Burmese and Thai are similar in cultures, mentalities, and way of lives. To learn from each other will get them nowhere near democracy. Both should learn from the West or Japan or South Korea, etc. Democracy depends on the will of the people to stand up and tell the military to craw back to it’s barracks.
The Presidency is not weak in the Philippines, its quite strong relative to the US. South Korea also has a 6 year one term Presidency.
Everyone including Duterte come from an inbred elite.
Given the level of corruption and violence, the question is whether or not you actually want the regions to have more power.
The Philippines has a weak state, its not so much the political structure, but the bureaucracy, military and police force is weak. Its designed that way, so these bodies do not challenge oligarchical elite. The military well paid by Filipino standards, undermanned and poorly equipped so it remains a loyal, but weak guardian of the state.
Surprise that such poor quality arguments made it way to this website and thread. The evidences we have is that thousands of lives were incarcerated, ten of thousand of family livelihoods disrupted and destroyed. Yet the state is unable to produce a shred of evidence
that can stand the court of law?
How would you define “suspected terrorists”? The real question is whether one believe in the rule of law – arbitrary detention without trial is an abberation of principle of rule of law. Believing in rule of law doesn’t mean that one condone terrorism. It is precisely the intolerance of it that we cannot condone state terrorism on its people. Picture this – what happen when a new government use detention without trial to make sure that the overthrown government do not come back. The problems you mentioned cannot be use to rationalize the use of an archaic law, a regulation which was basically a tool of British colonial administrator to quell the demand for independence – adopted into law and were used to suppressed political opponents, abusing security apparatus for political ends.
Many of you are already conflating several concepts as well as addressing strawmen. Whether arbitrary detention has prevented terrorism or not has nothing to do with justice or due process.
First of all, if any of the detained are actually terrorists, how would them having a trial reduce safety? They would be in custody anyway, but have an avenue of recourse in case theybwere wrongfully accused (which dozens of individuals actually were.)
Secondly, it’s easy to talk of security as a bystander. But suppose you were wrongfully detained? How would you prove your innocence if you were not given any due process? I can hear the apologist arguments bawling and mewling already. “Hey hey if you don’t do suspicious things you wont be arrested!”
Well, how would you know what is suspicious? You know you won’t be arrested by cops if you don’t break the law, and you know exactly what the law is. But suspicion? Who defines and who decides it? Many detainees were merely doing charity work and had no idea they would be kidnapped and tortured, and when they protested their treatment after their release, they were immediately rearrested. All this while, dear PM gleefully howled on national tv: “if they feel they have been mistreated, they are free to open up an inquiry against us”.
Also, if you observe most other real world cases, arbitrary detention, torture, or citizen surveillance doesn’t help prevent terrorism much, if at all. Just because we haven’t been hit, what proof is there that this is due to the ISA? None at all, but a presumptive correlation with no internal consistency.
This wave of Islamism is an ideological war and we must battle their doomsday cult wishes with our enlightenment values, not devolve into an authoritarian state that looks exactly like the terrorist state we are trying to defend against. These arrests are not useful, grossly unjust, and not reflective of a modern democratic society that respects the rule of law and the inviolable right of the citizen.
Potjaman, Thaksin, Damapong and many others have reaons to be worried … even panic about the coming Panama Papers bombshells. The Panama Papers date back nearly 40 years, to 1977, when Mossack Fonseca was formed.
That means just even before Thaksin S. became Prime Minister and could implicate more Thaksin/Potjaman honest large-scale off-shore wealth-hiding-tax-avoiding mistakes
Cham are also indigenous to Cambodia, suffered under the Khmer Rouge, and are of proto-Malay origin. While not customarily thought of as tribal, and as their general conditions have improved relative to 40 years ago, these “Malay” Muslims deserve a mention and I have yet to see one in NM. By the way, an interesting aside, Malaysia has a law on the books regarding Cham as Malay, and they have an automatic “Right of Return” to Malaysia where they are given citizenship. Sounds like another nation, Malaysia spends far too much time ranting about.
