Even after more than 20 years I still feel sad whenever I remember my mate Jason.
2) Dear Frog,
Sorry, I don’t really get what you said “Hla Oo is still here – there’s a certain charm to it” as my English comprehension is not really up to the standard of a real native speaker yet.
Can you please enlighten me?
3) Wow, ZML, you blow me away, thanks.
I read most of Jack Kerouac’s books. The one I like best is “The Dharma Bums”, but I’d never heard of Danticat before. I vaguely knew Proust. I read the translations of a couple of Albert Camus’s books though.
Hopefully, The Scourge of Burma will be discovered and put into a book form. Maybe the ANU Press if there is such a thing.
Tarrin, why is it possible for many other countries that have laws preventing similar conflicts of interest to attract some capable people into politics? And why is Thailand an exception so that only “those useless homeless people from the street”, as you so charmingly refer to your fellow human beings, would be qualified? There seems to be a gap in your logic here.
The judges went to great trouble to explain that the Shinawatra children were not beneficial owners of the shares because they hadn’t paid for them and the financial benefits of ownership accrued to their parents. Why do want to sue all nominee companies holding listed shares in the SET? This also seems the product of a muddled thought process. Most of these are custodian companies that are legally holding shares on behalf of the beneficial owners, who tend not to be prime minister at the time. SEC regulations oblige the beneficial owners to declare conflicts of interest, such as being a director of a company they are holding through a nominee company. If they fail to do this, the beneficial owner can indeed be sued under the SEC Act.
Nganadeeleg, you have overlooked the effects of Thaksin’s introduction of the excise tax which was used to prevent Orange and Hutchinson from competing effectively in the mobile phone space. If foreign competition hadn’t been kept out of the market at that critical juncture, the Advanc and Shin prices might have plumetted. With this analysis it would have been easy to argue that Thaksin would have been left with less than the 30 billion he started with and that Thais would be enjoying better and cheaper mobile telephony services than they do now.
I guess I must be that 1% of Western liberals that has spent some time in Burma, admittedly a few years ago. Funny thing is, about all I heard from Burmese people is how much they despised the regime. I honestly never heard anyone express any annoyance at the West for isolating them. Sure, the people of Burma would love to re-engage, but now who is it exactly that wouldn’t allow that vote to take place?
As for white, imperialist supremacy, just because you’re from the West, it doesn’t necessarily all your ancestors were a bunch of Crackers (since this is an Australian blog I guess I should note that Cracker is a derogatory term for Whites in the USA). Since this is an Australian blog, I’d be curious how many readers and contributors are descendents of people who were there before Capt. Cook sailed by? I wonder if they might not argue that isolation from white tourists, liberal or otherwise, isn’t always a bad thing.
The “western liberals” such as the US Campaign for Burma are taking their clues from Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese exile community. As soon as she and her followers say “lift the sanctions” it will happen. Do the junta leaders realize just how much power she has? I doubt it. Some say she has become irrelevant and the world should move on and forget about her, but the Burmese I know (and I live in Thailand so I know many in the migrant community) regard her with extreme reverence and saint-like status. Releasing her from house arrest is the junta’s ultimate “get out of jail free” card, if they just had the courage to play it. BTW I have been across the border a few times, but I wouldn’t spend an extended holiday there (like Ileana has) until Suu Kyi says “come.” Yes, I agree that the common folk are normal people who want a normal life, but their overlords are not. They are the worst forms of parasites who seem to care nothing for the common good.
Tarrin, who selects the 9 judges from the set of 120 judges? Is it like during the post-coup days, where the CNS did the selecting? Or is it some set of judge bureaucrats?
I am always amazed at how Western liberals, 99% of whom have never spent any time inside Burma, can be so sure that they know what is best for 52 million Burmese, the majority of whom live at subsistence level. It does smack a little of white , supremacist imperialism…who are we to refuse to look at the consequences of our actions, shrug and say “so be it”?
