Jon, you seem to have a blind side where the noble intentions of the West are concerned. Have you forgotten that the CIA used to do a roaring business with the late Khun Sa? I hope you are not just being jealous of the Chinese stepping into the breach in exploiting and wielding influence on Burma, on behalf of the West. There is a Burmese expression that so aptly suits Western duplicity: ‘a flaming torch in one hand and a fire bucket in the other’.
Yes, former and current opium war lords have become leading entrepreneurs with business empires which as one might say have developed in the best tradition of robber barons – that’s evolution for you, Jon, as in the old West, but not as you’d like it when the Chinese happen to be the main players – and when wealth and unchallenged power join hands it leaps forward. It has of course also taken advantage of globalisation even if it’s been a little late in the day, for it really was a godsend at the time when the military badly needed to change tack from ‘socialism’ .
You reckon Khin Nyunt would have been enticed by Western capital properly engaging the junta in preference to the Chinese? Perhaps. And perhaps it is the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately for the West they were the more historically recent and worse enemies than the Chinese, and you underestimate Burmese nationalism at your peril.
Don’t forget that until the whole thing got too far in the age of the Internet with the charismatic Aung San Suu Kyi incarcerated for so long, not so much the periodic crackdowns and massacres in the past too, the West had been quite comfortable with the late strongman Ne Win so long as he remained staunchly anti-communist, never mind his monopoly on the exploitation and repression – he often rubbed shoulders with the British royalty and went to the races which he had banned in Burma. And the West would have been more than happy to do business with him had he been more accommodating to international capital. Now that was real isolation and not because of but despite the West willing to have their finger in the pie.
Strange you appear to contradict yourself in the final bit. If you are not talking about the comparative benefits of Western vs Chinese influence what are you trying to say? China,China, China ……. West, West, West ……. China bad West good, China bad West good, China bad West good? Is it so black and white, no pun intended? I would probably accept the lesser of two evils argument, to wit democratic vs totalitarian models.
This is also true, really. I’ve just collected on my bet that my #15 will elicit a verbal vomit from Somsak. The recipe is simple: just mention 6 Tula but do so without condemning YOU KNOW WHO, then sit back and watch the cat go nuts. meoooowwww!!!
As I have said before, you need to audit your thinking. You objectivity is lost due to your high emotional conviction to 6 Tula. You also alienate potential collaborators and unwittingly serve a useful purpose to the other side. Its not very smart.
After trying to decipher your #16 (you sometimes do tend to ramble incoherently like your beloved YOU KNOW WHO), I still see no defense that refutes the double standard you ARE accused of.
Fed-up-observer has already done a good job on this point. But I’ll simply repeat that Somsak is effectively saying we have to accept human rights violations because “many people, often more numerous than us – see as as justified…”
No, Somsak…whether it be Tak Bai or 6 Tula, they are NEVER acceptable.
Try saying what you say to a Tak Bai mother. See if she thinks its acceptable.
p.s. No, my charming Somsak, I am not a real taxi driver (I declared that before in another thread). My moniker was first used in a long-ago thread to respond to someone accusing taxi drivers of being stupid. Deja vu.
Maybe someday you people at New Mandela could do a comprehensive study of exactly what “corruption” is. The USA, being an incredibly litigious country, has a very legalistic definition of corruption, hence, a lot of what really is corruption is labeled as “not” corruption within the USA simply because it is supposedly legal.
Thailand is not perfect and neither is The West. So I think you could have been a little more positive in your opening remarks.
There are many others associated with the regime studying at Australian universities and colleges than were named in the SMH articles. There is one point that I would like to made that has been missed in the above discussion.
Where do these people get their money from to pay for courses in Australia? They have stolen it! Many of the families of the regime are very wealthy. They are wealthy as they have used their positions to steal from the state and the people of the country. The minister of say forestry gets rich by selling the resources of the country. The minister of fishing (or whatever long winded title taht ministry has) gets rich from selling concessions or from having monopoly access to resources in certain areas. Commanders in areas, also grap access to resources. The funds from the sales or control do not go into the government budget where it is used to finance health care and eductation. It goes into the bank accounts and assets of individuals in the position of power.
Where is all the money from gas? WHere is all the money from the timber? Where is all the money from gems and jade? Where is all the money from fishing concessions? Where is all the money from pearl concessions? It is not in the governments budget. It has gone elsewhere. Guess where? Maybe it was used to build that stupid new city Naypidaw.
Some of those studying in AUstralia are here also from drug and weapons money. There are people studying here whose parents come from the Wa and Kokang areas. One of these students stated “My father did not make his money from drugs. He made it from weapons.” It was obvious that a so called liberal education had not made much of an impact on his poor brain.
When someone is convicted of a criminal activity in Australia, say drugs, theft, weapon sales, prostitution, then their assets are seized. We dont say OK your family can keep all that ill-gotten wealth. Hey spend it on your children. Send them to very good private schools and the best universities, then they wont be criminals like their parents.
ALso many person convicted of criminal activites and in some cases not convicted but suspected are not let into Australia, even on a tourist visa. Who is saying oh gee let them come and see how wonderful, people who are not criminals live their lives. Albeit the off-spring do not inherit the sins of the parents, but they should not benefit from their sins. Is anyone going to tell me that the funds paying for regime students to come to Australia are not ill-gotten that they came from hard work and entrepreneurship?
