http://www.2519.net, a very informative website, allowed its domain name to expire, and faces permanent deletion in August if not renewed. This site has lots of great historical background, text and photos, etc.
EFG, you need to take of those scratched reading glasses – Samak, Thaksin, Chalerm? In the original post -which seems to make a distinction between state and government – these names don’t come up. So BP makes a comment about Thaksin and you go ballistic implying that no government matters and such achievements – over many years and many governments – is actually all about people power. Get back to the PAD demo and chant away there in this lamentable way.
By the way, I seem to recall that the UNDP report on SE also had some of these achievements reported.
Those who are stupid enough to compare Tak bai with 6 Tula never really study history and “6 Tula” is just a kind of slogan to be used whenever there are many lost of lives involving the “state”.
(Ji is a perfect example: he’s fond of lumping together “6 Tula” and other incidents including Tak Bai as “State Crime”. In fact as I asked many times – to both Ji and Thongchai who is in fact the first to use the slogan “6 Tula is a State Crime” – that: if it was a state crime, how would we regard people like Seni or Surin Matsadit? They had many failing as politicians, but can they be regarded as ‘criminal’ in 6 Tula? But they were Minister and Prime Minister, position which would be normally considered important part of ‘State’. Should they be said to be the number one resposible for the massacre then?
“But unless we see ourselves as God whose opinions always amount to TRUTH no matter what, we must accept that :
1. many instances we see as я┐╜human rights violationsя┐╜, many people – often more numerous than us – see as justified or justifiable.”
If we are to accept this in relation to Tak Bai and other Thaksin-era atrocities, then what about October 6?
The double standard is astounding.
This is a true story.
When I wrote those lines, I kinda thought “was anyone will be stupid enough to ‘turn’ them against me, citing the 6 Tula events”?
What am I discussing in those lines? And this is in fact the core of my political intervention during these current crises, which center fundamentally around the issue of Royal Power and the electoral politics.
Since when those behind 6 Tula stand for general elections? In fact, since when had they been subjected to the kind of open politics the politicians are oblighed to do? Since when had you been able to hurl all kind of criticism, not to say abuse, including criticism like “[e.g. Thaksin] had blood on his hands in Tak bai, etc”? [Plese substitute Thaksin’s name with YOU KNOW WHO and Tak bai with 6 Tula]
In fact, since when had they NOT been the subject of 24-7 state-propaganda of worship, eulogy?
Pleas, Mr. (pretended, pretentiuos) Taxi Driver, could you please ask them, or, better still, campaign to have them, subjected to those kind of open electoral politics as above?
After that, suppose they commit PUBLIC POLICY [i.e. policy that had to be openly discussed, criticized in media, in general elections, etc.] that would result in lost of life, etc. say, “6 Tula”, then if they sitll won elections, I would have said, “too bad people wouldn’t take those bad policy that resulted in blood-letting seriously, etc.
In fact, this imaginary scenario is very improbably, and this again goes to the heart of my arguments: What, do yo think, was 6 Tula anyway? Was it the same kind of incidents resulting from public policy, like the so-called ‘war on drug’ or ‘war on terrerism’? How could it happen in such that way and not in other any other incident with lost of life, like eg. Tak bai? Wasn’t it because of aledged insults to NON-elective institution that was elevated to sacred status? Can you imagine any elective politicians beign so elevated? Can you imagine anyone would commit the kind of 6 Tula massacre if efugy of Thaksin was being hanged from a tree?
Dear Jonfernquest: I sympathize with your point of view. I think it should be clear by now from this discussion and others that most people just do not want to understand Burma or think serioiusly about practical means for dealing with the situation as it exists on the ground there. They prefer to engage in myths and dreams about what might be rather than come to terms with what is. Nothing much is likely to change in Burma anytime soon in any case but this sort of fantacizing is definitely not going to influence conditions there much no matter what happens. And when change does come to Burma (as it eventually must, although not necessarily for the better) few if any outside observers will have any inkling that it is on the horizon because it will depend on the actions of a few key people whose intentions we will never know until they act. In dealing with Burma patience should be the watchword and those who do not want to accept this will always be frustruated with the situation and with those who know enough about the country to see it in this light.