No-one in Burma would choose their present government, but in all my travels in Burma no one has ever said to me “Please thank people back in the West for isolating us”. I hear instead; “We want business with you so we can get jobs, buy food, look after our children” & ” We want you to come as tourists so we can earn a little money and you can see for yourselves that we are a normal people who want a normal life!” If the people of Burma could be allowed to vote on this, they would ask the West to re-engage and end the isolation. Does this count for so little?
well, i dunno and little care…but what is a concern is the illegimate Abhisit GOV is bankrupt – of ideas and financial assets having spent big on pay increases for GOV officials and needs to pull some cash from somewhere…(we know where!); the treasury is emptied of the hard loot collected by Luang Ta Maha Boowa (Sondhi was asked to visit Luang Ta and seek permission for GOV to access this dosh some two years back – a request denied but the money taken for propping up the Democrats and the face of Abhisit, in creaming the pockets of his cronies, & buying goodies for his army pals and his puppet law makers…this is “way it works” and deflecting attention with jabber about Thaksin’s yatphiinong from the core issues undermining the stability of the country is not useful at this time as we will see over the next few days starting on Friday at midday. Enough is enough! it is time to throw out the current propaganda and gibberish about Thaksin and his family and concentrate on restoring democracy to Thailand…
It is sometimes easy to forget the depths of depravity to which the Thai monarchy has sunk, especially for those who are not subject to its malign influence. But every now and again an image can convey 1000 words:
In what other country in the civilized world would a head of state appear with HIS DOG and the Prime Minister in an officially approved and staged photograph for public consumption? on the eve of an anti-royalist / quasi-republican mass demonstration?
How are we meant to interpret the symbolism?
– that the proper conduct in the presence of the king is loyalty and obedience, like a dog towards its master.
AnonC: I’ve written an analysis of the 26 Feb 2010 Verdict. It can only be read in a small circle of friends. Drop me an email if you’d like a copy. Sawarin (aka Submarine).
I’ve been reading comments for a while so I guess now is the time I say something.
Les Abbey, portman and tony sorry to point you out, but if we applied to your logic, then there will be a huge problem with being a PM in the first place
firstly, if we applied your standard of no personal interest should be involve for running for PM then PM of Thailand cannot be anyone but those useless homeless from the street, because they got no job and no money, therefore has no interest in whatever happening in this country. If we applied your logic, no one can lower VAT because it will benefit themselves (regardless of what 63 million people also get the same benefit of lower tax) Btw, the court decided long ago in 2002 that Thaksin did not conceal any asset so to charge him of corruption (or abuse of power or whatever) is like saying you are arresting an F1 racer in the circuit for speeding.
Secondly, there are so many technicality in this case that normally, in any other court of civilize world, would have rejected the charge. As mentioned above about asset declaration, this case is totally go against rule of law on regard of “due process” because there were so many controversy surrounding the case, I’m not going to mention what, but I guess many people has said it already about capital gain and nominee. According to Thais’s law, once you turn 20, you are legally independent from you parent so to say Thaksin’s children involve in their parent holding of share is the same as saying as if you own a cafe that your children set up and run, under your guidance, if the court ignore that logic, why do we have shareholder list in the first place?? because everyone can use anything to say this person own that without looking at shareholder list. If Thaksin got sue for this, then all the nominee company in the stock market should also be sue as well.
However, I guess you probably dont give a squat about what I said because to you Thaksin is the only bad guy and all the devil will go away with him, how sad.
To answer question from patiwan, the judge was select from the pool of 120 judges, the selection was mostly secretive and the nature of qualification or background is sketchy at best.
The Red is not fragmented; it just isn’t strategically organised. You must be blind for not seeing that there’s a common value- the belief in representative democracy and the rights to exercise it- amongst the Red. Despite the fact that its factions are holding varied political views, this common value will glue the Red together if the movement can come up with strategic planning. The development of the Red reminds me of the rise of the (old) British Labour Party. Like the history behind BLP, the Red will soon have to expand its base; by uniting factions, reaching out to the middle class, forming the Think Tank (like Fabian), and finally finding its own representative in Parliament. It’s too early to project how the Red will progress; but if it overlooks the middle class and the intelligentsia, it won’t go far. In terms of political practice, two facts remain valid. First, Parliament is the ‘only’ place where the battle of ideologies can lead to legislative reforms. Civil groups/movements do not have this power. Second, in every societies, like it or not, it is the educated middle class who have the power to define morality- what it ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ is defined and measured by the masses of this class.
I take your point of leadership. It’s an important issue. But let me point out that the Constitution (and the moral code and standard) will not permit Khun Thaksin to return to office after he received a guilty court verdict. The Red folks might not care too much about the verdict, but the wider international community do. Listen to Khun Thaksin’s interview 48 hr after the verdict and you’ll understand what I mean. It’s less to do with a seizure of money.
The “social revolution” has only begun. Be patient Thailand.
Roberts paper was enlightening though it was clear we are still quite unclear about long term effects on TonleSap and the entire ecosystem there. Clearly the communities living on the flood plain will be considerably impacted.