I am not against people from Burma coming to Australia. I am not against wealthy people from Burma coming to study at Australian universities. I am against anyone from anywhere, whose parents have amassed wealth by theft, crime, corruption from coming here to study. This is a form of money laundering. I dont care if they are from Burma or anywhere else frankly. An ordinary criminal with substantail ill-gotton assets i.e. one who is not in charge of the state have much less opportunities to launder their funds via the australian education system. Why should criminals in charge of the state be allowed to launder their funds?
Let them go to Singapore and launder their funds!
Burma is not going to develop by letting in the off-spring of the regime. Education is necessary for any country to develop. This is not the same as a few off-spring of criminals getting an education in AUstralia, Singapore or anywhere else. Burma needs an education system for those in the country. It needs first and foremost a system and a situation where the majority of kids can complete a primary school education, where they learn basic literacy and numeracy skills. The focus on university education for a few overseas is misplaced and will have no impact on development in the country. The main job for education that will promote development is for kids to finish at least 6 years of primary school. This does not happen in Burma, because many people are too poor to be able to afford to send their kids to school. There are not enough well trained teachers, who are paid enough to bother teaching well. (This is not to insult the many teachers who work hard each day). There are virtually no resources being invested in the country’s primary school education system. Many children do not have enough to eat to concentrate on school. They are anemic and malnourshed. They do not have pencils, they do not have writing paper. They probably dont even have a candle to read by at night. They have to work to help their parents. The stupid statistics of the regime aside. This is the educational problem for Burma, not educating the over-indulged off-spring of the regime.
there are also plenty of young people still languishing in refugee camps, who might like to go to any university.
Today, an example of exactly who steps in to fill the gap when the US decides to disengage and isolate Burma: Wa-Chinese drug lords:
The Hong Pang Group
MAXMILIAN WECHSLER
“Wei Hseuh-kang’s Hong Pang Group is the biggest enterprise in the Wa State, with numerous business interests throughout Burma. These include a cement factory, liquor distilleries, petrol stations, department stores, road building, construction, agricultural ventures, electronics, jewelry and gem business, communications, textiles and many others. The company also has thousands of acres of fruit orchards and owns coal and jade mines.
The story began in the late 1980s when Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt, the Burmese military intelligence chief at that time, negotiated ceasefire agreements with a number of non-Burmese armed ethnic groups. He offered them many privileges, such as the right to administer their own regions, and granted them business concessions in return for ending their armed struggle against the government….
When a federal grand jury in Brooklyn, New York on January 24, 2005 indicted eight UWSA members, including Wei Hseuh-kang, the indictment also sought forfeiture of directly traceable assets of the defendants, including all assets of the Hong Pang Group holding company and affiliated businesses operating in Burma, China, Hong Kong, Thailand and other countries…,Yet the Hong Pang Group continues to thrive. ”
Drug lords would not be able to step in to fill the gap, if the US had taken proactive steps to engage Burma, and not choose, because of its strategic irrelevance, as a poster-child for “do-gooding” after 1988, a policy that has furthered the country’s isolation, and as evidenced in recent failures in disaster relief and the rise of drug lord to industrial magnate documented in today’s article, has reduced the influence of the US and the west over the course of events in the country, effectively to zero.
Moe Aung: “Your problem is that you have so much faith in the do-gooding potential of the West which some of us do not share.”
That is the exact opposite of what I am arguing. Chinese investments in the paper by Dr. Maung Aung Moe of Singapore cited above, do not all come from drug lords.
Thanks Chris Fry, I need to grow up! I will write out 200 times “I must not be childish when writing about Liberals from Adelaide, including Christopher Pyne.”
feel self-righteous about it (and often bragged about it), on 6 Tula you pretend to be dump and blind and actually urge people to prostrate and worship in front of merderer and don’t feel any shame about it.
Jon, I truly admire your passion over the issues and the plight of the Burmese people. You have friends you care about. Me? I just want to go home! Just like lots and lots of Burmese displaced in a diaspora whether by choice or not but driven by the circumstances they find themselves in. They may be called the lucky ones if they find a safe haven and a livelihood somewhere. But I am absolutely certain as soon as the situation changes for the better they’d be home like a shot.
Your problem is that you have so much faith in the do-gooding potential of the West which some of us do not share. Not that I’m enamoured by capitalist China rampant in the region. Again it’s all down to the political will, isn’t it? Wanting to share the national pie at all or not, Jon. People don’t mind the lion’s share going to the elite so long as there’s enough to go round, anywhere in the world. That’s what happens in countries where you also see peace and a level of prosperity. Of course some of them would look around near and far and think what’s on my plate is mine and what’s on yours is mine too.
You are so fixated with the isolation by and from the West. You yourself alluded to the propensity of Burmese rulers to isolationism. Japan’s isolation lasted more than 200 years and it took Western gunboat diplomacy to end it. But you wouldn’t recommend it though, would you? Neither would I? I don’t want Rangoon bombarded from sea or from the sky.