Jon, I’m sure you don’t believe the leaders of Burma are writhing with pain under the punishment meted out by the West. You of all people know they are surrounded by friendly nations more than happy to do business with them, thank you very much. Burma is not South Africa with major trading links to the West. Although you are absolutely right in concluding that sanctions only hurt the people the most, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, it’s the lack of political will to lift the living standards of their own people that’s the problem, the sheer neglect to even trickle down, to improve basic infrastructure and public services.
We all live in a world where privatisation, creeping or instant, part or whole, remains the order of the day. Redundancies and lack of job security threaten everyone whenever a recession hits and there’s one looming ahead as you well know. Profits accrue to individuals, but losses are socialised so the system can survive and the bosses get a second chance over and over again.
When they want your vote, politicians talk up the importance of small and middling businesses which they then all too readily sacrifice on the alters of capitalism in times of crisis, so big business – banking and finance in particular – can pull through. Occasionally they might even let one of the big guys go such as the Midland Bank in Britain, Yamaichi in Japan and LTCM in the US just to show that the checks and balances are working.
I’m sure specific case studies are very helpful as part of the bigger picture and to illustrate a point. The masters of the universe, like their good selves, want everyone to take a myopic view of short term gains and profits, and would rather we didn’t see the wood for the trees. They do however have a long term plan for domination of the planet’s resources both human and natural.
Let’s not forget everyone needs to put food on the table, not just businessmen. Everything is interconnected I agree, but see the connection in the struggles of ordinary people all over the planet as well as the connection between individual economies. Globalisation as we know it works mainly for international capital and ruling elites, and the same old bitter medicine – privatisation, abolition of subsidies, cutbacks on public sector expenditure – is on prescription not just whenever things become unstuck but as a panacea for economic development.
“Environmental governance in the SPDC’s Myanmar,” Tun Myint
“More imprudently, the benefits generated by intensification of environmental exploitation do not improve the well-being of citizens, let alone contribute to the economic development of the country.”
“Environmental governance of mining in Burma,” Matthew Smith
”environmental governance of mining in Burma… is a top-down system, devoid of environmental protection and dominated by the elemental purpose of securing revenue,”
“Spaces of extraction: Governance along the riverine networks of Nyaunglebin District,” Ken MacLean
“The presence of large numbers of soldiers [around gold-mining operations in Nyaunglebin District] has permitted the military to strengthen control over the local economy by extracting an array of rents, which are commonly defined as the extraction of uncompensated value from others.”
”Burma’s laws allow for no public participation in decision-making, no environmental, social, or human rights impact assessment, and effectively no access to justice. Such provisions are especially crucial in Burma, where development projects often result in environmental devastation and loss of land and livelihood for those communities that depend on the land and natural resources. Increased militarization around project areas also often results in the use of forced labor and forced portering, forced relocation, and other abuses.”
But to clarify, I am not suggesting that exploitive governance in Burma means there must be sanctions in order to punish the leaders of the country. That was not the issue I raised. Rather, we can’t assume that just any economic investment will necessarily be beneficial to the people nor that just any economic opportunity for those above will necessarily lead to economic opportunity for those below. I think it’s rather limiting to suggest that the only two possibilities are exploitive, unregulated industry and absolute isolation.
Back to PAD: I found this article in the Nation (of all places!?) rather interesting and thought NM readers/bloggers might have some comments:
BETWEEN THE LINES
New politics but idea is not so fresh
Published on Jul 3, 2008
The People’s Alliance for Democracy has been flying kites to test the winds, suggesting “new politics” to replace electoral/representative democracy as it believes it is fighting a losing battle to get rid of corrupt politicians.
The inner circle of the street protesters’ group is seriously discussing its ultimate goal and blueprint for a new political scene. No clear ideology or platform has emerged so far.
To many of them, electoral democracy is not the answer to removing corrupt politicians from power. If they managed to force the government of Samak Sundaravej, whom they regard as former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s proxy, to step down and call a new election, the same political faces would win at the polls again, perhaps in higher numbers than before.
Even during the military regime, the People Power Party was able to defeat many other parties in favour with the junta. There’s little doubt about how many members the party would get in the next election to be held while it is in power.
PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila came up with the idea of new politics, apparently not his own, suggesting a mixed model to bring lawmakers into parliament. The proportion between elected MPs and selected MPs should be 30:70, he said.
It is not a completely new idea – such a system is currently being run in the Senate where half the 150 members come from elections and the other half are selected by a judge-led panel. Thailand has two kinds of senator: one has a people’s mandate from elections and the other represents the elite.
