I have no firsthand evidence. I was told about it by some Karennis, and I read an article that mentioned it in passing.
The article, which I don’t have, stated that the drones were flying at such altitudes that SPDC troops would shoot at them, unsuccessfully.
There’s more than ample evidence to suggest that Burma is trying to acquire nuclear weaponry.
The elaborate tunnel system being dug out, along with death sentences for people who’ve exposed them.
Meeting with North Korean nuclear scientests, along with death sentences being meted out to those who’ve revealed them.
The United States is concerned enough that it’s been flying drones over various construction sites inside Burma.
One has to wonder what the Chinese think about this, and what they intend to do, if anything.
Jakraphop Phenkhae’s response to Somsak’s comments about the limitations of discussing the monarchy in a “metaphorical” manner (because of lese majeste) – which he linked in his post #19 above – may be of interest to readers who have followed this thread.
Jakraphop’s reply was published in Thai Red News and has been reproduced in Khon Dio Kan / We Are All Human (the old Fa Dio Kan webboard) at http://weareallhuman.net/index.php?showtopic=42703 (scroll down to post #16)
This line was particularly interesting and germaine to this thread: “р╕Ьр╕бр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕Чр╣Йр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕зр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╣Мр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕г р╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╕Ир╕▒р╕З р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕кр╕▓р╕Шр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╕░р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Др╕Ыр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з “
At first I thought 800 words was absurdly short to both identify economic and political challenges and propose solutions. Then I realized I could do it in eight:
Trade imbalance, genocide. Revalue the renminbi, free Tibet.
[…] A favourite target of UMNO chauvanists have been the DAP lead Penang state government. Deputy Prime Minister has accused the Penang state government of disrespecting Islam based on a fraudelent report by Utusan Malaysia. […]
“In general, I think English language writers on Thailand have no intention of circumventing any Thai law; I doubt any one of us has elected to write in English with any such purpose in mind.”
I appreciate this opinion and I understand what you are trying to say but I have problems with it. How do you know what all these writers in English about Thai politics are trying to do? Their primary purpose may or may not be to circumvent Thai law. They may consider it necessary to circumvent Thai law to say whatever it is that they want to say. And for some it may be necessary or desirable not just to circumvent Thai law but to break it head-on. (Just to protect myself from any accusation, I must say that this is not advocacy just description.)
And this needs to be said. I have chosen to write under my own name. This is because I want to assert and use my right to speak freely. Consequently, I have had to bear in mind what the laws in Thailand are on what one can say and what the application of those laws are and have been. And this is a difficult assessment to make because as far as I can work out the application of the lese majeste and Computer Crimes Act are arbitrary and random and unjust. There are no guiding principles.
Laws are designed to keep things in check. I may feel a desire to kill, rob, slander, rape, pillage or plunder but I will check these desires because I know that the law may catch up with me. And also– I hope– there is a shared moral framework that keeps me from doing these things because they are simply bad.
I disagree with you. Many writers in English on Thai politics do intentionally break the law because they have decided that the law is bad. And I feel sure that many writers in Thai feel the same.
How can you so easily identify “us” and work out what their/our purposes are? Who is included among “us”? Some writers in English -and I will pick two very different people to illustrate this point – are obviously trying to circumvent Thai law (as currently interpreted). Thaksin Shinawatra and Gi Ungpakorn. Both have published statements in English that have come under some suspicion.
Apart from yelling “fire” in a cinema, or slander, speech should be absolutely free. In Thailand, it is not, and to say what you think you must go through contortions and/or lie.
I could (and I would like) to give a particular example but if I did I might come under suspicion.
And to your final comment:
“Rather, I think we want to make ourselves and others better informed – more so than following any Thai news media alone would suffice. Most of all, we want to tell the truth about Thailand.”
But what if telling the truth or becoming more informed circumvents the law?
The Vietnam War is probably the most complex subject for area studies of Southeast Asia region. According to the reviewer, Ang Cheng Guan “makes a valuable contribution to understanding the evolving relationships between the countries of Southeast Asia and the United States, especially in the ten year period from 1965 to 1975.”