No, we don’t make policy, we merely pontificate from the sidelines and from a safe distance. But I dare say your disgust is nothing compared with mine. Although I’m leading a comfortable life in the West, the majority of my own people have as they would say ‘no land to flee, no money to pay’, and I have known the older generation in my family and others living with the hope and dying off one by one. So it is personal, and I’m not getting any younger myself. I would so love to see my country back on her feet and hold her head up once again, and my people fulfil their genetic potential both physically and intellectually. This great nation has been let down so badly by its despotic rulers for so long, to say it’s criminal would be a gross understatement.
In case Somsak & others are wondering what’s the point of my posts #12 and #18 above: – It is not to back one side over the other, but actually to show that the ‘song mai ow’ position can be seen as acceptable to some, because the alternative of backing one side over the other is just too unpalatable.
I also have another question (which will probably go unanswered like all the others), but here goes:
Regarding the ‘Judiciary Revolution’ the King launched with his speech of 25 April 2006, what exactly do you see is so wrong with the speech?
I have not seen a full transcript of the speech, but I understand it was in response to calls for him to royally appoint a PM – didn’t he say that would would be undemocratic and instead he called on the judiciary to solve the mess?
(was it one speech, or am I confusing 2 separate speeches?)
As for thinking the ‘song mai ow’ people only really criticize one side, I think you have not read enough of Giles’ work.
btw, criticizing Giles for not criticizing the King is not really criticism IMO.
1. For Somsak, the “state” = the government.
But the Thai “state” is much more than the government. In 1976, an elected government was probably not even the most powerful element of the Thai state. Somsak should know this better than other people. State’s crime = the crime committed by those elements of the Thai “state” that are often more powerful than a government. In 1976, it included the military and the monarchy.
Or Somsak still thinks we can understand the Thai state as the government only without taking the … as part of the “state”.
2. Somsak seems to argue that an elected government can be judged only by an election. To him, a public policy is exempt from legal accountability.
Have Australian govts, the White House, and British govts ever faced legal actions for their alleged legal violations or they are held accountable only by elections?
A policy and political decision must be held accountable by an election.
But legal violation, esp. the criminal ones, must be dealt with by the court. (Not by public opinion or street demonstration or by a coup either.)
Very often, when the line between thew two is not clear, the first step is to sort out by judicial and/or parliamentary mechanism. Whatever results that we may or may not like, such as Bush so far got away from so many legal charges, this means an elected govt, even in the presidential system, can and must face legal accountability.
Of course this becomes the approach of the royalist reactionaries in Thailand to derail democracy, i.e. Tulakarnphiwat. But to fight the royalists, we do not need to go so far as Somsak’s view. We must expose and fight the Tulakarnphiwat because it is the abuses of judicial authority. But we need not go as far as to say that a govt is free from legal accountability.
3. The fact that people do not hold the monarchy accountable by the same standard as they do to politicians means biases and blindedness are still strong. To deal with this bias and blindedness, should we give an elected govt a free ride and exempt from legal accountability and from criticism unless the monarchy is equally criticised?
Often times, Somsak argues that if we cannot criticise the monarchy the same words we do to politicians, we should not attack the elected ones. This is a good warning to all. But it is often taken literally, as he often does in criticism of other people. It is not clear why the actions to politicans and to the monarchy have to be the same, by the same words. Can we criticise or question the monarchy in ways that we do not do to politicians? Many people have done so — more than Somsak knows.
4. He often judges people by what they did not do, such as did not say or write about the king’s interventions, about the court, and so on. For Somsak, not doing x = “fail to do x because of their wrong political views.” The fact is simple: “not doing = did not do, for various reasons” (including too busy with works to engage a webboard argument). People should be judged primarily by what they said and did. We should not assume that other people “fail to do” too easily, esp. about their political views because they did not express otherwise. It becomes a judgment on the basis of “guilty until proven otherwise”. The fact is also that many people under his criticism did many things against the royalist coup more than he knows, but they didn’t do it in the media or the webboards Somsak read or and did not notify Somsak for what they did (why do they have to?). Once he doesn’t know, it means those actions did not exist and those people “failed to do” because of their incorrect political views. Even if they did not say or write anything at all, how/why should we jump to a conclusion about their political views for what they did not do. It is true that sometimes silence is an expression. But we should not abuse this notion to discredit other people too easily. The burden of prove that they “fail to do something because of their political views” should be high and should be on Somsak. He never shows one. For him, as long as those people do not prove their innocent, he considers them guilty as he assumes.
Moe Aung: “…you will prescribe more of the same for that’s all you have to offer”
All I can suggest, Moe Aung, is learn how to read. What was the point above?
1. China, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china….
2. Not more of the same.
3. The Chinese are offering it, not me.
4. The Burmese are taking it, it’s the only option they
have for putting food on the table and getting on
with they’re life.
5. The west? Still waiting for the revolution.
Oh! by the way, after condeming them etc. you can vote politicians you thought responsible for incidents like Tak bai out of office too (and urge people to de the same).
Of course, on 6 Tula you must continue to act (as #18 above) like slave, a mute one.
The real difference is that whereas you can debate, criticise, condemn, etc. elected politicians about Tak bai (as the above) , and feel self-righteous about it (and often bragged about it), on 6 Tula you pretend to be dump and blind and actually urge people to prostrate and worship in front of merderer and don’t feel any shame about it.