The idea of new politics has not yet come into wide public discussion but political activists and PAD critics who have been closely following the street protests said the idea of new politics would be a great leap backwards from democracy.
The groups who pushed Suriyasai to float the idea represent the elite. They actually want aristocracy, rather than democracy, to run the country. Like the current Senate, the elite, mostly in the bureaucracy and judicial areas, hope to preserve the right to pick their associates to control politics.
The military coup in September 2006 allowed the elite to swallow half the Senate but failed to take any bite in the Lower House. PAD’s second round of battle is another attempt to take a big stake. Let’s see – perhaps the second bite will be too big to chew.
“‘trickle-down’ benefits of elite economic prosperity.”
In punishing the leader of the country through economic sanctions,
the west has also punished the people of the country. Why?
Because the leaders largely control the economy of the country,
so economic opportunity for those below depends on economic
opportunity for those above.
I take it you have never worked in the private sector before.
I work in and am a small part of a large company owned by one of the leading business families of Thailand. If they fail, I fail. This is the sort of economic reality that neither university students supported by the state nor activists that can fail over and over again to achieve their objective, without consequence, obviously cannot understand.
What is really needed are specific case studies, as in the recent Pasuk and Baker Thai Capital book, rather than flashy words like fascism and Reaganomics, that are essentially meaningless.
Stephen, I couldn’t agree more that that’s exactly the problem with post-modern end-of-history thinking prevalent today. It comes from the unquestioning acceptance of the primary role of ‘wealth creators and job givers’ plus ‘trickle-down’ theory and ‘we are all working class because we all work for a living, and we are all middle class because we are all comfortable, thank you very much’ mantra under Reagan and Thatcher. It goes with the recurring claim of abolishing the boom bust cycle and the class based society.
You only have to look at India, the world’s largest democracy, with its unparalled poverty seen everyday cheek by jowl with astonishing personal wealth. China today too, the most successful totalitarian state, witnessing immense prosperity but most of it in the hands of the ruling class, the CCP and its cronies. Trickle-down? Not in amillion years at this rate.
That is why the P.A.D. have now suggested that parliamentary elections be scrapped for 70% of M.P.s.
A key stone to PAD’s state of mind that few media and academic are willing to attack.
I wonder when Comrade Ji will finally collect all of his writings and publish them in a handy, red-cover-bound book…
This is Thailand, so the book gotta be yellow-cover-bound and have some word concerning “Sufficiency (etc)” on cover. (remind me of earlier Rule of Lord blog’s picture).
Also, it will be band, again, and gotta be sale underground, again.
Civil servants? NGOS? Real people through their own efforts? Do you two seriously think that Thaksin, Samak & Chalerm and all the other slimeballs here have even read about Millenium Goals? You seem to have fallen for the local tendency to credit Pu Yais for something they have never even thought about. Other people do the grunt work.
The generals may catch a ride on Chinese economic development, and eventually become, as a class, a lot more benign than they are now hopefully, through the mellowing effect of an internal middle class.
Is fascism in success inherently contradictory? That seems to be the suggestion here; with the political/economic elite, through their ostensibly nationalist-justified crony capitalism eventually succumbing to an inevitable middle class which, in turn, mellows the violent authoritarianism of the elite.
While I think there are some strong points with this argument, I’m inclined towards thinking that this suggestion misses much of the class-based character of conflict in Burma and the efforts made to ensure that the ruling political and economic elite remain on top. For example, what factors influence the extent to which the ruling class mellows? Is it solely economic prosperity without regard to ‘everyday resistance’ or organised opposition challenging the consolidation of power around the elite? This seems in line with typical elite arguments about the lower classes benefiting from elite prosperity; something like Reaganomics and the presumed ‘trickle-down’ benefits of elite economic prosperity. It does seem that seeing the conflict in (and debate about) Burma as one of authoritarian-driven prosperity vs. democratically-driven liberalism misses this class-based character of the conflict.
This is an excellent statement and very timely indeed. I hope people take note and engage in positive activities in their efforts to see Burma as a free and democratic union made up of all the ethnic nationalities in the country. Good on the KNU/KNLA and God bless their efforts in their attempts to unit the country for the peace and good will of all the peoples who live there and free them of the tirany of oppression and hopelesness that has pagued this wonderful country for so long.