You are wrong Josh. By all means do look and you will see here name under Offshore Leaks. These have been available since 2013: https://www.icij.org/offshore
Progress may be slow but it does make headlines all the time, especially coming from those who hail rather seismic changes that turn out either fleeting or false. Gordon Brown’s end of boom and bust, Francis Fukuyama’s end of history, to cite a couple of famous examples.
Cynicism, justified or not, has to be tempered with optimism and faith in human resilience and innate goodness as a social being.
Josh: Ralph is right — Potjaman’s name came up in a previous set of leaks, labeled “Offshore Leaks.” Minor distinction, but it does suggest you shouldn’t go around being snarky.
Singapore is a success story, especially as compared to the two Islamic nations in its neighborhood. Could it be that ISA arrests have contributed to that success? And that terrorist attacks on Singaporeans have been thwarted by those arrests?
In all of the comments in the media and by analysts on Duterte’s election there have been virtually none on the Philippines unique electoral system. Duterte has been elected, like Noynoy Aquino before him, with some 40% of the votes. From memory Fidel Ramos, another ostensibly popular president, was elected with less than 25% of the votes.
The Philippines has the worst of both worlds, a modified US style presidential system, without the functioning checks and balances (e.g. an independent judicial system) and political culture to make it work. In Indonesia, as in France and many other countries with presidential systems, elections are held with two rounds, with a run off between the two leading candidates if none achieve 50% of the vote in the first round. This has the advantage of meaning a president has a mantle of legitimacy coming from the support (or at least acquiescence ) of more than 50% of voters. Moreover, the one term limit makes a Filipino president almost a lame duck from his/her inauguration.
Anther peculiarity of the Filipino system is the separate election of a vice-president. Structurally this potentially leads to rivalry at the apex of the state and, as was the case with Gloria Arroyo and Joseph Estrada, can lead to great instability.
Finally the Philippines has a nationally elected Senate, i.e. one in which the whole notion of an upper house (albeit in federal systems) namely that of defending regional interests is negated.
Why after the People’s Power revolution was such a system introduced in the mid ’80s? The noble reason was to avoid the return of a Marcos style dictatorship. But, perhaps, as in Thailand another reason was to ensure that the Philippines would have a structurally weak president and a weak State, one incapable of threatening the power of the oligarchical elite.
I doubt it if Duterte, despite his macho bluster, will be able to overcome these systemic realities.
Combating terrorism has developed into the formation of an international coalition, larger than any individual nation’s efforts alone. Both citizens and governments must take an active part in fighting against this threat.
The country’s stance against terrorism, self-radicalised individuals and terrorist inspired ideologies is compliant with the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) resolution condemning extremists’ behavior. The resultant refugee crisis in Syria is also monitored closely by the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) and United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). What standards of human rights violation would Ms Li Ann be referring to.
Yes, I am sure Singapore has no common criminals or Islamic extremists and all detentions are arbitrary. I am sure that tune will change very quickly when all these budding human rights activists who are so learned, lose a parent or other relative from homicide or terrorism, not unknown to Singapore, just unknown for NM readers.
Hi Li Ann, I’d rather feel safer with suspected terrorists (extremists) held in custody than have zealots walking free along the streets of the city carrying homemade bombs on them. Would you prefer advocating for ‘human rights’ in this respect at the expense of a Brussels Bombing/Paris Attacks happening in public spaces of the island state. C’mon, would any ordinary citizen plan for a trip to Syria when there are multitudes of refugees attempting to flee from that place. Thanks.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Lessons from a dictatorial neighbour
Burmese and Thai are similar in cultures, mentalities, and way of lives. To learn from each other will get them nowhere near democracy. Both should learn from the West or Japan or South Korea, etc. Democracy depends on the will of the people to stand up and tell the military to craw back to it’s barracks.
Out of sight, out of mind
Mr. Gan, you are very naïve about Singapore and terrorism.
How to introduce Duterte in Southeast Asia
The Presidency is not weak in the Philippines, its quite strong relative to the US. South Korea also has a 6 year one term Presidency.