Moe Aung: “Patience or rather endurance has characterised the Burmese nation and of course you will prescribe more of the same for that’s all you have to offer…”
I have Burmese friends whom I sympathize with and whom I would like the see the situation clear up so that they can lead a fruitful life with their families in their own country, instead of depending on work outside the country. That is what I wish.
I am not a policymaker or even someone who does research on contemporary Burma so I can “prescribe” nothing. I can only express my disgust with a situation that never resolves itself, and at least in recent times, western isolating policy is largely responsible for, lord knows the isolationist tendencies of the Burmese state can be traced far back into the 1950s or even before.
Because there are hardly any business or economic relations between the west and Burma to speak of, the voice of activists, which are only one voice among many in well-rounded neighboring Thailand, dominate. This is regrettable and part of the reason that no solution is forthcoming. China appear to be gradually stepping to fill this gap.
ALEXANDER DOWNER: My impression is that the force of the waves was much greater than people imagine, and that clearly explains the large number of casualties – that it just crashed through, even breaking down concrete sea walls. It’s amazing how much strength the waves had.
Some more Downer pontification from June 2005??:
Our engagement with Asia today is plainly stronger than it ever was, although the dismal brigade, of course, refuse to recognise that fact.
For example, a former diplomat, Alison Broinowski, maintains that we are a culturally cringing, subservient ally of an imperious United States, which makes all of us targets wherever we are.
She also claims that our regional relationships have diminished in the Howard era.
‘Pulling off two presidential visits in a week has enabled Howard to claim another triumph. The truth however is that a gap yawns between the assuring self-image Australians are being offered and the way we are perceived in the region.’
Her evidence is thin, mostly derived from Australia-bashing journalists in English language Asian newspapers, and otherwise anecdotal.
Like many critics she fails to see, or perhaps cannot bear to recognise, the far-reaching and effective counter-terrorism cooperation between Australia and our regional partners which has served to prevent terror attacks and disrupt terror networks and has also underlined our shared security interests.
Or they choose to ignore that in the last year we have concluded two genuinely liberalising Free Trade Agreements with Singapore and Thailand, and have begun a joint study on a third with China.
On the cultural level, there are also more Asian students in Australia today than ever before.
The fact is, if they but cared to look, what they would see today are dynamic relationships between Australia and the other countries of the region.
Indeed if the sneerers looked hard enough they would see that we are not the only ones that do not define our interests exclusively in regional terms.
Therefore, the Downer Diplomacy success stories:
1) Combating terrorism regionally.
2) More Asian students.
3) FTAs with Singapore and Thailand
4) That if we look hard enough, we can see our relationship prospering.
Taking his 4th point seriously, wouldn’t those other 3 points have occurred if Downer was not there? Such dynamic leadership!
5) Australia does not define it’s success on regional terms. We have other terms that are not defined or public so we can always be successful.
6) We are not little Australia.
I apologize to everyone that I did not prevent my electorate from voting for him. However, I did steal and deface his election posters and I feel slightly better about that… although my actions probably prompted a lot of older people to vote for him who otherwise would not have had their common sense not been overruled by fear of youths.
Nothing really interesting, but I was at a press conference he gave in the courtyard of the Hotel Turismo in Dili in August 1999 just before the elections there. If I remember, the “pro-integrasi” Indo press asked some odd questions, and the wire services some more interesting ones but Downer’s answers were nothing special, somewhat formulaic and not really revealing, at least not publicly. He, or his factotum (I forget), then announced there would be a separate meeting with drinks in an upstairs room but that non-Australians were excluded from that.
Here we go again, the absurd provinciality of the Australian left.Have you really no more interesting subject matter than to call on readers to shit on Downer?Alexander Downer was in fact a perfectly competent Foreign Minister and well liked in South East Asia.Believe it or not his good manners (upper class credentials if you like) went down rather well with the Thais, Malaysians and Indonesians.What would you prefer – a beer swilling Ocker?Paul Keating’s schoolboy comment is hardly a “classic phrase” and simply betrays his own chippiness and boorishness, albeit with a fine intellect.I suspect Keating in his heart of hearts would dearly have loved to be a patrician, Caliban raging at his image in the mirror if you like.Incidentally a well educated English friend told me that to an Englishman Downer comes across as just another Australian and certainly not as upper class.Bottom line: – grow up.
Tak Bai cannot be compared to 6 October because at least 78 people died in the Tak Bai incident, but I have it on good authority (from the current PM no less), that only 1 person died in the 6 October incident.
But of course, we should not forget that I also have it on good authority the 78 at Tak Bai died because they were fasting.
Messrs Don & Jon, Patience or rather endurance has characterised the Burmese nation and of course you will prescribe more of the same for that’s all you have to offer and no hope though it’s something you can’t deprive people of who have nothing but hope, and no plan B – poverty of thought. So just watch and wait, engage constructively and show the generals their errant way. Great. Very well, may we all live in interesting times.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Jon, you seem to have a blind side where the noble intentions of the West are concerned. Have you forgotten that the CIA used to do a roaring business with the late Khun Sa? I hope you are not just being jealous of the Chinese stepping into the breach in exploiting and wielding influence on Burma, on behalf of the West. There is a Burmese expression that so aptly suits Western duplicity: ‘a flaming torch in one hand and a fire bucket in the other’.