Jon, I do share your sense of tragedy and frustration. Although the state of being is believed to be suffering punctuated by transient episodes of happiness, karma itself far from being an exercise in futility urges one to engage in right thought and action at the present moment for a good future. One has no control however over what’s past and done. As you sow, so shall you reap. That’s why just to wring one’s hands in despair now and let evolution take its course – something no one controls to a large extent and with an uncertain outcome – is hardly the right action. Passivity and complacency are just as bad as fatalism erroneously attributed to Buddhism. The point is not to dwell on the past but to move forward and shape the future.
Perhaps we’ve been talking at cross purposes, you addressing mainly what the West can do and me concentrating on the Burmese inside the country. Yes, China and Yunnan have always been important to Burma, now more than ever I agree. China is also best placed to help the people of Burma, I don’t mean the generals, provided there exists the political will. But a one-party state on a capitalist agenda which China is today is hardly conducive to such a humanitarian programme within or without her borders.
Should Burma emulate China for its rapid economic progress, or South Korea for that matter? Even if economic prosperity mitigates human rights abuses, a pragmatic attitude to Third World countries more or less consistently adopted by the dominant Western economies as people they can do business with, the generals have shown neither the competence to run anything besides a repressive state apparatus nor the inclination to share any of the prosperity with the people they rule over. Unfortunately for the Burmese we see no sign of a benevolent despot on the horizon.
The consensus view today, it seems, is to nurture a middle class and civil society for a gradual evolutionionary march towards a Western style liberal democracy. Whether that’s what’s really happening in South Korea or Singapore, even in Japan well ahead of the game , is rather a moot point. Definitely not in China for all those impressive growth rates.
China, India, ASEAN states, they’ve all been doing what the West, were it not for the high moral ground albeit with some major loopholes that they have seized, would ideally love to do – grab market share and resources, not least cheap labour. Western powers will probably never do the right thing i.e. put people before profits, since that’s not what they do within their own borders either. So it is rather a forlorn hope and a depressing future if you put all your eggs in that particular basket.
Of course it’s not like they have not intervened either covertly or overtly in the Third World. Quite on the contrary. But as you yourself have implied a few times, the principle behind it , though undeclared, is ‘what’s in it for me?’ And these days they make a profit from both destroying a country and rebuilding it afterwards. Can there possibly be a better plan? Even the Burmes regime has cottoned on to it. It’s planning to replace the peasants and fishermen of the delta with industrial scale farming and tourism. Fancy getting into the game of widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It’s the only game in town after all.
So that’s my bit being the prophet of doom and gloom, Jon.
[…] long-term change has resulted in the religious sphere as a result of the cyclone]. Danny Fisher and New Mandala continue to aggregate and promote stories of wider […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
Did someone fall asleep at the wheel?
http://www.2519.net, a very informative website, allowed its domain name to expire, and faces permanent deletion in August if not renewed. This site has lots of great historical background, text and photos, etc.
The Thai state: doing some things right
EFG, you need to take of those scratched reading glasses – Samak, Thaksin, Chalerm? In the original post -which seems to make a distinction between state and government – these names don’t come up. So BP makes a comment about Thaksin and you go ballistic implying that no government matters and such achievements – over many years and many governments – is actually all about people power. Get back to the PAD demo and chant away there in this lamentable way.
By the way, I seem to recall that the UNDP report on SE also had some of these achievements reported.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
Those who are stupid enough to compare Tak bai with 6 Tula never really study history and “6 Tula” is just a kind of slogan to be used whenever there are many lost of lives involving the “state”.
(Ji is a perfect example: he’s fond of lumping together “6 Tula” and other incidents including Tak Bai as “State Crime”. In fact as I asked many times – to both Ji and Thongchai who is in fact the first to use the slogan “6 Tula is a State Crime” – that: if it was a state crime, how would we regard people like Seni or Surin Matsadit? They had many failing as politicians, but can they be regarded as ‘criminal’ in 6 Tula? But they were Minister and Prime Minister, position which would be normally considered important part of ‘State’. Should they be said to be the number one resposible for the massacre then?
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
re Somsak’s #9:
“But unless we see ourselves as God whose opinions always amount to TRUTH no matter what, we must accept that :
1. many instances we see as я┐╜human rights violationsя┐╜, many people – often more numerous than us – see as justified or justifiable.”
