We are not talking about socialism, StanG, we are talking about the kind of reforms that began in England in 1688, and were complete by 1835, the last time a British monarch refused to accept a Prime Minister with a popular mandate. That Prime minister (Lord Melbourne) went to the people again, and the King gave in.
History is keep on repeating as we primitive humans have only limited options.
Do you still remember the brutal 100 year war of attrition between the Burmese Kingdom of Upper Burma and the Mon kingdom of lower Burma, and where are the Mons now? Even their great Shwe Dagon pagoda is now the Burmese icon!(I am a Burmese, but I am really a half-Mon like many people from the Irrawaddy Delta.)
But these long wars of attrition could sometime produce twisted results many years later.
Can you still recall Hitler’s Third Reich? Roman Army built many sentinel towns to subjugate the Germanic tribes. Thousands of years later a German dictator claimed his empire, after the Bismark’s Second Reich, was the presumed successor of the Roman Empire (the First Reich).
FCCT board and key members were seen as pro-red and anti-yellow, as having lost their neutrality and objectiveness. It was daft of them to sell Jakrapob’s videos after several warnings and after the guy threatened the guerrilla war against the government.
It’s not journalists’ job to support revolutions and it was only a matter of time before they were made to pay for their misplaced bets.
The whole situation could have been easily avoided had they had any diplomatic sense.
It’s pipe dream hoping that a mainstream party with nearly 200 MPs desperately searching for alliances to form the government would take on such controversial agenda.
Some socialist parties should be far more receptive audience, why not start with them and see how far it goes? Of course they can hardly win any parliamentary seats, but that would be more realistic than hoping to ride on PTP electoral success.
Moe Aung, these dual passport holders are actually risking their lives going back to Burma especially the ones with political background like Nyi Nyi Aung is. This is the Washington Post article about his case.
There are now thousands and thousands of so-called political refugees from Burma resettling in the West. A lot of them claimed prosecution back home but as soon as they get hold of their new citizenship and passports they go back Burma mostly to marry a rich bride, many of them are the daughters of the high-ranking military personnel, or for doing lucrative import-export businesses with the feared military government.
Most of them are now frequently visiting Burma flashing their US or Aussie or European passports as if these little booklets are their solid protection. They cry foul only when they get into a serious trouble with the army like Nyi Nyi Aung has.
(Why was he back so frequently in Rangoon, at least six times, if he got his US passport by claiming he would be severely prosecuted if he was sent back home.)
Similar to that twenty thousand Chinese students given PR status wholesale in Australia by Hawk government during the Tienanmen uprising. A large number of them immediately went back China to offer themselves to the highest bidding prospective parents-in-laws who conveniently were the high-ranking cadres of Chinese Communist Party. ( These hard line Communists need the Aussie passports for their own protection if they have to flee China after fleecing so much money from the people of China.)
Many of them are now prospering here in Australia bringing all the made-in-china junks for 2-dollars shops all over the places. Huge amount of dirty money from their corrupt parents-in-laws back in China has been basically fueling the fiery real-estate booms in Sydney.
Aladdin and Somsak have got down to the key to Thailand’s political problems, interference in politics by the monarchy. Unfortunately, the problem is not easy to solve with legislation, since the Thai people’s socially underdeveloped state leaves them more inclined to obey men than they are to obey laws. This applies to the villager living and working in the thrall of the local mafia boss, as it does to the courtier grovelling on the palace floor. Criminal laws are ineffective in the first case, as constitutions are in the second. Progress from a political system like a troupe of monkeys with its alpha male and alpha female, towards the rule of law that prevails in a literate community, is inevitable but slow. Reform of the education system is fundamental. Even playing football rather than cutting each other’s throats teaches people to compete according to rules. 1932 and 1997 were too soon, but eventually the scales will swing, and the rule of laws will prevail over tyranny.
Aj Somsak, my thinking is basically right in line with your series of posts in Fa Dio Kan. I strongly agree in principle with both posts you cite in #18.