Everyone including Duterte come from an inbred elite.
Given the level of corruption and violence, the question is whether or not you actually want the regions to have more power.
The Philippines has a weak state, its not so much the political structure, but the bureaucracy, military and police force is weak. Its designed that way, so these bodies do not challenge oligarchical elite. The military well paid by Filipino standards, undermanned and poorly equipped so it remains a loyal, but weak guardian of the state.
Out of sight, out of mind
Surprise that such poor quality arguments made it way to this website and thread. The evidences we have is that thousands of lives were incarcerated, ten of thousand of family livelihoods disrupted and destroyed. Yet the state is unable to produce a shred of evidence
that can stand the court of law?
Out of sight, out of mind
How would you define “suspected terrorists”? The real question is whether one believe in the rule of law – arbitrary detention without trial is an abberation of principle of rule of law. Believing in rule of law doesn’t mean that one condone terrorism. It is precisely the intolerance of it that we cannot condone state terrorism on its people. Picture this – what happen when a new government use detention without trial to make sure that the overthrown government do not come back. The problems you mentioned cannot be use to rationalize the use of an archaic law, a regulation which was basically a tool of British colonial administrator to quell the demand for independence – adopted into law and were used to suppressed political opponents, abusing security apparatus for political ends.
Out of sight, out of mind
Many of you are already conflating several concepts as well as addressing strawmen. Whether arbitrary detention has prevented terrorism or not has nothing to do with justice or due process.
First of all, if any of the detained are actually terrorists, how would them having a trial reduce safety? They would be in custody anyway, but have an avenue of recourse in case theybwere wrongfully accused (which dozens of individuals actually were.)
Secondly, it’s easy to talk of security as a bystander. But suppose you were wrongfully detained? How would you prove your innocence if you were not given any due process? I can hear the apologist arguments bawling and mewling already. “Hey hey if you don’t do suspicious things you wont be arrested!”
Well, how would you know what is suspicious? You know you won’t be arrested by cops if you don’t break the law, and you know exactly what the law is. But suspicion? Who defines and who decides it? Many detainees were merely doing charity work and had no idea they would be kidnapped and tortured, and when they protested their treatment after their release, they were immediately rearrested. All this while, dear PM gleefully howled on national tv: “if they feel they have been mistreated, they are free to open up an inquiry against us”.
Also, if you observe most other real world cases, arbitrary detention, torture, or citizen surveillance doesn’t help prevent terrorism much, if at all. Just because we haven’t been hit, what proof is there that this is due to the ISA? None at all, but a presumptive correlation with no internal consistency.
This wave of Islamism is an ideological war and we must battle their doomsday cult wishes with our enlightenment values, not devolve into an authoritarian state that looks exactly like the terrorist state we are trying to defend against. These arrests are not useful, grossly unjust, and not reflective of a modern democratic society that respects the rule of law and the inviolable right of the citizen.
Lessons from a dictatorial neighbour
No Vichai, Thailand is the new Burma. Burma is the new Thailand. Deal with it. This is the deliverance your buddy the General is bringing.
Thai junta to get its report card
As General Prayuth continues to to move Thailand into Burma-hood.
Thai junta to get its report card
Potjaman, Thaksin, Damapong and many others have reaons to be worried … even panic about the coming Panama Papers bombshells. The Panama Papers date back nearly 40 years, to 1977, when Mossack Fonseca was formed.
That means just even before Thaksin S. became Prime Minister and could implicate more Thaksin/Potjaman honest large-scale off-shore wealth-hiding-tax-avoiding mistakes
Ghosts in the forest
Cham are also indigenous to Cambodia, suffered under the Khmer Rouge, and are of proto-Malay origin. While not customarily thought of as tribal, and as their general conditions have improved relative to 40 years ago, these “Malay” Muslims deserve a mention and I have yet to see one in NM. By the way, an interesting aside, Malaysia has a law on the books regarding Cham as Malay, and they have an automatic “Right of Return” to Malaysia where they are given citizenship. Sounds like another nation, Malaysia spends far too much time ranting about.