Yes, former and current opium war lords have become leading entrepreneurs with business empires which as one might say have developed in the best tradition of robber barons – that’s evolution for you, Jon, as in the old West, but not as you’d like it when the Chinese happen to be the main players – and when wealth and unchallenged power join hands it leaps forward. It has of course also taken advantage of globalisation even if it’s been a little late in the day, for it really was a godsend at the time when the military badly needed to change tack from ‘socialism’ .
You reckon Khin Nyunt would have been enticed by Western capital properly engaging the junta in preference to the Chinese? Perhaps. And perhaps it is the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately for the West they were the more historically recent and worse enemies than the Chinese, and you underestimate Burmese nationalism at your peril.
Don’t forget that until the whole thing got too far in the age of the Internet with the charismatic Aung San Suu Kyi incarcerated for so long, not so much the periodic crackdowns and massacres in the past too, the West had been quite comfortable with the late strongman Ne Win so long as he remained staunchly anti-communist, never mind his monopoly on the exploitation and repression – he often rubbed shoulders with the British royalty and went to the races which he had banned in Burma. And the West would have been more than happy to do business with him had he been more accommodating to international capital. Now that was real isolation and not because of but despite the West willing to have their finger in the pie.
Strange you appear to contradict yourself in the final bit. If you are not talking about the comparative benefits of Western vs Chinese influence what are you trying to say? China,China, China ……. West, West, West ……. China bad West good, China bad West good, China bad West good? Is it so black and white, no pun intended? I would probably accept the lesser of two evils argument, to wit democratic vs totalitarian models.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
This is also true, really. I’ve just collected on my bet that my #15 will elicit a verbal vomit from Somsak. The recipe is simple: just mention 6 Tula but do so without condemning YOU KNOW WHO, then sit back and watch the cat go nuts. meoooowwww!!!
As I have said before, you need to audit your thinking. You objectivity is lost due to your high emotional conviction to 6 Tula. You also alienate potential collaborators and unwittingly serve a useful purpose to the other side. Its not very smart.
After trying to decipher your #16 (you sometimes do tend to ramble incoherently like your beloved YOU KNOW WHO), I still see no defense that refutes the double standard you ARE accused of.
Fed-up-observer has already done a good job on this point. But I’ll simply repeat that Somsak is effectively saying we have to accept human rights violations because “many people, often more numerous than us – see as as justified…”
No, Somsak…whether it be Tak Bai or 6 Tula, they are NEVER acceptable.
Try saying what you say to a Tak Bai mother. See if she thinks its acceptable.
p.s. No, my charming Somsak, I am not a real taxi driver (I declared that before in another thread). My moniker was first used in a long-ago thread to respond to someone accusing taxi drivers of being stupid. Deja vu.
The Thai state: doing some things right
Maybe someday you people at New Mandela could do a comprehensive study of exactly what “corruption” is. The USA, being an incredibly litigious country, has a very legalistic definition of corruption, hence, a lot of what really is corruption is labeled as “not” corruption within the USA simply because it is supposedly legal.
Thailand is not perfect and neither is The West. So I think you could have been a little more positive in your opening remarks.
Frank
Time for AusAID to rethink Burma
There are many others associated with the regime studying at Australian universities and colleges than were named in the SMH articles. There is one point that I would like to made that has been missed in the above discussion.
Where do these people get their money from to pay for courses in Australia? They have stolen it! Many of the families of the regime are very wealthy. They are wealthy as they have used their positions to steal from the state and the people of the country. The minister of say forestry gets rich by selling the resources of the country. The minister of fishing (or whatever long winded title taht ministry has) gets rich from selling concessions or from having monopoly access to resources in certain areas. Commanders in areas, also grap access to resources. The funds from the sales or control do not go into the government budget where it is used to finance health care and eductation. It goes into the bank accounts and assets of individuals in the position of power.
Where is all the money from gas? WHere is all the money from the timber? Where is all the money from gems and jade? Where is all the money from fishing concessions? Where is all the money from pearl concessions? It is not in the governments budget. It has gone elsewhere. Guess where? Maybe it was used to build that stupid new city Naypidaw.
Some of those studying in AUstralia are here also from drug and weapons money. There are people studying here whose parents come from the Wa and Kokang areas. One of these students stated “My father did not make his money from drugs. He made it from weapons.” It was obvious that a so called liberal education had not made much of an impact on his poor brain.
When someone is convicted of a criminal activity in Australia, say drugs, theft, weapon sales, prostitution, then their assets are seized. We dont say OK your family can keep all that ill-gotten wealth. Hey spend it on your children. Send them to very good private schools and the best universities, then they wont be criminals like their parents.
ALso many person convicted of criminal activites and in some cases not convicted but suspected are not let into Australia, even on a tourist visa. Who is saying oh gee let them come and see how wonderful, people who are not criminals live their lives. Albeit the off-spring do not inherit the sins of the parents, but they should not benefit from their sins. Is anyone going to tell me that the funds paying for regime students to come to Australia are not ill-gotten that they came from hard work and entrepreneurship?