Similar to other countries around the world, American people demand their leaders to pursue foreign policy that serves the people and the country interests. When politicians fail to do so, American electorates would punish the political party responsible for the foreign policy. Hillary Clinton’s performance on foreign policy toward the Asia Pacific region had caused her party to lose senate race in the vital states of New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts. And she had announced that she would not seek another term as Secretary of State.
American people want job and world peace. If constructive engagement with Myanmar will create more jobs and keeping peace in Southeast Asia, then do it. It is just simple as that. During economic hardship and international tension time like this, no countries can afford leaders who design foreign policy choices that advance their own personal agenda or for their domestic political public opinions popularity. Those who are motivated by their own very narrow interests and not by some over-arching interest in the nation’s welfare or in the international context within which events unfold will have to leave the public office.
How quickly we seem to have forgotten what happened in 2007 during the brutal repression of the protests led by the Buddhist monks and others. This much is clear: there will be no lifting of sanctions by the USA or European Union until Aung San Suu Kyi is released from house arrest. That is the absolute bare minimum necessary. Until that happens, even tougher financial penalties by international organizations, such as applying more pressure on Singaporean banks to freeze the assets of the Burmese military leaders, need to be tried. If China ends up owning most of Yangoon as a result, well, so be it.
More often than not, we thank heavens for Brad Adams and HRW, but in the case of Burma, HRW should reconsider its position:
It is not right when the pursuit of an unattainable ideal, (universally applied sanctions in Burma in this case), actively prevents the West from exploring the possibility that trade, investment, educational links, and above all, tourism are more likely to lead to political and economic normalisation than continuing to drive Burma into the arms of China, (not one of Brad’s top 10 countries!).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The scourge of Burma, Part 3
1) Thanks Benny.
Even after more than 20 years I still feel sad whenever I remember my mate Jason.
2) Dear Frog,
Sorry, I don’t really get what you said “Hla Oo is still here – there’s a certain charm to it” as my English comprehension is not really up to the standard of a real native speaker yet.
Can you please enlighten me?
3) Wow, ZML, you blow me away, thanks.
I read most of Jack Kerouac’s books. The one I like best is “The Dharma Bums”, but I’d never heard of Danticat before. I vaguely knew Proust. I read the translations of a couple of Albert Camus’s books though.
Hopefully, The Scourge of Burma will be discovered and put into a book form. Maybe the ANU Press if there is such a thing.
Making sense of the verdict
Tarrin, why is it possible for many other countries that have laws preventing similar conflicts of interest to attract some capable people into politics? And why is Thailand an exception so that only “those useless homeless people from the street”, as you so charmingly refer to your fellow human beings, would be qualified? There seems to be a gap in your logic here.
The judges went to great trouble to explain that the Shinawatra children were not beneficial owners of the shares because they hadn’t paid for them and the financial benefits of ownership accrued to their parents. Why do want to sue all nominee companies holding listed shares in the SET? This also seems the product of a muddled thought process. Most of these are custodian companies that are legally holding shares on behalf of the beneficial owners, who tend not to be prime minister at the time. SEC regulations oblige the beneficial owners to declare conflicts of interest, such as being a director of a company they are holding through a nominee company. If they fail to do this, the beneficial owner can indeed be sued under the SEC Act.
Nganadeeleg, you have overlooked the effects of Thaksin’s introduction of the excise tax which was used to prevent Orange and Hutchinson from competing effectively in the mobile phone space. If foreign competition hadn’t been kept out of the market at that critical juncture, the Advanc and Shin prices might have plumetted. With this analysis it would have been easy to argue that Thaksin would have been left with less than the 30 billion he started with and that Thais would be enjoying better and cheaper mobile telephony services than they do now.
The wages of Paethongtan Shinawatra
Talk about jibberish Jimu. Your analysis of Thailand’s government finances is asinine. Not a number or a fact in sight.
Never-ending Burma debate
I guess I must be that 1% of Western liberals that has spent some time in Burma, admittedly a few years ago. Funny thing is, about all I heard from Burmese people is how much they despised the regime. I honestly never heard anyone express any annoyance at the West for isolating them. Sure, the people of Burma would love to re-engage, but now who is it exactly that wouldn’t allow that vote to take place?
As for white, imperialist supremacy, just because you’re from the West, it doesn’t necessarily all your ancestors were a bunch of Crackers (since this is an Australian blog I guess I should note that Cracker is a derogatory term for Whites in the USA). Since this is an Australian blog, I’d be curious how many readers and contributors are descendents of people who were there before Capt. Cook sailed by? I wonder if they might not argue that isolation from white tourists, liberal or otherwise, isn’t always a bad thing.