For those interested: here is a rough translation of Aj Somsak’s eight-point proposal to modernize the Thai monarchy along the lines of the European monarchies, in the first Fa Dio Kan post he cited:
*******
1. Abolish Article 8 of the current Constitution (“The King shall be enthroned in a position that is sacred and inviolate. No-one may make an accusation against the King in any form whatsoever”) and replace it with an Article similar to that contained in the 27th June 1932 Constitution regarding the establishment of a council to consider wrongdoings of the King;
2. Abolish Article 112 of the Criminal Code (lese majeste);
3. Abolish the position of Privy Councillors;
4. Abolish the 1948 Act regarding the management of the King’s assets;
5. Abolish the one-sided representation of the monarchy in public relations and in the education system;
6. Abolish the practice of the King publicly giving his political opinions (on such occasions as the 4th December birthday speech, the 25th April 2006 “Judicial Revolution” speech, etc.);
7. Abolish royal powers over the Royal Projects;
8. Abolish all practices of offering and receiving royal merit-making donations (“doi sadet phraratchakuson”).
******
I will look forward to reading your “detailed argumentation” about these proposals, when you have time…
Further to my last post, I think that public criticism of the monarchy’s role is essential right now. The question is how you do it.
Because of lese majeste most critical discussion of the monarchy in Thailand tends to be in the form of innuendo.
Such innuendo has two problems.
First, by definition, innuendo is unclear and can often be misinterpreted. This leads to misunderstanding and misinformation. It is almost impossible to have a rational understanding and debate about the monarchy based on innuendo.
The second problem is that such innuendo is usually couched in social revolutionary or republican terms. You hear it in speeches at Red Shirt rallies, on anti-monarchy web-sites, and on some community radio stations.
Such talk terrifies the royalists who are really left with no choice but to fight politically by any means possible, as they are doing now.
Also, it is unlikely that a sufficiently large section of the pro-Thaksin / Red Shirts supporters desires such revolutionary change.
But if Puea Thai, the Reds, and the other pro-democracy groups, instead of playing the dishonest game of publicly pledging their allegiance to the throne and pretending that the monarchy isn’t a problem, actually came out and said, yes, there is a major problem with the monarchy in Thailand today and that it needs to be addressed, and if you vote for us we will reform it – I believe that this would be an advance towards a solution to the political crisis.
It would also be democratic: clearly informing the electorate – which knows that the monarchy is a problem for Thailand today in so many ways – of what their position is on the monarchy and calling for a democratic mandate at the ballot box to reform it.
I also think that such a stance would be palatable for a section of the royalists – although not all, to be sure. It would reassure them that the monarchy would be retained, albeit in a different form. This would thus at a stroke increase the constituency for reform of the monarchy and thus make such reform possible.
I think that such a position would also be politically sellable. Puea Thai could talk about the need to democratize the monarchy, to “liberate” it from the control of a small group of cronies in the Privy Council and the “network”, of “reclaiming” the monarchy for the people. But at the same time it should have a clear set of proposals of how this would be done, eg. reform of the Privy Council, reform of the lese majeste law, reform of the Crown Property Bureau, etc.
The aim must be to neutralize the monarchy politically. All those institutions of state which currently seek protection, political influence and economic benefit through their links to the monarchy – the military, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the universities, the media organs – must be made accountable to the people. The monarchy’s links to all these institutions must be severed.
The challenge is to accomplish this in a democratic way – ie. with the support of the majority of the Thai population.
Aladdin: The long term aim has to be to democratize the monarchy. I think it is possible to discuss these issues publicly without violating lese majeste and without calling for a republic.
I’d have liked to provide detailed argumentation for each points in the proposal, except for the lack of time on my part at the moment. For now, however, my aim is to stimulate a discussion in this direction.
I can’t see any possibility of ‘firm action by the King (or the Prince/Queen) to withdraw support from the “royalist elites”’. This would be political suicide for the royal family. They have too many enemies. I can’t see any reason why they would want to cut off their allies. The current regime is the best they can hope for to protect their political and economic interests.
In any case, I think that if you view the history of the King his record is not to withdraw support from but actually to reward those involved in democratic violations (and even massacres of pro-democracy protesters) in October 1973, October 1976, May 1992, with appointments to the Privy Council, royal cremations, or at the very least the legal protection of an amnesty.