I am not against people from Burma coming to Australia. I am not against wealthy people from Burma coming to study at Australian universities. I am against anyone from anywhere, whose parents have amassed wealth by theft, crime, corruption from coming here to study. This is a form of money laundering. I dont care if they are from Burma or anywhere else frankly. An ordinary criminal with substantail ill-gotton assets i.e. one who is not in charge of the state have much less opportunities to launder their funds via the australian education system. Why should criminals in charge of the state be allowed to launder their funds?
Let them go to Singapore and launder their funds!
Burma is not going to develop by letting in the off-spring of the regime. Education is necessary for any country to develop. This is not the same as a few off-spring of criminals getting an education in AUstralia, Singapore or anywhere else. Burma needs an education system for those in the country. It needs first and foremost a system and a situation where the majority of kids can complete a primary school education, where they learn basic literacy and numeracy skills. The focus on university education for a few overseas is misplaced and will have no impact on development in the country. The main job for education that will promote development is for kids to finish at least 6 years of primary school. This does not happen in Burma, because many people are too poor to be able to afford to send their kids to school. There are not enough well trained teachers, who are paid enough to bother teaching well. (This is not to insult the many teachers who work hard each day). There are virtually no resources being invested in the country’s primary school education system. Many children do not have enough to eat to concentrate on school. They are anemic and malnourshed. They do not have pencils, they do not have writing paper. They probably dont even have a candle to read by at night. They have to work to help their parents. The stupid statistics of the regime aside. This is the educational problem for Burma, not educating the over-indulged off-spring of the regime.
there are also plenty of young people still languishing in refugee camps, who might like to go to any university.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Today, an example of exactly who steps in to fill the gap when the US decides to disengage and isolate Burma: Wa-Chinese drug lords:
The Hong Pang Group
MAXMILIAN WECHSLER
“Wei Hseuh-kang’s Hong Pang Group is the biggest enterprise in the Wa State, with numerous business interests throughout Burma. These include a cement factory, liquor distilleries, petrol stations, department stores, road building, construction, agricultural ventures, electronics, jewelry and gem business, communications, textiles and many others. The company also has thousands of acres of fruit orchards and owns coal and jade mines.
The story began in the late 1980s when Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt, the Burmese military intelligence chief at that time, negotiated ceasefire agreements with a number of non-Burmese armed ethnic groups. He offered them many privileges, such as the right to administer their own regions, and granted them business concessions in return for ending their armed struggle against the government….
When a federal grand jury in Brooklyn, New York on January 24, 2005 indicted eight UWSA members, including Wei Hseuh-kang, the indictment also sought forfeiture of directly traceable assets of the defendants, including all assets of the Hong Pang Group holding company and affiliated businesses operating in Burma, China, Hong Kong, Thailand and other countries…,Yet the Hong Pang Group continues to thrive. ”
Drug lords would not be able to step in to fill the gap, if the US had taken proactive steps to engage Burma, and not choose, because of its strategic irrelevance, as a poster-child for “do-gooding” after 1988, a policy that has furthered the country’s isolation, and as evidenced in recent failures in disaster relief and the rise of drug lord to industrial magnate documented in today’s article, has reduced the influence of the US and the west over the course of events in the country, effectively to zero.
Moe Aung: “Your problem is that you have so much faith in the do-gooding potential of the West which some of us do not share.”
That is the exact opposite of what I am arguing. Chinese investments in the paper by Dr. Maung Aung Moe of Singapore cited above, do not all come from drug lords.
Farewell to the idiot son
Thanks Chris Fry, I need to grow up! I will write out 200 times “I must not be childish when writing about Liberals from Adelaide, including Christopher Pyne.”
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
feel self-righteous about it (and often bragged about it), on 6 Tula you pretend to be dump and blind and actually urge people to prostrate and worship in front of merderer and don’t feel any shame about it.
Presumably you are talking about Samak, not moi?
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Jon, I truly admire your passion over the issues and the plight of the Burmese people. You have friends you care about. Me? I just want to go home! Just like lots and lots of Burmese displaced in a diaspora whether by choice or not but driven by the circumstances they find themselves in. They may be called the lucky ones if they find a safe haven and a livelihood somewhere. But I am absolutely certain as soon as the situation changes for the better they’d be home like a shot.
Your problem is that you have so much faith in the do-gooding potential of the West which some of us do not share. Not that I’m enamoured by capitalist China rampant in the region. Again it’s all down to the political will, isn’t it? Wanting to share the national pie at all or not, Jon. People don’t mind the lion’s share going to the elite so long as there’s enough to go round, anywhere in the world. That’s what happens in countries where you also see peace and a level of prosperity. Of course some of them would look around near and far and think what’s on my plate is mine and what’s on yours is mine too.
You are so fixated with the isolation by and from the West. You yourself alluded to the propensity of Burmese rulers to isolationism. Japan’s isolation lasted more than 200 years and it took Western gunboat diplomacy to end it. But you wouldn’t recommend it though, would you? Neither would I? I don’t want Rangoon bombarded from sea or from the sky.