I agree with Ang Cheng Guan that the Vietnam War in the ten year period from 1965 to 1975, the U.S. is the key player. “On March 8, 1965 the first U.S. combat troops arrive in Vietnam, as 3500 Marines land at China Beach to defend the American air base at Da Nang. They join 23,000 American military advisers already in Vietnam. In 1969 nearly 534,000 troops were sent to Vietnam by America. It remained in war until 1975.”
Furthermore, I don’t think South Vietnam leader has relationship with the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore independent of the United States. In other words, those countries have relationship with South Vietnam because they were the countries under the U.S. Sphere of Influence at the time. In short, those countries have the relationship with South Vietnam because of the U.S. Those countries are the original countries of SEATO which has now developed to become ASEAN.
The legacy of the Vietnam War is still a big scar in the United States, there is still a lot the U.S. needed to learn about Asia. Yet, it seems to me that the Balance of Power would continue to be the corner stone of the U.S. formulation. The U.S. has initiated the foreign direct investment to China which results in the peaceful rise of China, essential to the stability of the region. The U.S. has transferred a peaceful nuclear technology to India to assist in her economic development. With this overall picture, I would agree with Ang Cheng Guan’s conclusion that the U.S. is the indispensable Pacific Power to the stability of the Asia Pacific.
I’m afraid I’ll have to agree with Hla Oo that in the prevailing climate of today’s Burma nobody in their right mind would want to go back and serve the government, and they’d only come up against a brick wall if they aspire to serve the people, not unlike the hurdles the NGOs face today but far more insuperable for them individually.
Most of Ne Win’s children had settled in the West long before the Old Man fell. But if we are thinking in terms of Indonesia’s Berkeley Boys (military officers who were educated at UC Berkeley in the late 50s/early 60s) vis-a-vis their Burmese counterparts being sent to Moscow in their hundreds nowadays, the battle for hearts and minds may prove very worthwhile to the West. There was a civilian equivalent too in the form of the Berkeley Mafia that held sway in Suharto’s brave new Indonesia. Its intended and successful outcome was turning Indonesia into a client state of the US wresting it away from the Chinese sphere. That may well be a valid strategic aim in this instance too, not necessarily in the broader interests of the populace.
I’m all for multilateral engagement in principle, from all cardinal directions. Just not sure if our generals wouldn’t succeed in setting their own rules and outplaying everyone at this game to their own selfish advantage.
When real change comes (I haven’t the slightest doubt it will in due course), even expats and exiled Burmese will go home like a shot and lend a hand in rebuilding their country. So in a way you are already working to the same end simply by providing a safe haven and opportunities for them albeit not in ideal circumstances. I’m sure you would all like to do more to help the long suffering people of Burma, and they do appreciate that and will always remember who their real friends are.
You are of course right about the junta dragging its feet when it comes to the nitty gritty. No surprises there either. Even foreign capital can often expect much the same treatment. Business, charity, same difference, since unfortunately the West will never live down its colonialist past nor its neocolonialist present as far as most Burmese are concerned. You all get tarred (or should it be tarred and feathered?) with the same brush to some extent just for being white men; the NGOs are no exception, perhaps not completely unjustified either, particularly given the funding relationship between Western states and NGOs of today.
Much worse therefore when it comes to your presence in ethnic homelands. Great White Saviours are frowned upon as patronising at best, and agents of Balkanisation at worst. This attitude is unlikely to change whatever colour, civilian or military, administration we have in Burma. It’s a historical product, not inherent xenophobia, and the Burmese have a very long memory.
The military under its current leadership however distinguishes itself within our polity as the very embodiment of Burman chauvinism, militarism, nationalism and xenophobia, not just greed and lust for power. And that’s why we need continued military domination of the country like we need a hole in our collective head (many of us stand a good chance of getting it literally too).