So reforms to bodies like the Privy Council would have to come from outside, not inside royalist circles.
One “minimalist” idea would be for Puea Thai go to the next election on a platform (among other things) to reform the Privy Council – along the lines of demanding that members of the Council be approved by the parliament (the “maximalist” idea – unrealistic right now – would be to abolish the Council altogether). It could also be proposed that members of the Council be banned from being on advisory boards of companies or public organizations; banned from making public comments on political matters; banned from being awarded honorary degrees by universities seeking to curry favour; etc.
If Puea Thai did well at the election (assuming the party is not banned by the courts again) it would be politically quite difficult for the monarchy to resist such popular pressure to reform the Privy Council.
The long term aim has to be to democratize the monarchy. I think it is possible to discuss these issues publicly without violating lese majeste and without calling for a republic. With a new reign not too far away such reforms really ought to be publicly discussed, in a calm and reasoned way, by politicians and especially the academics. The Privy Council’s reputation now is so tawdry it would be a good time to start. Perhaps the Royal Thai Embassy in London could organize a panel discussion?
Re. factionalism in the military, I just don’t have any inside information. But I can’t think of any prominent military figure in Thailand with recognizeably democratic aspirations.
my current gut feel is that the King is protecting himself from the Prince/Queen by staying in hospital
so, I wonder if Prem is in fear of the King dying, are Sarayud and the rest of the privy council monolithic or will they be in turmoil?
and where does (next commander) Prayuth sit?
will the Prince/Queen wait for the Kings death and then really stir things with up (with Prayuth?) by hunting down reds like the past pogroms against the students/communists, or will they move sooner?
do the rich business (Chang, CP, Banks, royal businesses, etc) and other royals feature or just follow?
Aladdin, David Brown, I wonder what do you think about the current military split into three factions: р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╕нр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕┤р╕Щр╕╡ the Queen’s soldiers р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕▓ the King’s soldiers, and р╕Бр╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕▒р╕Юр╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕в soldiers support democratization. Anupong belongs to the Queen’s soldier, Prem is the King’s soldier, and Panlop is the soldier for democracy. I think the existing power structure is forming this way. The dynamic of the power struggle is definitely intense in this new paradigm.
Thank you, Thomas, for taking the time to write this insightful series of articles. I really was quite unclear about the charges against BBC’s Jonathan Head and the FCCT because the BBC and other English language news media won’t talk about it, and you’ve managed to throw some light on the role of Laksana Kornsilpa and Pol. Maj. Wattanasak. Your article has only reinforced my opinion about the odiousness of the Bangkok elites who support the PAD, and seem willing to resort to any form of totalitarian repression to get their way.
Looks like the regime has been following to an extent the Israeli model and using ex-army personnel as settlers. King Anawrahta in the 11th century set up a string of garrison towns in the north called kimmyo (lit. sentinel towns) along the frontiers for the defence of his realm against the Kachin, Chin, Ahom and Shan as well as the Chinese. This however is an attempt at subjugating a minority people within the union supposedly founded on the spirit of the 1947 Panglong Agreement to which the Kachin were signatories, happy to trade racial harmony for their own personal wealth.
The military regime’s colonialist strategy of Burmanisation will only succeed in sowing the seeds of further communal strife and may well lead to the Palestine scenario. I doubt it if the Kachin are just going to cave in. A guerilla war of attrition and low intensity conflict will continue which will flare up from time to time for generations to come, a scenario hardly conducive to development and progress.
I reckon a lot of expats are dual passport holders. Like you said the Burmese passport is used only to enter and leave Yangon. It is now stamped ‘Good for travel to all countries’ whereas not so long ago it was ‘Good for travel to all countries except Taiwan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’. True, it used to be good only for countries specified, no more than half a dozen. And yes, we are treated like gatecrashers or beggars at every airport in the world, thanks to our blessed rulers. Worse, our embassies, instead of looking after their own citizens, spy on them and extort money by requiring them and charging a fee to have status and tax clearance papers mandatory for travelling to Burma.
