Srithanonchai: No, Stevenson’s book is not banned. I had always heard that bookstores would order it for a customer but were not stocking it, so I’m surprised to hear Kino has it on their shelves!
A quick question: I was under the impressions that William Stevenson’s book on “The Revolutionary King” was banned in Thailand. Yet, I saw three copies on sale at Kino. Was there no such ban?
Hla Oo
The very fact that using “Democracy” as the west understood must not even be in the present lexicon of the west approach.
As the most vulnerable can not even afford reasonable quality Nga-Pi the furthest thing in their mind is “Democracy”.
If you or any one care to define “Democracy” within the context of Myanmar’s future you will know that the west present approach is far from effecting that end.
Egg on by article such as Litner who should know better about ‘a time for —” .
AT best create apathy at worst induce why try attitude.
Extremely polarized campaign, democracy for Burma now is. Discipline-flourishing-democracy claiming SPDC led extreme-nationalist army on one side and the ever-growing activist industry prospering in the West (some on Soros’s money, most on the American and some European tax payers’ money) with ASSK as their beacon of shining-light on the other.
Even the academics are now divided as pro-engagement or pro-sanctions. Don’t mention journalists, they are also bitterly polarized. Extreme anti-Burman activist like Lintner or the rest who sympathized with the Burmese majority, not with rebellious rabble on the border, and are still trying to find the middle ground.
Even the Australian govt doesn’t seem to be on the clear ground. They claimed to be pro-engagement with aids and so-called human rights trainings, at the same time followed the US lead by prohibiting the official contacts and financial dealings with the generals and their immediate families.
In the meantime the long-suffering people of Burma are eating only lousy Nga-pi(cheap fish-paste) and rice, waiting for the fruits of democracy they have been promised by ASSK’s own father General Aung San since English left Burma in 1948 of last century, and miserably scratching their balls wondering what the bloody hell is going on?
As I remember well in my “Communication 101” class:
1) Do not be prejudicial for any reason.
a) Trust but Verify.
2) Define the objective of each and every endeavor.
3) Listen and see the message beyond the messenger.
4) Never cut off any possible channel.
Does it appear that Mr Litner article on Myanmar ever promote that basic aspects. As compared to Professor M Aung-Thwin or Derek Tonkin?
How about Turnell Vicary as opposed to Andrew Selth
I can’t understand why AW is particularly fixated on this particular so-called “myth”. What agenda is he trying to push here? While I find AW reasonable and agreeable on most other points he blog about, his obsession with this issue is puzzling. (Sort of like, trying to muddy the issues about the dangers of smoking, etc.).
I mean, in the end, what matters is that fragile forest ecosystem are preserved. It may not be done for the right reason, but I’m sure most people who really care about the environment and not their academic ego will settle for whatever wrong and pratical reasons that might be for the near term, be they superstition, propaganda, etc.
Second, if AW think his finding is so revolutionary and scientifically rigorous, why no just publish it in well-known peer-reviewed journal where bona fide hydrologists or other experts can evaluate, instead of publishing in some obscure journal with just some plots with no meaningful statistical test ( I did look up your paper).
Chris: With due respect to the Handley book, he doesn’t actually say anything more than the prince attended Duntroon and then had a stint with the SAS. Now if you were to read my post, I was asking if he graduated from the regular program at the former. Handley doesn’t say “graduated”. Some web sites have him graduating and others have him attending. The Age from Melbourne, which is available online says he got most of his higher education at Duntroon. Couldn’t someone see the public record in newspapers and so on a see how the event was described back then. That is usually the way research is conducted.
Using this article “р╕ер╕▒р╕Ър╕ер╕зр╕Зр╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕З р╕ар╕▓р╕Др╕Юр╕┤р╕ир╕Фр╕▓р╕г (Secrets, Deception, and Trap: The Strange Exotic Episode)” as implicit methodological explanation of the success of the 1991 and 2006 coups in Thailand will simply reflect two serious shortcomings among academics in the studies of Thai politics.
1. Historian:
It reflects that historians had not been writing facts about Thai political history.
2. Political Scientist:
It shows that political scientists lack scientific approach to the analysis of Thai politics.
As a news reporter, Wassana Nanuam provided a lovely flavor about those coups. The article simply described the icing of the cake but unable to explain the rational choice of the coup makers.
Among various reasons, the major reason that General Suchinda Kraprayoon and his team as well as General Sondhi Boonyaratkalin and his team staged the coups against former PM Chartchai Choonhawan and former PM Thaksin Shinwatra because the Thai military establishment perceived that the two prime ministers had tied the Thai security affairs toward Japan.
In my opinion, it is beneficial if academics analyze Thailand with in-depth endeavor and rigor methodology so that we can have a factual analysis. Thailand is Chinese ethnic dominant country, ignoring this fact we simply miss the main point of Thai political history and politics.