Dylan, I don’t know what you do in Burma as a foreign resident. Maybe an NGO worker, or a UN staff, or even a diplomat.
Anyway as a non-Burmese I don’t think you can really understand a Tatmadaw Commander’s point of view easily when it comes to dealing with a foreign NGO. Especially most western NGO has a very common hostile view like they don’t want any govt involvement in their charitable business in Burma.
The way Burma has been isolated for so long and the way govt propaganda has been driven into their heads all their life and the way they are unreasonably so proud most Burmese officials, especially the army officers, do not think or behave as a normal world citizen from outside Burma should do.
For example, when I was growing up in Burma during Ne Win’s Socialist rule, I and most my friends thought Medicins Sans Frontieres(Doctors without borders) was a bad foreign organization, for they were actively helping the KNU/KNLA on the border with medical aids and since we just blindly believe the govt propaganda that KNU/KNLA were the enemy of our race.
Burma has had a very long years of involvement in overseas scholarships since independence. Mostly the Colombo Plan and Fulbright Scholars. All are awarded to the serving govt officials.
The main or probably the only reason all the post-grad scholarships go to the govt employees is that they all come back and serve the country since they have to sign a watertight contract to serve a certain number of years back home after their studies abroad.
No Burmese with a sane mind will ever go back Burma after earning a Master or PhD from an Australian university. Especially when the current Australian Immigration policy is basically offering the permanent residency for anyone who is Australian educated.
IMO, basically this idea of offering post-grad scholarships to Burmese is a sure waste of aid money in short term, unless as you and Moe Aung have said the Australian govt wants to win the hearts and minds of generals by letting their sons and daughters to become educated in Australia, and later Australian citizens.
[…] there were the fire-bombings of places of worship (mostly Christian) after the “Allah” court ruling which shattered Malaysia’s facade as a peaceful nation where people of different […]
Its not my personal survival I am talking about, Antares but of the 2 personalities being discussed.
I agree totally with the stygian ooze and toxic murk from self-serving rule disguised as governance. I am also not advocating that UMNO or any member of the repugnant horde to remain.
It was just building a scenario that with so many swords out there against Najib and DSAI, it would be strategic for them to look for mutual ground, with Najib still having PM authority and DSAI having the popular confidence.
Subsequent to that, let it be a slug fest between them.
maybe they’re working on something better than\\////. Or perhaps they’re cleaning up any dubious posts. They’re quite slow. When I posted, they were supposed to have this rejig done by 4 February. We shall have to wait and see.
Sorry, Devlin, I cannot endorse what you just said – even if your “personal survival” hinged on seeing Najib and Anwar make a clandestine deal. The dense murk and stygian ooze that characterize Najib’s energy field makes him a highly toxic entity – anyone who tarries too long in his presence will become corrupt and decadent.
There are no two ways about it: Najib & Umno/BN have to go! However, knowing that what’s making them cling on so desperately is the fear of retribution, I advocate making it easy for them to relinquish power. They can buy their way out of criminal prosecution by returning 80% of the money they’ve stolen from the rakyat. This will gain them safe passage out of the country. If they wish to stay in Malaysia, they must be prohibited from holding public office for at least 10 years.
I am not so certain about the government being “happy to play along and receive charity in lieu of its very low priority for public sector spending.” I think that it is quite bothersome for the government to manage foreign aid, and that if they had it their way, there would be no ODA at all.
This would be the logical response, but the tatmadaw is not a logical actor! I think that it will remain to be seen how the government views and works with NGOs in the upcoming year. The government is wary of all NGOs. If an NGO invited a Commander to come peeking around the office and he saw that the only documents are on let’s say, how to improve water and sanitation for the people in lower Shan state, I still think that Commander is going to report back to his superiors that the foreign elements in the NGO are subversive neocolonialist stooges set on tearing apart the Union of Myanmar.
The UN Country Team has already received unofficial signals that the government wants to lower the amount of foreigners in country leading up to the election, they are still making visas very difficult to obtain, and have informally sent signals that they will be stopping issuing travel authorization to the more ‘sensitive’ areas such as upper Shan, Norther Rakhine State (NRS), Chin, etc.