No, we don’t make policy, we merely pontificate from the sidelines and from a safe distance. But I dare say your disgust is nothing compared with mine. Although I’m leading a comfortable life in the West, the majority of my own people have as they would say ‘no land to flee, no money to pay’, and I have known the older generation in my family and others living with the hope and dying off one by one. So it is personal, and I’m not getting any younger myself. I would so love to see my country back on her feet and hold her head up once again, and my people fulfil their genetic potential both physically and intellectually. This great nation has been let down so badly by its despotic rulers for so long, to say it’s criminal would be a gross understatement.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
In case Somsak & others are wondering what’s the point of my posts #12 and #18 above: – It is not to back one side over the other, but actually to show that the ‘song mai ow’ position can be seen as acceptable to some, because the alternative of backing one side over the other is just too unpalatable.
I also have another question (which will probably go unanswered like all the others), but here goes:
Regarding the ‘Judiciary Revolution’ the King launched with his speech of 25 April 2006, what exactly do you see is so wrong with the speech?
I have not seen a full transcript of the speech, but I understand it was in response to calls for him to royally appoint a PM – didn’t he say that would would be undemocratic and instead he called on the judiciary to solve the mess?
(was it one speech, or am I confusing 2 separate speeches?)
As for thinking the ‘song mai ow’ people only really criticize one side, I think you have not read enough of Giles’ work.
btw, criticizing Giles for not criticizing the King is not really criticism IMO.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
1. For Somsak, the “state” = the government.
But the Thai “state” is much more than the government. In 1976, an elected government was probably not even the most powerful element of the Thai state. Somsak should know this better than other people. State’s crime = the crime committed by those elements of the Thai “state” that are often more powerful than a government. In 1976, it included the military and the monarchy.
Or Somsak still thinks we can understand the Thai state as the government only without taking the … as part of the “state”.
2. Somsak seems to argue that an elected government can be judged only by an election. To him, a public policy is exempt from legal accountability.
Have Australian govts, the White House, and British govts ever faced legal actions for their alleged legal violations or they are held accountable only by elections?
A policy and political decision must be held accountable by an election.
But legal violation, esp. the criminal ones, must be dealt with by the court. (Not by public opinion or street demonstration or by a coup either.)
Very often, when the line between thew two is not clear, the first step is to sort out by judicial and/or parliamentary mechanism. Whatever results that we may or may not like, such as Bush so far got away from so many legal charges, this means an elected govt, even in the presidential system, can and must face legal accountability.
Of course this becomes the approach of the royalist reactionaries in Thailand to derail democracy, i.e. Tulakarnphiwat. But to fight the royalists, we do not need to go so far as Somsak’s view. We must expose and fight the Tulakarnphiwat because it is the abuses of judicial authority. But we need not go as far as to say that a govt is free from legal accountability.
3. The fact that people do not hold the monarchy accountable by the same standard as they do to politicians means biases and blindedness are still strong. To deal with this bias and blindedness, should we give an elected govt a free ride and exempt from legal accountability and from criticism unless the monarchy is equally criticised?
Often times, Somsak argues that if we cannot criticise the monarchy the same words we do to politicians, we should not attack the elected ones. This is a good warning to all. But it is often taken literally, as he often does in criticism of other people. It is not clear why the actions to politicans and to the monarchy have to be the same, by the same words. Can we criticise or question the monarchy in ways that we do not do to politicians? Many people have done so — more than Somsak knows.
4. He often judges people by what they did not do, such as did not say or write about the king’s interventions, about the court, and so on. For Somsak, not doing x = “fail to do x because of their wrong political views.” The fact is simple: “not doing = did not do, for various reasons” (including too busy with works to engage a webboard argument). People should be judged primarily by what they said and did. We should not assume that other people “fail to do” too easily, esp. about their political views because they did not express otherwise. It becomes a judgment on the basis of “guilty until proven otherwise”. The fact is also that many people under his criticism did many things against the royalist coup more than he knows, but they didn’t do it in the media or the webboards Somsak read or and did not notify Somsak for what they did (why do they have to?). Once he doesn’t know, it means those actions did not exist and those people “failed to do” because of their incorrect political views. Even if they did not say or write anything at all, how/why should we jump to a conclusion about their political views for what they did not do. It is true that sometimes silence is an expression. But we should not abuse this notion to discredit other people too easily. The burden of prove that they “fail to do something because of their political views” should be high and should be on Somsak. He never shows one. For him, as long as those people do not prove their innocent, he considers them guilty as he assumes.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Moe Aung: “…you will prescribe more of the same for that’s all you have to offer”
All I can suggest, Moe Aung, is learn how to read. What was the point above?
1. China, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china….
2. Not more of the same.
3. The Chinese are offering it, not me.
4. The Burmese are taking it, it’s the only option they
have for putting food on the table and getting on
with they’re life.
5. The west? Still waiting for the revolution.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
Oh! by the way, after condeming them etc. you can vote politicians you thought responsible for incidents like Tak bai out of office too (and urge people to de the same).
Of course, on 6 Tula you must continue to act (as #18 above) like slave, a mute one.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
Re: #18
The real difference is that whereas you can debate, criticise, condemn, etc. elected politicians about Tak bai (as the above) , and feel self-righteous about it (and often bragged about it), on 6 Tula you pretend to be dump and blind and actually urge people to prostrate and worship in front of merderer and don’t feel any shame about it.