You are right about inheriting property from one’s parents becoming an even more complicated issue with an added dimension of siblings abroad, as one party may allege the expat sibling is no longer a Burmese citizen and the courts are required to investigate. So paradoxically, instead of ASSK filing a suit against her brother’s ownership rights, we are witnessing this ridiculous court case. Just as Yettaw got away with it, so will Aung San Oo, but not Nyi Nyi Aung aka Kyaw Zaw Lwin for obvious reasons.
Are these laws – LM and Computer Crime – in not a totalitarian category the same as other regional countries similiarly harsh laws. : eg. Chinese, Vietnamese and Lao laws against advocating multi-party democracy, or Malaysia’s Internal Security Act ?
thank you, I agree… it is the royal cover that enables perpetuation of power over the people
I have wavered about whether the King is in full agreement and control or is just manipulated by Prem and his mates
and whether the Prince and the Queen are the real (evil) power now… is the King staying in hospital to protect himself from his family and/or Prem et al?
in any case, you are right… firm action by the King (or the Prince/Queen) to withdraw support from the “royalist elites” and demand democratic elections would rouse the people and require the military to stand down
It’s heartening to hear there’s hope for our youth, punk or no, and the positive aspects of youth/pop culture. Too right, it’s the multinationals trying to muscle in into all areas particularly youth culture to stay ahead in fashion and trends, to steal the mantle of youthful chic, in order to turn a hefty profit. It’s when consumerism meets youth culture , one begins to see the corruption introduced by the grownups.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
SOAS Thai politics event
We are not talking about socialism, StanG, we are talking about the kind of reforms that began in England in 1688, and were complete by 1835, the last time a British monarch refused to accept a Prime Minister with a popular mandate. That Prime minister (Lord Melbourne) went to the people again, and the King gave in.
China and the Wa
History is keep on repeating as we primitive humans have only limited options.
Do you still remember the brutal 100 year war of attrition between the Burmese Kingdom of Upper Burma and the Mon kingdom of lower Burma, and where are the Mons now? Even their great Shwe Dagon pagoda is now the Burmese icon!(I am a Burmese, but I am really a half-Mon like many people from the Irrawaddy Delta.)
But these long wars of attrition could sometime produce twisted results many years later.
Can you still recall Hitler’s Third Reich? Roman Army built many sentinel towns to subjugate the Germanic tribes. Thousands of years later a German dictator claimed his empire, after the Bismark’s Second Reich, was the presumed successor of the Roman Empire (the First Reich).
Elephants in the room: Part 2
FCCT board and key members were seen as pro-red and anti-yellow, as having lost their neutrality and objectiveness. It was daft of them to sell Jakrapob’s videos after several warnings and after the guy threatened the guerrilla war against the government.
It’s not journalists’ job to support revolutions and it was only a matter of time before they were made to pay for their misplaced bets.
The whole situation could have been easily avoided had they had any diplomatic sense.
SOAS Thai politics event
It’s pipe dream hoping that a mainstream party with nearly 200 MPs desperately searching for alliances to form the government would take on such controversial agenda.
Some socialist parties should be far more receptive audience, why not start with them and see how far it goes? Of course they can hardly win any parliamentary seats, but that would be more realistic than hoping to ride on PTP electoral success.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s leaking roof
Moe Aung, these dual passport holders are actually risking their lives going back to Burma especially the ones with political background like Nyi Nyi Aung is. This is the Washington Post article about his case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302981.html
There are now thousands and thousands of so-called political refugees from Burma resettling in the West. A lot of them claimed prosecution back home but as soon as they get hold of their new citizenship and passports they go back Burma mostly to marry a rich bride, many of them are the daughters of the high-ranking military personnel, or for doing lucrative import-export businesses with the feared military government.
Most of them are now frequently visiting Burma flashing their US or Aussie or European passports as if these little booklets are their solid protection. They cry foul only when they get into a serious trouble with the army like Nyi Nyi Aung has.
(Why was he back so frequently in Rangoon, at least six times, if he got his US passport by claiming he would be severely prosecuted if he was sent back home.)