You be the JUDGE>
There is a fundamental lack of “discretion’ in both Mr Litner and Turnell Vicary that nobody address for the past decades.
Fact:
1)Mr Litner is well known “Black listed” journalist among notorious SPDC list of banned western journalist.
As such how can one not RECLUSE oneself from passing opinion on SPDC in anyway without appearing prejudicial? Let alone a (-) one?
Mr Litner will know well he will be a suspect of being prejudice against SPDC BUrma expert or not.
2) Mr Lintner got the “Burma Expert” compare to: (for example) Professor Michael Aung-Thwin.
The only difference is Mr Litner is absolutely anti SPDC while Professor M. Aung-Thwin has the academic courage to give an alternate view that did not completely vilify SPDC even though he is proven not to be pro SPDC but rather pro Burmese people.
The debates on engagement has come to a low point where:
Anti SPDC is automatically defined as “expert” pro democracy’ and such without even a honest review.
Any thing less than a complete anti SPDC is deemed unworthy of any legitimate consideration?
The book appears to be a good example of linear thinking, which is a pity when what is being discussed is the water CYCLE. An example is “Much of the rain falling on forests gets evaporated from the leaves or transpired through the roots”. What goes up must also come down. That’s the other half of the cycle. And what does “transpired through the roots” mean? Sounds like garbled science to me.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
Srithanonchai: No, Stevenson’s book is not banned. I had always heard that bookstores would order it for a customer but were not stocking it, so I’m surprised to hear Kino has it on their shelves!
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
A quick question: I was under the impressions that William Stevenson’s book on “The Revolutionary King” was banned in Thailand. Yet, I saw three copies on sale at Kino. Was there no such ban?
Review of Wassana
I’d like to…
How flexible can a peasant be?
Just a brief question: Is “new forms of peasant identity” the same as “new preference structures of peasants”?
Lintner on Burma’s army officers
Hla Oo
The very fact that using “Democracy” as the west understood must not even be in the present lexicon of the west approach.
As the most vulnerable can not even afford reasonable quality Nga-Pi the furthest thing in their mind is “Democracy”.
If you or any one care to define “Democracy” within the context of Myanmar’s future you will know that the west present approach is far from effecting that end.
Egg on by article such as Litner who should know better about ‘a time for —” .
AT best create apathy at worst induce why try attitude.
Going to Pagan: Gay slang in Burma
[…] Mandala readers who enjoyed our recent post, “Going to Pagan: Gay slang in Burma”, will be pleased to know that it is now available in […]
Lintner on Burma’s army officers
Extremely polarized campaign, democracy for Burma now is. Discipline-flourishing-democracy claiming SPDC led extreme-nationalist army on one side and the ever-growing activist industry prospering in the West (some on Soros’s money, most on the American and some European tax payers’ money) with ASSK as their beacon of shining-light on the other.
Even the academics are now divided as pro-engagement or pro-sanctions. Don’t mention journalists, they are also bitterly polarized. Extreme anti-Burman activist like Lintner or the rest who sympathized with the Burmese majority, not with rebellious rabble on the border, and are still trying to find the middle ground.
Even the Australian govt doesn’t seem to be on the clear ground. They claimed to be pro-engagement with aids and so-called human rights trainings, at the same time followed the US lead by prohibiting the official contacts and financial dealings with the generals and their immediate families.
In the meantime the long-suffering people of Burma are eating only lousy Nga-pi(cheap fish-paste) and rice, waiting for the fruits of democracy they have been promised by ASSK’s own father General Aung San since English left Burma in 1948 of last century, and miserably scratching their balls wondering what the bloody hell is going on?
Commentary on Thailand’s Crown Prince
polo: yes, he is what? At least Thaksin says nice things about him in the Times.
“Like it or hate it, this book cannot be ignored”
Thanks Bystander, why not read the book? The agenda is very clear.
And thanks R. Lindgren. Again, if you read the book you will see that we discuss the effects of forest on rainfall at considerable length (100-104).
Commentary on Thailand’s Crown Prince
Yes, he is.
Lintner on Burma’s army officers
As I remember well in my “Communication 101” class:
1) Do not be prejudicial for any reason.
a) Trust but Verify.
2) Define the objective of each and every endeavor.
3) Listen and see the message beyond the messenger.
4) Never cut off any possible channel.
Does it appear that Mr Litner article on Myanmar ever promote that basic aspects. As compared to Professor M Aung-Thwin or Derek Tonkin?