Never-ending Burma debate
The “western liberals” such as the US Campaign for Burma are taking their clues from Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese exile community. As soon as she and her followers say “lift the sanctions” it will happen. Do the junta leaders realize just how much power she has? I doubt it. Some say she has become irrelevant and the world should move on and forget about her, but the Burmese I know (and I live in Thailand so I know many in the migrant community) regard her with extreme reverence and saint-like status. Releasing her from house arrest is the junta’s ultimate “get out of jail free” card, if they just had the courage to play it. BTW I have been across the border a few times, but I wouldn’t spend an extended holiday there (like Ileana has) until Suu Kyi says “come.” Yes, I agree that the common folk are normal people who want a normal life, but their overlords are not. They are the worst forms of parasites who seem to care nothing for the common good.
Making sense of the verdict
Tarrin, who selects the 9 judges from the set of 120 judges? Is it like during the post-coup days, where the CNS did the selecting? Or is it some set of judge bureaucrats?
The scourge of Burma, Part 3
Hla Oo,
You are Danticat and Proust put together with an undertone of Kerouac. This is brilliant. When is your book coming out and what are going to call it?
Regards,
ZML
The scourge of Burma, Part 3
I don’t know Benny, Hla Oo is still here – there’s a certain charm to it. And that’s what those romanticised stories amount to: Tales of survival.
The scourge of Burma, Part 3
Very sad story. Not like any of the romaticised views of heroin addiction such as from Lou Reed or Pulp Fiction. Look forward to the next installment
Never-ending Burma debate
I am always amazed at how Western liberals, 99% of whom have never spent any time inside Burma, can be so sure that they know what is best for 52 million Burmese, the majority of whom live at subsistence level. It does smack a little of white , supremacist imperialism…who are we to refuse to look at the consequences of our actions, shrug and say “so be it”?
No-one in Burma would choose their present government, but in all my travels in Burma no one has ever said to me “Please thank people back in the West for isolating us”. I hear instead; “We want business with you so we can get jobs, buy food, look after our children” & ” We want you to come as tourists so we can earn a little money and you can see for yourselves that we are a normal people who want a normal life!” If the people of Burma could be allowed to vote on this, they would ask the West to re-engage and end the isolation. Does this count for so little?
The wages of Paethongtan Shinawatra
well, i dunno and little care…but what is a concern is the illegimate Abhisit GOV is bankrupt – of ideas and financial assets having spent big on pay increases for GOV officials and needs to pull some cash from somewhere…(we know where!); the treasury is emptied of the hard loot collected by Luang Ta Maha Boowa (Sondhi was asked to visit Luang Ta and seek permission for GOV to access this dosh some two years back – a request denied but the money taken for propping up the Democrats and the face of Abhisit, in creaming the pockets of his cronies, & buying goodies for his army pals and his puppet law makers…this is “way it works” and deflecting attention with jabber about Thaksin’s yatphiinong from the core issues undermining the stability of the country is not useful at this time as we will see over the next few days starting on Friday at midday. Enough is enough! it is time to throw out the current propaganda and gibberish about Thaksin and his family and concentrate on restoring democracy to Thailand…
Abhisit cancels Australia trip
It is sometimes easy to forget the depths of depravity to which the Thai monarchy has sunk, especially for those who are not subject to its malign influence. But every now and again an image can convey 1000 words:
http://www.matichon.co.th/show_image.html?image=online/2010/03/12680572001268057272l.jpg
(from the front page of Matichon, 9 March 2010)
In what other country in the civilized world would a head of state appear with HIS DOG and the Prime Minister in an officially approved and staged photograph for public consumption? on the eve of an anti-royalist / quasi-republican mass demonstration?
How are we meant to interpret the symbolism?
– that the proper conduct in the presence of the king is loyalty and obedience, like a dog towards its master.
The Economist on Red Shirt politics
AnonC: I’ve written an analysis of the 26 Feb 2010 Verdict. It can only be read in a small circle of friends. Drop me an email if you’d like a copy. Sawarin (aka Submarine).
Making sense of the verdict
I’ve been reading comments for a while so I guess now is the time I say something.
Les Abbey, portman and tony sorry to point you out, but if we applied to your logic, then there will be a huge problem with being a PM in the first place
firstly, if we applied your standard of no personal interest should be involve for running for PM then PM of Thailand cannot be anyone but those useless homeless from the street, because they got no job and no money, therefore has no interest in whatever happening in this country. If we applied your logic, no one can lower VAT because it will benefit themselves (regardless of what 63 million people also get the same benefit of lower tax) Btw, the court decided long ago in 2002 that Thaksin did not conceal any asset so to charge him of corruption (or abuse of power or whatever) is like saying you are arresting an F1 racer in the circuit for speeding.