Similar to that twenty thousand Chinese students given PR status wholesale in Australia by Hawk government during the Tienanmen uprising. A large number of them immediately went back China to offer themselves to the highest bidding prospective parents-in-laws who conveniently were the high-ranking cadres of Chinese Communist Party. ( These hard line Communists need the Aussie passports for their own protection if they have to flee China after fleecing so much money from the people of China.)
Many of them are now prospering here in Australia bringing all the made-in-china junks for 2-dollars shops all over the places. Huge amount of dirty money from their corrupt parents-in-laws back in China has been basically fueling the fiery real-estate booms in Sydney.
SOAS Thai politics event
Aladdin and Somsak have got down to the key to Thailand’s political problems, interference in politics by the monarchy. Unfortunately, the problem is not easy to solve with legislation, since the Thai people’s socially underdeveloped state leaves them more inclined to obey men than they are to obey laws. This applies to the villager living and working in the thrall of the local mafia boss, as it does to the courtier grovelling on the palace floor. Criminal laws are ineffective in the first case, as constitutions are in the second. Progress from a political system like a troupe of monkeys with its alpha male and alpha female, towards the rule of law that prevails in a literate community, is inevitable but slow. Reform of the education system is fundamental. Even playing football rather than cutting each other’s throats teaches people to compete according to rules. 1932 and 1997 were too soon, but eventually the scales will swing, and the rule of laws will prevail over tyranny.
Does Than Shwe have anything to fear from international law?
Maybe Grasshopper is Than Shwe?
SOAS Thai politics event
Aj Somsak, my thinking is basically right in line with your series of posts in Fa Dio Kan. I strongly agree in principle with both posts you cite in #18.
For those interested: here is a rough translation of Aj Somsak’s eight-point proposal to modernize the Thai monarchy along the lines of the European monarchies, in the first Fa Dio Kan post he cited:
*******
1. Abolish Article 8 of the current Constitution (“The King shall be enthroned in a position that is sacred and inviolate. No-one may make an accusation against the King in any form whatsoever”) and replace it with an Article similar to that contained in the 27th June 1932 Constitution regarding the establishment of a council to consider wrongdoings of the King;
2. Abolish Article 112 of the Criminal Code (lese majeste);
3. Abolish the position of Privy Councillors;
4. Abolish the 1948 Act regarding the management of the King’s assets;
5. Abolish the one-sided representation of the monarchy in public relations and in the education system;
6. Abolish the practice of the King publicly giving his political opinions (on such occasions as the 4th December birthday speech, the 25th April 2006 “Judicial Revolution” speech, etc.);
7. Abolish royal powers over the Royal Projects;
8. Abolish all practices of offering and receiving royal merit-making donations (“doi sadet phraratchakuson”).
******
I will look forward to reading your “detailed argumentation” about these proposals, when you have time…
SOAS Thai politics event
Further to my last post, I think that public criticism of the monarchy’s role is essential right now. The question is how you do it.
Because of lese majeste most critical discussion of the monarchy in Thailand tends to be in the form of innuendo.
Such innuendo has two problems.
First, by definition, innuendo is unclear and can often be misinterpreted. This leads to misunderstanding and misinformation. It is almost impossible to have a rational understanding and debate about the monarchy based on innuendo.
The second problem is that such innuendo is usually couched in social revolutionary or republican terms. You hear it in speeches at Red Shirt rallies, on anti-monarchy web-sites, and on some community radio stations.
Such talk terrifies the royalists who are really left with no choice but to fight politically by any means possible, as they are doing now.
Also, it is unlikely that a sufficiently large section of the pro-Thaksin / Red Shirts supporters desires such revolutionary change.
But if Puea Thai, the Reds, and the other pro-democracy groups, instead of playing the dishonest game of publicly pledging their allegiance to the throne and pretending that the monarchy isn’t a problem, actually came out and said, yes, there is a major problem with the monarchy in Thailand today and that it needs to be addressed, and if you vote for us we will reform it – I believe that this would be an advance towards a solution to the political crisis.