If we are to accept this in relation to Tak Bai and other Thaksin-era atrocities, then what about October 6?
The double standard is astounding.
This is a true story.
When I wrote those lines, I kinda thought “was anyone will be stupid enough to ‘turn’ them against me, citing the 6 Tula events”?
What am I discussing in those lines? And this is in fact the core of my political intervention during these current crises, which center fundamentally around the issue of Royal Power and the electoral politics.
Since when those behind 6 Tula stand for general elections? In fact, since when had they been subjected to the kind of open politics the politicians are oblighed to do? Since when had you been able to hurl all kind of criticism, not to say abuse, including criticism like “[e.g. Thaksin] had blood on his hands in Tak bai, etc”? [Plese substitute Thaksin’s name with YOU KNOW WHO and Tak bai with 6 Tula]
In fact, since when had they NOT been the subject of 24-7 state-propaganda of worship, eulogy?
Pleas, Mr. (pretended, pretentiuos) Taxi Driver, could you please ask them, or, better still, campaign to have them, subjected to those kind of open electoral politics as above?
After that, suppose they commit PUBLIC POLICY [i.e. policy that had to be openly discussed, criticized in media, in general elections, etc.] that would result in lost of life, etc. say, “6 Tula”, then if they sitll won elections, I would have said, “too bad people wouldn’t take those bad policy that resulted in blood-letting seriously, etc.
In fact, this imaginary scenario is very improbably, and this again goes to the heart of my arguments: What, do yo think, was 6 Tula anyway? Was it the same kind of incidents resulting from public policy, like the so-called ‘war on drug’ or ‘war on terrerism’? How could it happen in such that way and not in other any other incident with lost of life, like eg. Tak bai? Wasn’t it because of aledged insults to NON-elective institution that was elevated to sacred status? Can you imagine any elective politicians beign so elevated? Can you imagine anyone would commit the kind of 6 Tula massacre if efugy of Thaksin was being hanged from a tree?
The stupidity is astounding.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Dear Jonfernquest: I sympathize with your point of view. I think it should be clear by now from this discussion and others that most people just do not want to understand Burma or think serioiusly about practical means for dealing with the situation as it exists on the ground there. They prefer to engage in myths and dreams about what might be rather than come to terms with what is. Nothing much is likely to change in Burma anytime soon in any case but this sort of fantacizing is definitely not going to influence conditions there much no matter what happens. And when change does come to Burma (as it eventually must, although not necessarily for the better) few if any outside observers will have any inkling that it is on the horizon because it will depend on the actions of a few key people whose intentions we will never know until they act. In dealing with Burma patience should be the watchword and those who do not want to accept this will always be frustruated with the situation and with those who know enough about the country to see it in this light.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Jon, I’m sure you don’t believe the leaders of Burma are writhing with pain under the punishment meted out by the West. You of all people know they are surrounded by friendly nations more than happy to do business with them, thank you very much. Burma is not South Africa with major trading links to the West. Although you are absolutely right in concluding that sanctions only hurt the people the most, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, it’s the lack of political will to lift the living standards of their own people that’s the problem, the sheer neglect to even trickle down, to improve basic infrastructure and public services.
We all live in a world where privatisation, creeping or instant, part or whole, remains the order of the day. Redundancies and lack of job security threaten everyone whenever a recession hits and there’s one looming ahead as you well know. Profits accrue to individuals, but losses are socialised so the system can survive and the bosses get a second chance over and over again.
When they want your vote, politicians talk up the importance of small and middling businesses which they then all too readily sacrifice on the alters of capitalism in times of crisis, so big business – banking and finance in particular – can pull through. Occasionally they might even let one of the big guys go such as the Midland Bank in Britain, Yamaichi in Japan and LTCM in the US just to show that the checks and balances are working.
I’m sure specific case studies are very helpful as part of the bigger picture and to illustrate a point. The masters of the universe, like their good selves, want everyone to take a myopic view of short term gains and profits, and would rather we didn’t see the wood for the trees. They do however have a long term plan for domination of the planet’s resources both human and natural.