How about Turnell Vicary as opposed to Andrew Selth
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6479/is_3_30/ai_n31178685/
“Like it or hate it, this book cannot be ignored”
I can’t understand why AW is particularly fixated on this particular so-called “myth”. What agenda is he trying to push here? While I find AW reasonable and agreeable on most other points he blog about, his obsession with this issue is puzzling. (Sort of like, trying to muddy the issues about the dangers of smoking, etc.).
I mean, in the end, what matters is that fragile forest ecosystem are preserved. It may not be done for the right reason, but I’m sure most people who really care about the environment and not their academic ego will settle for whatever wrong and pratical reasons that might be for the near term, be they superstition, propaganda, etc.
Second, if AW think his finding is so revolutionary and scientifically rigorous, why no just publish it in well-known peer-reviewed journal where bona fide hydrologists or other experts can evaluate, instead of publishing in some obscure journal with just some plots with no meaningful statistical test ( I did look up your paper).
Interview with Professor Pasuk Phongpaichit
excellent!
Pasuk is one of my favorite writers.
Commentary on Thailand’s Crown Prince
Chris: With due respect to the Handley book, he doesn’t actually say anything more than the prince attended Duntroon and then had a stint with the SAS. Now if you were to read my post, I was asking if he graduated from the regular program at the former. Handley doesn’t say “graduated”. Some web sites have him graduating and others have him attending. The Age from Melbourne, which is available online says he got most of his higher education at Duntroon. Couldn’t someone see the public record in newspapers and so on a see how the event was described back then. That is usually the way research is conducted.
Commentary on Thailand’s Crown Prince
Chris Beale: “Only problem with this poll ? = NO Isaarn opinion !” Not so.
“About 53.1 per cent in the Northeast voiced support for his leadership.”
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/read.php?newsid=30116044&keyword=abhisit+popular
Review of Wassana
Thanks, Acharn Somsak & Srithanonchai; point taken. Perhaps you could point me to some higher quality works on similar topics?
Review of Wassana
“I definitely hope not. Wassana’s Thai prose is atrociously bad. Believe me, it’s far better to read the review!”
Moreover, her books are journalistic in nature, meaning that there is a lot of air in them. Reading English summaries is indeed sufficient.
Review of Wassana
Using this article “р╕ер╕▒р╕Ър╕ер╕зр╕Зр╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕З р╕ар╕▓р╕Др╕Юр╕┤р╕ир╕Фр╕▓р╕г (Secrets, Deception, and Trap: The Strange Exotic Episode)” as implicit methodological explanation of the success of the 1991 and 2006 coups in Thailand will simply reflect two serious shortcomings among academics in the studies of Thai politics.
1. Historian:
It reflects that historians had not been writing facts about Thai political history.
2. Political Scientist:
It shows that political scientists lack scientific approach to the analysis of Thai politics.
As a news reporter, Wassana Nanuam provided a lovely flavor about those coups. The article simply described the icing of the cake but unable to explain the rational choice of the coup makers.
Among various reasons, the major reason that General Suchinda Kraprayoon and his team as well as General Sondhi Boonyaratkalin and his team staged the coups against former PM Chartchai Choonhawan and former PM Thaksin Shinwatra because the Thai military establishment perceived that the two prime ministers had tied the Thai security affairs toward Japan.
In my opinion, it is beneficial if academics analyze Thailand with in-depth endeavor and rigor methodology so that we can have a factual analysis. Thailand is Chinese ethnic dominant country, ignoring this fact we simply miss the main point of Thai political history and politics.
Lintner on Burma’s army officers
You be the JUDGE>
There is a fundamental lack of “discretion’ in both Mr Litner and Turnell Vicary that nobody address for the past decades.
Fact:
1)Mr Litner is well known “Black listed” journalist among notorious SPDC list of banned western journalist.
As such how can one not RECLUSE oneself from passing opinion on SPDC in anyway without appearing prejudicial? Let alone a (-) one?
Mr Litner will know well he will be a suspect of being prejudice against SPDC BUrma expert or not.
2) Mr Lintner got the “Burma Expert” compare to: (for example) Professor Michael Aung-Thwin.
The only difference is Mr Litner is absolutely anti SPDC while Professor M. Aung-Thwin has the academic courage to give an alternate view that did not completely vilify SPDC even though he is proven not to be pro SPDC but rather pro Burmese people.
The debates on engagement has come to a low point where:
Anti SPDC is automatically defined as “expert” pro democracy’ and such without even a honest review.
Any thing less than a complete anti SPDC is deemed unworthy of any legitimate consideration?
“Like it or hate it, this book cannot be ignored”
The book appears to be a good example of linear thinking, which is a pity when what is being discussed is the water CYCLE. An example is “Much of the rain falling on forests gets evaporated from the leaves or transpired through the roots”. What goes up must also come down. That’s the other half of the cycle. And what does “transpired through the roots” mean? Sounds like garbled science to me.