Secondly, there are so many technicality in this case that normally, in any other court of civilize world, would have rejected the charge. As mentioned above about asset declaration, this case is totally go against rule of law on regard of “due process” because there were so many controversy surrounding the case, I’m not going to mention what, but I guess many people has said it already about capital gain and nominee. According to Thais’s law, once you turn 20, you are legally independent from you parent so to say Thaksin’s children involve in their parent holding of share is the same as saying as if you own a cafe that your children set up and run, under your guidance, if the court ignore that logic, why do we have shareholder list in the first place?? because everyone can use anything to say this person own that without looking at shareholder list. If Thaksin got sue for this, then all the nominee company in the stock market should also be sue as well.
However, I guess you probably dont give a squat about what I said because to you Thaksin is the only bad guy and all the devil will go away with him, how sad.
To answer question from patiwan, the judge was select from the pool of 120 judges, the selection was mostly secretive and the nature of qualification or background is sketchy at best.
The Economist on Red Shirt politics
To AnonC on 12:
The Red is not fragmented; it just isn’t strategically organised. You must be blind for not seeing that there’s a common value- the belief in representative democracy and the rights to exercise it- amongst the Red. Despite the fact that its factions are holding varied political views, this common value will glue the Red together if the movement can come up with strategic planning. The development of the Red reminds me of the rise of the (old) British Labour Party. Like the history behind BLP, the Red will soon have to expand its base; by uniting factions, reaching out to the middle class, forming the Think Tank (like Fabian), and finally finding its own representative in Parliament. It’s too early to project how the Red will progress; but if it overlooks the middle class and the intelligentsia, it won’t go far. In terms of political practice, two facts remain valid. First, Parliament is the ‘only’ place where the battle of ideologies can lead to legislative reforms. Civil groups/movements do not have this power. Second, in every societies, like it or not, it is the educated middle class who have the power to define morality- what it ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ is defined and measured by the masses of this class.
I take your point of leadership. It’s an important issue. But let me point out that the Constitution (and the moral code and standard) will not permit Khun Thaksin to return to office after he received a guilty court verdict. The Red folks might not care too much about the verdict, but the wider international community do. Listen to Khun Thaksin’s interview 48 hr after the verdict and you’ll understand what I mean. It’s less to do with a seizure of money.
The “social revolution” has only begun. Be patient Thailand.
Damned Chinese: mighty Mekong a memory
Thanks David,
Roberts paper was enlightening though it was clear we are still quite unclear about long term effects on TonleSap and the entire ecosystem there. Clearly the communities living on the flood plain will be considerably impacted.
Sulaiman on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
Amazing how just a wink can effect someone.
Never-ending Burma debate
Similar to other countries around the world, American people demand their leaders to pursue foreign policy that serves the people and the country interests. When politicians fail to do so, American electorates would punish the political party responsible for the foreign policy. Hillary Clinton’s performance on foreign policy toward the Asia Pacific region had caused her party to lose senate race in the vital states of New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts. And she had announced that she would not seek another term as Secretary of State.
American people want job and world peace. If constructive engagement with Myanmar will create more jobs and keeping peace in Southeast Asia, then do it. It is just simple as that. During economic hardship and international tension time like this, no countries can afford leaders who design foreign policy choices that advance their own personal agenda or for their domestic political public opinions popularity. Those who are motivated by their own very narrow interests and not by some over-arching interest in the nation’s welfare or in the international context within which events unfold will have to leave the public office.
Never-ending Burma debate
How quickly we seem to have forgotten what happened in 2007 during the brutal repression of the protests led by the Buddhist monks and others. This much is clear: there will be no lifting of sanctions by the USA or European Union until Aung San Suu Kyi is released from house arrest. That is the absolute bare minimum necessary. Until that happens, even tougher financial penalties by international organizations, such as applying more pressure on Singaporean banks to freeze the assets of the Burmese military leaders, need to be tried. If China ends up owning most of Yangoon as a result, well, so be it.
Never-ending Burma debate
More often than not, we thank heavens for Brad Adams and HRW, but in the case of Burma, HRW should reconsider its position:
It is not right when the pursuit of an unattainable ideal, (universally applied sanctions in Burma in this case), actively prevents the West from exploring the possibility that trade, investment, educational links, and above all, tourism are more likely to lead to political and economic normalisation than continuing to drive Burma into the arms of China, (not one of Brad’s top 10 countries!).