Getting a bit off the subject, but just some comments on the comments on AusAID scholarships.
Hla Oo,
I am fairly sure that at least the first round will probably not be aimed at government officials, but more likely civil society members, technocrats, and those with high-level experience with local NGOs, INGOs, UN, etc. Keep in mind that they are post-graduate scholarships, which means that the recepients are required to have at least an undergraduate degree. While many university-educated are elite, I think nowadays university education (although of a terrible quality) is now accessible to a lot of middle-lower class people. It will certainly be a fine line in balancing between elites and other applicants, to be decided based on the added value, and how keen the applicants are on returning to Myanmar to implement their Australian-educated skills and knowledged to make an impact.
Moe Aung said something interesting in the other thread, suggesting that it might not be all that bad to have Generals’ sons in Australia. On one hand, I sort of agree with this sentiment. I’ve been surprised that Australia and US have not wanted to send these types of applicants to become educated in the West – I mean, what better way to win ‘hearts and minds’ than to have someone spend 4 years in your university system. The individuals on Australia’s targetted travel sanctions are mostly from the Ministerial level and up, and the sanctions affect their sons and daughters as well. So we won’t be seeing the Old Man’s grandkids in Perth anytime soon, but that leaves it open for children of other lower-ranking (but important) government officials to apply…
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
More on Burmese nukes
I have no firsthand evidence. I was told about it by some Karennis, and I read an article that mentioned it in passing.
The article, which I don’t have, stated that the drones were flying at such altitudes that SPDC troops would shoot at them, unsuccessfully.
More on Burmese nukes
Charles F – can you provide any evidence that the US has flown drones over Myanmar?
More on Burmese nukes
There’s more than ample evidence to suggest that Burma is trying to acquire nuclear weaponry.
The elaborate tunnel system being dug out, along with death sentences for people who’ve exposed them.
Meeting with North Korean nuclear scientests, along with death sentences being meted out to those who’ve revealed them.
The United States is concerned enough that it’s been flying drones over various construction sites inside Burma.
One has to wonder what the Chinese think about this, and what they intend to do, if anything.
SOAS Thai politics event
Jakraphop Phenkhae’s response to Somsak’s comments about the limitations of discussing the monarchy in a “metaphorical” manner (because of lese majeste) – which he linked in his post #19 above – may be of interest to readers who have followed this thread.
Jakraphop’s reply was published in Thai Red News and has been reproduced in Khon Dio Kan / We Are All Human (the old Fa Dio Kan webboard) at http://weareallhuman.net/index.php?showtopic=42703 (scroll down to post #16)
This line was particularly interesting and germaine to this thread: “р╕Ьр╕бр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕Чр╣Йр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕зр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╣Мр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕г р╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╕Ир╕▒р╕З р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕кр╕▓р╕Шр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╕░р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Др╕Ыр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з “
East Asia Forum emerging scholars competition
At first I thought 800 words was absurdly short to both identify economic and political challenges and propose solutions. Then I realized I could do it in eight:
Trade imbalance, genocide. Revalue the renminbi, free Tibet.
Utusan Malaysia – A Messenger of Hate?
[…] A favourite target of UMNO chauvanists have been the DAP lead Penang state government. Deputy Prime Minister has accused the Penang state government of disrespecting Islam based on a fraudelent report by Utusan Malaysia. […]
Elephants in the room: Part 1
In response to “A writer” who says:
“In general, I think English language writers on Thailand have no intention of circumventing any Thai law; I doubt any one of us has elected to write in English with any such purpose in mind.”
I appreciate this opinion and I understand what you are trying to say but I have problems with it. How do you know what all these writers in English about Thai politics are trying to do? Their primary purpose may or may not be to circumvent Thai law. They may consider it necessary to circumvent Thai law to say whatever it is that they want to say. And for some it may be necessary or desirable not just to circumvent Thai law but to break it head-on. (Just to protect myself from any accusation, I must say that this is not advocacy just description.)