Let’s not forget everyone needs to put food on the table, not just businessmen. Everything is interconnected I agree, but see the connection in the struggles of ordinary people all over the planet as well as the connection between individual economies. Globalisation as we know it works mainly for international capital and ruling elites, and the same old bitter medicine – privatisation, abolition of subsidies, cutbacks on public sector expenditure – is on prescription not just whenever things become unstuck but as a panacea for economic development.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Here are some suggestions all of which come from Myanmar – The State, Community and the Environment:
“Environmental governance in the SPDC’s Myanmar,” Tun Myint
“Environmental governance of mining in Burma,” Matthew Smith
“Spaces of extraction: Governance along the riverine networks of Nyaunglebin District,” Ken MacLean
And a final case, China in Burma: The increasing investment of Chinese multinational corporations in Burma’s hydropower, oil &gas, and mining sectors.
But to clarify, I am not suggesting that exploitive governance in Burma means there must be sanctions in order to punish the leaders of the country. That was not the issue I raised. Rather, we can’t assume that just any economic investment will necessarily be beneficial to the people nor that just any economic opportunity for those above will necessarily lead to economic opportunity for those below. I think it’s rather limiting to suggest that the only two possibilities are exploitive, unregulated industry and absolute isolation.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
re Somsak’s #9:
“But unless we see ourselves as God whose opinions always amount to TRUTH no matter what, we must accept that :
1. many instances we see as Сhuman rights violationsТ, many people – often more numerous than us – see as justified or justifiable.”
If we are to accept this in relation to Tak Bai and other Thaksin-era atrocities, then what about October 6?
The double standard is astounding.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
Back to PAD: I found this article in the Nation (of all places!?) rather interesting and thought NM readers/bloggers might have some comments:
BETWEEN THE LINES
New politics but idea is not so fresh
Published on Jul 3, 2008
The People’s Alliance for Democracy has been flying kites to test the winds, suggesting “new politics” to replace electoral/representative democracy as it believes it is fighting a losing battle to get rid of corrupt politicians.
The inner circle of the street protesters’ group is seriously discussing its ultimate goal and blueprint for a new political scene. No clear ideology or platform has emerged so far.
To many of them, electoral democracy is not the answer to removing corrupt politicians from power. If they managed to force the government of Samak Sundaravej, whom they regard as former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s proxy, to step down and call a new election, the same political faces would win at the polls again, perhaps in higher numbers than before.
Even during the military regime, the People Power Party was able to defeat many other parties in favour with the junta. There’s little doubt about how many members the party would get in the next election to be held while it is in power.
PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila came up with the idea of new politics, apparently not his own, suggesting a mixed model to bring lawmakers into parliament. The proportion between elected MPs and selected MPs should be 30:70, he said.
It is not a completely new idea – such a system is currently being run in the Senate where half the 150 members come from elections and the other half are selected by a judge-led panel. Thailand has two kinds of senator: one has a people’s mandate from elections and the other represents the elite.
The idea of new politics has not yet come into wide public discussion but political activists and PAD critics who have been closely following the street protests said the idea of new politics would be a great leap backwards from democracy.
The groups who pushed Suriyasai to float the idea represent the elite. They actually want aristocracy, rather than democracy, to run the country. Like the current Senate, the elite, mostly in the bureaucracy and judicial areas, hope to preserve the right to pick their associates to control politics.
The military coup in September 2006 allowed the elite to swallow half the Senate but failed to take any bite in the Lower House. PAD’s second round of battle is another attempt to take a big stake. Let’s see – perhaps the second bite will be too big to chew.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
“‘trickle-down’ benefits of elite economic prosperity.”
In punishing the leader of the country through economic sanctions,
the west has also punished the people of the country. Why?
Because the leaders largely control the economy of the country,
so economic opportunity for those below depends on economic
opportunity for those above.
I take it you have never worked in the private sector before.
I work in and am a small part of a large company owned by one of the leading business families of Thailand. If they fail, I fail. This is the sort of economic reality that neither university students supported by the state nor activists that can fail over and over again to achieve their objective, without consequence, obviously cannot understand.
What is really needed are specific case studies, as in the recent Pasuk and Baker Thai Capital book, rather than flashy words like fascism and Reaganomics, that are essentially meaningless.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Stephen, I couldn’t agree more that that’s exactly the problem with post-modern end-of-history thinking prevalent today. It comes from the unquestioning acceptance of the primary role of ‘wealth creators and job givers’ plus ‘trickle-down’ theory and ‘we are all working class because we all work for a living, and we are all middle class because we are all comfortable, thank you very much’ mantra under Reagan and Thatcher. It goes with the recurring claim of abolishing the boom bust cycle and the class based society.