It would also be democratic: clearly informing the electorate – which knows that the monarchy is a problem for Thailand today in so many ways – of what their position is on the monarchy and calling for a democratic mandate at the ballot box to reform it.
I also think that such a stance would be palatable for a section of the royalists – although not all, to be sure. It would reassure them that the monarchy would be retained, albeit in a different form. This would thus at a stroke increase the constituency for reform of the monarchy and thus make such reform possible.
I think that such a position would also be politically sellable. Puea Thai could talk about the need to democratize the monarchy, to “liberate” it from the control of a small group of cronies in the Privy Council and the “network”, of “reclaiming” the monarchy for the people. But at the same time it should have a clear set of proposals of how this would be done, eg. reform of the Privy Council, reform of the lese majeste law, reform of the Crown Property Bureau, etc.
The aim must be to neutralize the monarchy politically. All those institutions of state which currently seek protection, political influence and economic benefit through their links to the monarchy – the military, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the universities, the media organs – must be made accountable to the people. The monarchy’s links to all these institutions must be severed.
The challenge is to accomplish this in a democratic way – ie. with the support of the majority of the Thai population.
Hence the need for public debate.
SOAS Thai politics event
Aladdin:
The long term aim has to be to democratize the monarchy. I think it is possible to discuss these issues publicly without violating lese majeste and without calling for a republic.
See my eight-point proposal for the reform of the monarchy (sorry in Thai only):
http://sameskyboard.com/index.php?showtopic=41941
I’d have liked to provide detailed argumentation for each points in the proposal, except for the lack of time on my part at the moment. For now, however, my aim is to stimulate a discussion in this direction.
See also my direct suggestion to Chakkrapob Penkae here:
http://sameskyboard.com/index.php?showtopic=42361
SOAS Thai politics event
I can’t see any possibility of ‘firm action by the King (or the Prince/Queen) to withdraw support from the “royalist elites”’. This would be political suicide for the royal family. They have too many enemies. I can’t see any reason why they would want to cut off their allies. The current regime is the best they can hope for to protect their political and economic interests.
In any case, I think that if you view the history of the King his record is not to withdraw support from but actually to reward those involved in democratic violations (and even massacres of pro-democracy protesters) in October 1973, October 1976, May 1992, with appointments to the Privy Council, royal cremations, or at the very least the legal protection of an amnesty.
So reforms to bodies like the Privy Council would have to come from outside, not inside royalist circles.
One “minimalist” idea would be for Puea Thai go to the next election on a platform (among other things) to reform the Privy Council – along the lines of demanding that members of the Council be approved by the parliament (the “maximalist” idea – unrealistic right now – would be to abolish the Council altogether). It could also be proposed that members of the Council be banned from being on advisory boards of companies or public organizations; banned from making public comments on political matters; banned from being awarded honorary degrees by universities seeking to curry favour; etc.
If Puea Thai did well at the election (assuming the party is not banned by the courts again) it would be politically quite difficult for the monarchy to resist such popular pressure to reform the Privy Council.
The long term aim has to be to democratize the monarchy. I think it is possible to discuss these issues publicly without violating lese majeste and without calling for a republic. With a new reign not too far away such reforms really ought to be publicly discussed, in a calm and reasoned way, by politicians and especially the academics. The Privy Council’s reputation now is so tawdry it would be a good time to start. Perhaps the Royal Thai Embassy in London could organize a panel discussion?
Re. factionalism in the military, I just don’t have any inside information. But I can’t think of any prominent military figure in Thailand with recognizeably democratic aspirations.
SOAS Thai politics event
Suzie Wong…. good question…
my current gut feel is that the King is protecting himself from the Prince/Queen by staying in hospital
so, I wonder if Prem is in fear of the King dying, are Sarayud and the rest of the privy council monolithic or will they be in turmoil?
and where does (next commander) Prayuth sit?
will the Prince/Queen wait for the Kings death and then really stir things with up (with Prayuth?) by hunting down reds like the past pogroms against the students/communists, or will they move sooner?
do the rich business (Chang, CP, Banks, royal businesses, etc) and other royals feature or just follow?