And this needs to be said. I have chosen to write under my own name. This is because I want to assert and use my right to speak freely. Consequently, I have had to bear in mind what the laws in Thailand are on what one can say and what the application of those laws are and have been. And this is a difficult assessment to make because as far as I can work out the application of the lese majeste and Computer Crimes Act are arbitrary and random and unjust. There are no guiding principles.
Laws are designed to keep things in check. I may feel a desire to kill, rob, slander, rape, pillage or plunder but I will check these desires because I know that the law may catch up with me. And also– I hope– there is a shared moral framework that keeps me from doing these things because they are simply bad.
I disagree with you. Many writers in English on Thai politics do intentionally break the law because they have decided that the law is bad. And I feel sure that many writers in Thai feel the same.
How can you so easily identify “us” and work out what their/our purposes are? Who is included among “us”? Some writers in English -and I will pick two very different people to illustrate this point – are obviously trying to circumvent Thai law (as currently interpreted). Thaksin Shinawatra and Gi Ungpakorn. Both have published statements in English that have come under some suspicion.
Apart from yelling “fire” in a cinema, or slander, speech should be absolutely free. In Thailand, it is not, and to say what you think you must go through contortions and/or lie.
I could (and I would like) to give a particular example but if I did I might come under suspicion.
And to your final comment:
“Rather, I think we want to make ourselves and others better informed – more so than following any Thai news media alone would suffice. Most of all, we want to tell the truth about Thailand.”
But what if telling the truth or becoming more informed circumvents the law?
Review of Southeast Asia and the Vietnam War
The Vietnam War is probably the most complex subject for area studies of Southeast Asia region. According to the reviewer, Ang Cheng Guan “makes a valuable contribution to understanding the evolving relationships between the countries of Southeast Asia and the United States, especially in the ten year period from 1965 to 1975.”
I agree with Ang Cheng Guan that the Vietnam War in the ten year period from 1965 to 1975, the U.S. is the key player. “On March 8, 1965 the first U.S. combat troops arrive in Vietnam, as 3500 Marines land at China Beach to defend the American air base at Da Nang. They join 23,000 American military advisers already in Vietnam. In 1969 nearly 534,000 troops were sent to Vietnam by America. It remained in war until 1975.”
Furthermore, I don’t think South Vietnam leader has relationship with the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore independent of the United States. In other words, those countries have relationship with South Vietnam because they were the countries under the U.S. Sphere of Influence at the time. In short, those countries have the relationship with South Vietnam because of the U.S. Those countries are the original countries of SEATO which has now developed to become ASEAN.
The legacy of the Vietnam War is still a big scar in the United States, there is still a lot the U.S. needed to learn about Asia. Yet, it seems to me that the Balance of Power would continue to be the corner stone of the U.S. formulation. The U.S. has initiated the foreign direct investment to China which results in the peaceful rise of China, essential to the stability of the region. The U.S. has transferred a peaceful nuclear technology to India to assist in her economic development. With this overall picture, I would agree with Ang Cheng Guan’s conclusion that the U.S. is the indispensable Pacific Power to the stability of the Asia Pacific.
Australia’s constructive Burma engagement
Dylan,
I’m afraid I’ll have to agree with Hla Oo that in the prevailing climate of today’s Burma nobody in their right mind would want to go back and serve the government, and they’d only come up against a brick wall if they aspire to serve the people, not unlike the hurdles the NGOs face today but far more insuperable for them individually.
Most of Ne Win’s children had settled in the West long before the Old Man fell. But if we are thinking in terms of Indonesia’s Berkeley Boys (military officers who were educated at UC Berkeley in the late 50s/early 60s) vis-a-vis their Burmese counterparts being sent to Moscow in their hundreds nowadays, the battle for hearts and minds may prove very worthwhile to the West. There was a civilian equivalent too in the form of the Berkeley Mafia that held sway in Suharto’s brave new Indonesia. Its intended and successful outcome was turning Indonesia into a client state of the US wresting it away from the Chinese sphere. That may well be a valid strategic aim in this instance too, not necessarily in the broader interests of the populace.