The Thai state: doing some things right
PAD? Joke! Dumb royalists!
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Moe Aung: “Patience or rather endurance has characterised the Burmese nation and of course you will prescribe more of the same for that’s all you have to offer…”
I have Burmese friends whom I sympathize with and whom I would like the see the situation clear up so that they can lead a fruitful life with their families in their own country, instead of depending on work outside the country. That is what I wish.
I am not a policymaker or even someone who does research on contemporary Burma so I can “prescribe” nothing. I can only express my disgust with a situation that never resolves itself, and at least in recent times, western isolating policy is largely responsible for, lord knows the isolationist tendencies of the Burmese state can be traced far back into the 1950s or even before.
Because there are hardly any business or economic relations between the west and Burma to speak of, the voice of activists, which are only one voice among many in well-rounded neighboring Thailand, dominate. This is regrettable and part of the reason that no solution is forthcoming. China appear to be gradually stepping to fill this gap.
Farewell to the idiot son
Pale tourist Downer holidaying after the Tsunami:
ALEXANDER DOWNER: My impression is that the force of the waves was much greater than people imagine, and that clearly explains the large number of casualties – that it just crashed through, even breaking down concrete sea walls. It’s amazing how much strength the waves had.
Some more Downer pontification from June 2005??:
Our engagement with Asia today is plainly stronger than it ever was, although the dismal brigade, of course, refuse to recognise that fact.
For example, a former diplomat, Alison Broinowski, maintains that we are a culturally cringing, subservient ally of an imperious United States, which makes all of us targets wherever we are.
She also claims that our regional relationships have diminished in the Howard era.
‘Pulling off two presidential visits in a week has enabled Howard to claim another triumph. The truth however is that a gap yawns between the assuring self-image Australians are being offered and the way we are perceived in the region.’
Her evidence is thin, mostly derived from Australia-bashing journalists in English language Asian newspapers, and otherwise anecdotal.
Like many critics she fails to see, or perhaps cannot bear to recognise, the far-reaching and effective counter-terrorism cooperation between Australia and our regional partners which has served to prevent terror attacks and disrupt terror networks and has also underlined our shared security interests.
Or they choose to ignore that in the last year we have concluded two genuinely liberalising Free Trade Agreements with Singapore and Thailand, and have begun a joint study on a third with China.
On the cultural level, there are also more Asian students in Australia today than ever before.
The fact is, if they but cared to look, what they would see today are dynamic relationships between Australia and the other countries of the region.
Indeed if the sneerers looked hard enough they would see that we are not the only ones that do not define our interests exclusively in regional terms.
Therefore, the Downer Diplomacy success stories:
1) Combating terrorism regionally.
2) More Asian students.
3) FTAs with Singapore and Thailand
4) That if we look hard enough, we can see our relationship prospering.
Taking his 4th point seriously, wouldn’t those other 3 points have occurred if Downer was not there? Such dynamic leadership!
5) Australia does not define it’s success on regional terms. We have other terms that are not defined or public so we can always be successful.
6) We are not little Australia.
I apologize to everyone that I did not prevent my electorate from voting for him. However, I did steal and deface his election posters and I feel slightly better about that… although my actions probably prompted a lot of older people to vote for him who otherwise would not have had their common sense not been overruled by fear of youths.
Farewell to the idiot son
Nothing really interesting, but I was at a press conference he gave in the courtyard of the Hotel Turismo in Dili in August 1999 just before the elections there. If I remember, the “pro-integrasi” Indo press asked some odd questions, and the wire services some more interesting ones but Downer’s answers were nothing special, somewhat formulaic and not really revealing, at least not publicly. He, or his factotum (I forget), then announced there would be a separate meeting with drinks in an upstairs room but that non-Australians were excluded from that.
Farewell to the idiot son
Here we go again, the absurd provinciality of the Australian left.Have you really no more interesting subject matter than to call on readers to shit on Downer?Alexander Downer was in fact a perfectly competent Foreign Minister and well liked in South East Asia.Believe it or not his good manners (upper class credentials if you like) went down rather well with the Thais, Malaysians and Indonesians.What would you prefer – a beer swilling Ocker?Paul Keating’s schoolboy comment is hardly a “classic phrase” and simply betrays his own chippiness and boorishness, albeit with a fine intellect.I suspect Keating in his heart of hearts would dearly have loved to be a patrician, Caliban raging at his image in the mirror if you like.Incidentally a well educated English friend told me that to an Englishman Downer comes across as just another Australian and certainly not as upper class.Bottom line: – grow up.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
Tak Bai cannot be compared to 6 October because at least 78 people died in the Tak Bai incident, but I have it on good authority (from the current PM no less), that only 1 person died in the 6 October incident.
But of course, we should not forget that I also have it on good authority the 78 at Tak Bai died because they were fasting.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Messrs Don & Jon, Patience or rather endurance has characterised the Burmese nation and of course you will prescribe more of the same for that’s all you have to offer and no hope though it’s something you can’t deprive people of who have nothing but hope, and no plan B – poverty of thought. So just watch and wait, engage constructively and show the generals their errant way. Great. Very well, may we all live in interesting times.