online, 12 July 2011.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Bad laws and their consequences should be opposed by all possible means.
If the Australian government (or other governments) work behind the scenes to secure the release of people who suffer under these laws, that’s good.
If other people protest against these laws openly and forcefully, that’s good too.
Free Harry Nicolaides and free Da Torpedo.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
“Free Joe. Now!”
Joe Gordon would rather hear that from the US government than “disappointment.” Lisa Gardner has a new report on Joe Gordon on Prachatai: “‘Disappointment’ from the United States is not enough”.
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2725