I’m all for multilateral engagement in principle, from all cardinal directions. Just not sure if our generals wouldn’t succeed in setting their own rules and outplaying everyone at this game to their own selfish advantage.
When real change comes (I haven’t the slightest doubt it will in due course), even expats and exiled Burmese will go home like a shot and lend a hand in rebuilding their country. So in a way you are already working to the same end simply by providing a safe haven and opportunities for them albeit not in ideal circumstances. I’m sure you would all like to do more to help the long suffering people of Burma, and they do appreciate that and will always remember who their real friends are.
Australian Foreign Minister on Burma policy
Dylan,
You are of course right about the junta dragging its feet when it comes to the nitty gritty. No surprises there either. Even foreign capital can often expect much the same treatment. Business, charity, same difference, since unfortunately the West will never live down its colonialist past nor its neocolonialist present as far as most Burmese are concerned. You all get tarred (or should it be tarred and feathered?) with the same brush to some extent just for being white men; the NGOs are no exception, perhaps not completely unjustified either, particularly given the funding relationship between Western states and NGOs of today.
Much worse therefore when it comes to your presence in ethnic homelands. Great White Saviours are frowned upon as patronising at best, and agents of Balkanisation at worst. This attitude is unlikely to change whatever colour, civilian or military, administration we have in Burma. It’s a historical product, not inherent xenophobia, and the Burmese have a very long memory.
The military under its current leadership however distinguishes itself within our polity as the very embodiment of Burman chauvinism, militarism, nationalism and xenophobia, not just greed and lust for power. And that’s why we need continued military domination of the country like we need a hole in our collective head (many of us stand a good chance of getting it literally too).
Australian Foreign Minister on Burma policy
Dylan, I don’t know what you do in Burma as a foreign resident. Maybe an NGO worker, or a UN staff, or even a diplomat.
Anyway as a non-Burmese I don’t think you can really understand a Tatmadaw Commander’s point of view easily when it comes to dealing with a foreign NGO. Especially most western NGO has a very common hostile view like they don’t want any govt involvement in their charitable business in Burma.
The way Burma has been isolated for so long and the way govt propaganda has been driven into their heads all their life and the way they are unreasonably so proud most Burmese officials, especially the army officers, do not think or behave as a normal world citizen from outside Burma should do.
For example, when I was growing up in Burma during Ne Win’s Socialist rule, I and most my friends thought Medicins Sans Frontieres(Doctors without borders) was a bad foreign organization, for they were actively helping the KNU/KNLA on the border with medical aids and since we just blindly believe the govt propaganda that KNU/KNLA were the enemy of our race.
Twittering “we love king”
….there was an orchestrated campaign to get #weloveking as the top trending topic on twitter to mark the king’s birthday on 5 December 2009.
Why?
Australia’s constructive Burma engagement
Dear Dylan,
Burma has had a very long years of involvement in overseas scholarships since independence. Mostly the Colombo Plan and Fulbright Scholars. All are awarded to the serving govt officials.
The main or probably the only reason all the post-grad scholarships go to the govt employees is that they all come back and serve the country since they have to sign a watertight contract to serve a certain number of years back home after their studies abroad.
No Burmese with a sane mind will ever go back Burma after earning a Master or PhD from an Australian university. Especially when the current Australian Immigration policy is basically offering the permanent residency for anyone who is Australian educated.
IMO, basically this idea of offering post-grad scholarships to Burmese is a sure waste of aid money in short term, unless as you and Moe Aung have said the Australian govt wants to win the hearts and minds of generals by letting their sons and daughters to become educated in Australia, and later Australian citizens.
The Allah dilemma in Malaysia
[…] there were the fire-bombings of places of worship (mostly Christian) after the “Allah” court ruling which shattered Malaysia’s facade as a peaceful nation where people of different […]
Is Najib on his way out?
