Comments

Whoopla (59),
Were you playing The Internationale in the background while you wrote that?
“a violent and cruel government’s action to dispel un-lethally-armed protesters” could just about describe any government faced with riots, demonstrations and general lawlessness.

By the way, it’s been proven repeatedly that some of the protesters were armed, and shooting at the police and army. Tell me which country would allow its police and military to be attacked without resisting, or replying in kind.

Would you have cheered them on if the Red Shirts had been slaughtering soldiers and police in the streets?

@Maratjp, taking risks is what real journalists do, unlike what most of us armchair mouthpieces spout from our uninformed comfort zones. To give credit to a violent and cruel government’s action to dispel un-lethally-armed protesters is in itself a questionable prejudice. There will soon come the day when those whose bloody hands will meet their quarry whilst they continue to manipulate the law and justify their killings on those forewarned – those same warnings will undoubtedly be reckoned with and heeded in the reverse and in a justified revenge.

Les,

So you’re suggesting Arisman should’ve stayed to take a bullet to the head? And what purpose would that serve? Would he be better in prison? I think he did the right thing to run away as far and as quickly as possible – the Thai regime are filled with some seriously sick people who are well known for a long and terrible history of appaling brutality.

Would you also be criticizing the same members of the regime/elite and senior military figures who the army are sent to protect? Would you demand that PM Abhisit takes up a rifle and aims a few head shots from behind a sandbag next time the UDD take to the streets? Or you think only the UDD should behave “with honour”?

As for Simon/StainG I just can’t think for the life why he even reads this blog (or Pundit) given the abusive comments he made on his own blog about both New Mandala and BP. Why doesn’t Stain just stick to his own massive following on his own blog…. ?

Oh….

What Aung Htut is basically saying is the New Burmese Constitution is exactly same as the Constitution of United States when it comes to override the veto power of the President.

In the US the 2/3 of combined Congress and Senate is needed to override the president’s veto.

In Burma case even though the President has no veto power written specifically in the new constitution he has a default veto because of the 166 seats reserved for the Tatmadaw, which basically plays the role of the US President.

But there is a hidden loophole to override that veto and Aung Htut is so eagerly proud to point it out to the people of Burma.

Together with 498 seats for the political parties there are total 664 seats and to pass a law at least 333 seats (one seat more than the half, 332 seats) are required according to the New Constitution.

So even if the recalcitrant Tatmadaw refuses to pass a law (equivalent to applying the President’s default veto), if the political parties unite and manage to gather 333 votes (which is exactly the one seat more than 2/3 of their total 498 seats) they can legally override the Tatmadaw’s refusal.

He is basically implying that the ignorant Tatmadaw is screwed by the unknown writer of the new constitution, who deliberately copied the US Constitution so that the people will always win against the Tatmadaw constitutionally if the political parties unite.

And he was punished for his expert knowledge of the so-called sham constitution of Burma.

Thanks Nick:

“The main reason I decided that day to stay behind the military was that I thought it was too risky to be on the receiving end of the military bullets. This was a personal decision – primarily I wanted to survive that day, and any photos were secondary.”

My sentiments exactly. Testimony from journalists in the Reporters Without Borders report corroborates my perspective of the violence at the protests. They knew the risks.

Not only was Fabio wearing black, but he was wearing a motorcycle helmet, and had this black pouch strapped to him. His helmet, a classic signifier of a Red Shirt protestor, probably drew the attention of the soldiers if he was indeed singled out.

He knew the risks and paid the price. And yes, journalists were warned to get out of Ratchaprasong.

This blaming soldiers as ruthless murderers is a hysterical response from people who were not there.

The same could be said for the Japanese cameraman who, evidently thought nothing of going behind soldiers with no protective gear, behind the APC’s on Dinsa, after hours of helicopters dropping tear gas, after sunset. This is not courage, it’s stupidity, especially because now he has orphaned kids who will now have no father. Reckless.

I was there too and had the common sense to know that it was simply too dangerous. And if I were a professional journalist I certainly would have had a helmet, a bulletproof vest, and I would most certainly have been crouching down behind cement barriers and the like.

This is not a video game. Soldiers have weapons and they are dangerous. Yet the military showed remarkable restraint so much so that I questioned on this blog their motives. If you were not there you get a sensationalized perspective of events and then fill in the gaps with your ideology.

And I’m not saying this because I am against the Red Shirts. I support the Red Shirts and their political struggle. I just think that we can’t criticize the other side for perpetuating myths and fabricating information when we ourselves do the same thing.

Here’s a quick (and quite possibly faulty) rendition of the opening paragraphs.

A short while ago a journalist from an international weekly magazine asked a question to a writer. “Being a person who accepts a constitution that people are criticizing, opponents have criticized you, haven’t they? Furthermore, they have said that you teach a class on that constitution. The question is: why do you accept that constitution?”

The writer replied “(1) it is because it is what has been given [and] (2) it is because I have acquired knowledge of the nature of constitutions beyond an academic degree and by assimilating [the content of] this constitution’s nature I have come to understand.“

We can see that those who have studied Myanmar’s new constitution, out of the aforementioned constitution’s nature, which is called “concept” and its “process”, have strong opinions about the process. The form of its process is clearly visibly and because everyone can see, its process is not difficult to see. With regards to the issue of being able to understand the nature of [its] concept, because there is a basic theoretical requirement, it has a characteristic that is difficult to understand. Especially, in order to be able to study the whole nature [of the constitution] the many kinds of duties of constitutions need to be understood. Although one article may be understood, if the other article on which that article is checked and balanced cannot be seen, it is because it is of a characteristic of six blind Brahmins groping an elephant.

It’s worth remembering that along with the Thai acharns and farang professors the UDD leadership escaped from the protest remarkably unharmed. Apart from Seh Daeng that is, who along with Colonel Romklao we have to suspect was an army on army crime.

Just to take one example, for all his rhetoric, Arisman, who Robert Amsterdam wants to talk about, didn’t hang about with his followers in the red shirt security to the bitter end. Looks like for both academia and Thaksin’s first and second generation leadership, better to sacrifice some poor Isan boys than put themselves in danger.

Andrew you still haven’t answered my question.

Now Andrew if used similar language would I be censored?

Now I could see what Les Abbey meant by ” . . .if you play with pigs like Thaksin and Chalerm you will end up smelling like them . . .”

Andrew Walker had not commented on Les Abbey’s point that ” . . . even Andrew now tries to justify vote buying as a positive part of Thai life, something I doubt he believed in before . . .” could only mean (gasp!), square-face Thai democracy of vote-buying is virtuous, if we ignore the aroma.

Because Thaksin is virtuous, Andrew Walker interprets the supposedly Baht 150 billion baht, (if true) funding of the Reds rallies as ‘income redistribution’ worthy of a Nobel prize. Not for vindictiveness nor for arson or indiscriminate M79 grenade launcher attacks, those multi-baht funds (again if true), but pure honest square-faced altruism was its noble purpose (thus the Nobel prize). Now Andrew W., that kind of thinking if not said in jest, truly smells.