SOAS Thai politics event
Chatham House notwithstanding, the Thai Embassy has circulated the paper by Borwornsak. It is available here.
SOAS Thai politics event
Aladdin, David Brown, I wonder what do you think about the current military split into three factions: р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╕нр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕┤р╕Щр╕╡ the Queen’s soldiers р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕▓ the King’s soldiers, and р╕Бр╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕▒р╕Юр╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕в soldiers support democratization. Anupong belongs to the Queen’s soldier, Prem is the King’s soldier, and Panlop is the soldier for democracy. I think the existing power structure is forming this way. The dynamic of the power struggle is definitely intense in this new paradigm.
Elephants in the room: Part 2
Thank you, Thomas, for taking the time to write this insightful series of articles. I really was quite unclear about the charges against BBC’s Jonathan Head and the FCCT because the BBC and other English language news media won’t talk about it, and you’ve managed to throw some light on the role of Laksana Kornsilpa and Pol. Maj. Wattanasak. Your article has only reinforced my opinion about the odiousness of the Bangkok elites who support the PAD, and seem willing to resort to any form of totalitarian repression to get their way.
China and the Wa
Looks like the regime has been following to an extent the Israeli model and using ex-army personnel as settlers. King Anawrahta in the 11th century set up a string of garrison towns in the north called kimmyo (lit. sentinel towns) along the frontiers for the defence of his realm against the Kachin, Chin, Ahom and Shan as well as the Chinese. This however is an attempt at subjugating a minority people within the union supposedly founded on the spirit of the 1947 Panglong Agreement to which the Kachin were signatories, happy to trade racial harmony for their own personal wealth.
The military regime’s colonialist strategy of Burmanisation will only succeed in sowing the seeds of further communal strife and may well lead to the Palestine scenario. I doubt it if the Kachin are just going to cave in. A guerilla war of attrition and low intensity conflict will continue which will flare up from time to time for generations to come, a scenario hardly conducive to development and progress.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s leaking roof
Hla Oo,
I reckon a lot of expats are dual passport holders. Like you said the Burmese passport is used only to enter and leave Yangon. It is now stamped ‘Good for travel to all countries’ whereas not so long ago it was ‘Good for travel to all countries except Taiwan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’. True, it used to be good only for countries specified, no more than half a dozen. And yes, we are treated like gatecrashers or beggars at every airport in the world, thanks to our blessed rulers. Worse, our embassies, instead of looking after their own citizens, spy on them and extort money by requiring them and charging a fee to have status and tax clearance papers mandatory for travelling to Burma.
You are right about inheriting property from one’s parents becoming an even more complicated issue with an added dimension of siblings abroad, as one party may allege the expat sibling is no longer a Burmese citizen and the courts are required to investigate. So paradoxically, instead of ASSK filing a suit against her brother’s ownership rights, we are witnessing this ridiculous court case. Just as Yettaw got away with it, so will Aung San Oo, but not Nyi Nyi Aung aka Kyaw Zaw Lwin for obvious reasons.
Elephants in the room: Part 2
Are these laws – LM and Computer Crime – in not a totalitarian category the same as other regional countries similiarly harsh laws. : eg. Chinese, Vietnamese and Lao laws against advocating multi-party democracy, or Malaysia’s Internal Security Act ?
SOAS Thai politics event
Aladdin,
thank you, I agree… it is the royal cover that enables perpetuation of power over the people
I have wavered about whether the King is in full agreement and control or is just manipulated by Prem and his mates
and whether the Prince and the Queen are the real (evil) power now… is the King staying in hospital to protect himself from his family and/or Prem et al?
in any case, you are right… firm action by the King (or the Prince/Queen) to withdraw support from the “royalist elites” and demand democratic elections would rouse the people and require the military to stand down
Yangon punks
ewe,
It’s heartening to hear there’s hope for our youth, punk or no, and the positive aspects of youth/pop culture. Too right, it’s the multinationals trying to muscle in into all areas particularly youth culture to stay ahead in fashion and trends, to steal the mantle of youthful chic, in order to turn a hefty profit. It’s when consumerism meets youth culture , one begins to see the corruption introduced by the grownups.