Its not my personal survival I am talking about, Antares but of the 2 personalities being discussed.
I agree totally with the stygian ooze and toxic murk from self-serving rule disguised as governance. I am also not advocating that UMNO or any member of the repugnant horde to remain.
It was just building a scenario that with so many swords out there against Najib and DSAI, it would be strategic for them to look for mutual ground, with Najib still having PM authority and DSAI having the popular confidence.
Subsequent to that, let it be a slug fest between them.
My apologies if there had been confusion cast.
East Asia Forum emerging scholars competition
Isn’t it illegal to discriminate on the basis of age in Oz?
Elephants in the room – Part 3
Tukkae,
maybe they’re working on something better than\\////. Or perhaps they’re cleaning up any dubious posts. They’re quite slow. When I posted, they were supposed to have this rejig done by 4 February. We shall have to wait and see.
Is Najib on his way out?
Sorry, Devlin, I cannot endorse what you just said – even if your “personal survival” hinged on seeing Najib and Anwar make a clandestine deal. The dense murk and stygian ooze that characterize Najib’s energy field makes him a highly toxic entity – anyone who tarries too long in his presence will become corrupt and decadent.
There are no two ways about it: Najib & Umno/BN have to go! However, knowing that what’s making them cling on so desperately is the fear of retribution, I advocate making it easy for them to relinquish power. They can buy their way out of criminal prosecution by returning 80% of the money they’ve stolen from the rakyat. This will gain them safe passage out of the country. If they wish to stay in Malaysia, they must be prohibited from holding public office for at least 10 years.
Australian Foreign Minister on Burma policy
@ Moe Aung,
I am not so certain about the government being “happy to play along and receive charity in lieu of its very low priority for public sector spending.” I think that it is quite bothersome for the government to manage foreign aid, and that if they had it their way, there would be no ODA at all.
This would be the logical response, but the tatmadaw is not a logical actor! I think that it will remain to be seen how the government views and works with NGOs in the upcoming year. The government is wary of all NGOs. If an NGO invited a Commander to come peeking around the office and he saw that the only documents are on let’s say, how to improve water and sanitation for the people in lower Shan state, I still think that Commander is going to report back to his superiors that the foreign elements in the NGO are subversive neocolonialist stooges set on tearing apart the Union of Myanmar.
The UN Country Team has already received unofficial signals that the government wants to lower the amount of foreigners in country leading up to the election, they are still making visas very difficult to obtain, and have informally sent signals that they will be stopping issuing travel authorization to the more ‘sensitive’ areas such as upper Shan, Norther Rakhine State (NRS), Chin, etc.
Australia’s constructive Burma engagement
Getting a bit off the subject, but just some comments on the comments on AusAID scholarships.
Hla Oo,
I am fairly sure that at least the first round will probably not be aimed at government officials, but more likely civil society members, technocrats, and those with high-level experience with local NGOs, INGOs, UN, etc. Keep in mind that they are post-graduate scholarships, which means that the recepients are required to have at least an undergraduate degree. While many university-educated are elite, I think nowadays university education (although of a terrible quality) is now accessible to a lot of middle-lower class people. It will certainly be a fine line in balancing between elites and other applicants, to be decided based on the added value, and how keen the applicants are on returning to Myanmar to implement their Australian-educated skills and knowledged to make an impact.
Moe Aung said something interesting in the other thread, suggesting that it might not be all that bad to have Generals’ sons in Australia. On one hand, I sort of agree with this sentiment. I’ve been surprised that Australia and US have not wanted to send these types of applicants to become educated in the West – I mean, what better way to win ‘hearts and minds’ than to have someone spend 4 years in your university system. The individuals on Australia’s targetted travel sanctions are mostly from the Ministerial level and up, and the sanctions affect their sons and daughters as well. So we won’t be seeing the Old Man’s grandkids in Perth anytime soon, but that leaves it open for children of other lower-ranking (but important) government officials to apply…