Thai junta to get its report card
You are wrong Josh. By all means do look and you will see here name under Offshore Leaks. These have been available since 2013: https://www.icij.org/offshore
Policy conundrums under the NLD
Progress may be slow but it does make headlines all the time, especially coming from those who hail rather seismic changes that turn out either fleeting or false. Gordon Brown’s end of boom and bust, Francis Fukuyama’s end of history, to cite a couple of famous examples.
Cynicism, justified or not, has to be tempered with optimism and faith in human resilience and innate goodness as a social being.
Thai junta to get its report card
Josh: Ralph is right — Potjaman’s name came up in a previous set of leaks, labeled “Offshore Leaks.” Minor distinction, but it does suggest you shouldn’t go around being snarky.
Thai junta to get its report card
I guess you haven’t actually read them. Potjaman’s name is clearly listed.
Out of sight, out of mind
Singapore is a success story, especially as compared to the two Islamic nations in its neighborhood. Could it be that ISA arrests have contributed to that success? And that terrorist attacks on Singaporeans have been thwarted by those arrests?
How to introduce Duterte in Southeast Asia
In all of the comments in the media and by analysts on Duterte’s election there have been virtually none on the Philippines unique electoral system. Duterte has been elected, like Noynoy Aquino before him, with some 40% of the votes. From memory Fidel Ramos, another ostensibly popular president, was elected with less than 25% of the votes.
The Philippines has the worst of both worlds, a modified US style presidential system, without the functioning checks and balances (e.g. an independent judicial system) and political culture to make it work. In Indonesia, as in France and many other countries with presidential systems, elections are held with two rounds, with a run off between the two leading candidates if none achieve 50% of the vote in the first round. This has the advantage of meaning a president has a mantle of legitimacy coming from the support (or at least acquiescence ) of more than 50% of voters. Moreover, the one term limit makes a Filipino president almost a lame duck from his/her inauguration.
Anther peculiarity of the Filipino system is the separate election of a vice-president. Structurally this potentially leads to rivalry at the apex of the state and, as was the case with Gloria Arroyo and Joseph Estrada, can lead to great instability.
Finally the Philippines has a nationally elected Senate, i.e. one in which the whole notion of an upper house (albeit in federal systems) namely that of defending regional interests is negated.
Why after the People’s Power revolution was such a system introduced in the mid ’80s? The noble reason was to avoid the return of a Marcos style dictatorship. But, perhaps, as in Thailand another reason was to ensure that the Philippines would have a structurally weak president and a weak State, one incapable of threatening the power of the oligarchical elite.
I doubt it if Duterte, despite his macho bluster, will be able to overcome these systemic realities.
Out of sight, out of mind
Combating terrorism has developed into the formation of an international coalition, larger than any individual nation’s efforts alone. Both citizens and governments must take an active part in fighting against this threat.
Out of sight, out of mind
The country’s stance against terrorism, self-radicalised individuals and terrorist inspired ideologies is compliant with the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) resolution condemning extremists’ behavior. The resultant refugee crisis in Syria is also monitored closely by the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) and United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). What standards of human rights violation would Ms Li Ann be referring to.
Out of sight, out of mind
Yes, I am sure Singapore has no common criminals or Islamic extremists and all detentions are arbitrary. I am sure that tune will change very quickly when all these budding human rights activists who are so learned, lose a parent or other relative from homicide or terrorism, not unknown to Singapore, just unknown for NM readers.
Out of sight, out of mind
Hi Li Ann, I’d rather feel safer with suspected terrorists (extremists) held in custody than have zealots walking free along the streets of the city carrying homemade bombs on them. Would you prefer advocating for ‘human rights’ in this respect at the expense of a Brussels Bombing/Paris Attacks happening in public spaces of the island state. C’mon, would any ordinary citizen plan for a trip to Syria when there are multitudes of refugees attempting to flee from that place. Thanks.