You only have to look at India, the world’s largest democracy, with its unparalled poverty seen everyday cheek by jowl with astonishing personal wealth. China today too, the most successful totalitarian state, witnessing immense prosperity but most of it in the hands of the ruling class, the CCP and its cronies. Trickle-down? Not in amillion years at this rate.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
That is why the P.A.D. have now suggested that parliamentary elections be scrapped for 70% of M.P.s.
A key stone to PAD’s state of mind that few media and academic are willing to attack.
I wonder when Comrade Ji will finally collect all of his writings and publish them in a handy, red-cover-bound book…
This is Thailand, so the book gotta be yellow-cover-bound and have some word concerning “Sufficiency (etc)” on cover. (remind me of earlier Rule of Lord blog’s picture).
Also, it will be band, again, and gotta be sale underground, again.
The Thai state: doing some things right
Civil servants? NGOS? Real people through their own efforts? Do you two seriously think that Thaksin, Samak & Chalerm and all the other slimeballs here have even read about Millenium Goals? You seem to have fallen for the local tendency to credit Pu Yais for something they have never even thought about. Other people do the grunt work.
The Thai state: doing some things right
Andrew – anything doing under Thaksin was done for cynical political purposes so they don’t count
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Is fascism in success inherently contradictory? That seems to be the suggestion here; with the political/economic elite, through their ostensibly nationalist-justified crony capitalism eventually succumbing to an inevitable middle class which, in turn, mellows the violent authoritarianism of the elite.
While I think there are some strong points with this argument, I’m inclined towards thinking that this suggestion misses much of the class-based character of conflict in Burma and the efforts made to ensure that the ruling political and economic elite remain on top. For example, what factors influence the extent to which the ruling class mellows? Is it solely economic prosperity without regard to ‘everyday resistance’ or organised opposition challenging the consolidation of power around the elite? This seems in line with typical elite arguments about the lower classes benefiting from elite prosperity; something like Reaganomics and the presumed ‘trickle-down’ benefits of elite economic prosperity. It does seem that seeing the conflict in (and debate about) Burma as one of authoritarian-driven prosperity vs. democratically-driven liberalism misses this class-based character of the conflict.
KNU statement “regarding foreign individuals”
This is an excellent statement and very timely indeed. I hope people take note and engage in positive activities in their efforts to see Burma as a free and democratic union made up of all the ethnic nationalities in the country. Good on the KNU/KNLA and God bless their efforts in their attempts to unit the country for the peace and good will of all the peoples who live there and free them of the tirany of oppression and hopelesness that has pagued this wonderful country for so long.
Volunteering to fight in Burma
Hi Guys,
if you are interested, have a listen to this pod cvast from an interview I did yesterday on a Perth FM Station about my book and the Karen.
http://www.rtrfm.com.au/download/727
Cheers,
Dave
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Jon, I do share your sense of tragedy and frustration. Although the state of being is believed to be suffering punctuated by transient episodes of happiness, karma itself far from being an exercise in futility urges one to engage in right thought and action at the present moment for a good future. One has no control however over what’s past and done. As you sow, so shall you reap. That’s why just to wring one’s hands in despair now and let evolution take its course – something no one controls to a large extent and with an uncertain outcome – is hardly the right action. Passivity and complacency are just as bad as fatalism erroneously attributed to Buddhism. The point is not to dwell on the past but to move forward and shape the future.
Perhaps we’ve been talking at cross purposes, you addressing mainly what the West can do and me concentrating on the Burmese inside the country. Yes, China and Yunnan have always been important to Burma, now more than ever I agree. China is also best placed to help the people of Burma, I don’t mean the generals, provided there exists the political will. But a one-party state on a capitalist agenda which China is today is hardly conducive to such a humanitarian programme within or without her borders.
Should Burma emulate China for its rapid economic progress, or South Korea for that matter? Even if economic prosperity mitigates human rights abuses, a pragmatic attitude to Third World countries more or less consistently adopted by the dominant Western economies as people they can do business with, the generals have shown neither the competence to run anything besides a repressive state apparatus nor the inclination to share any of the prosperity with the people they rule over. Unfortunately for the Burmese we see no sign of a benevolent despot on the horizon.
The consensus view today, it seems, is to nurture a middle class and civil society for a gradual evolutionionary march towards a Western style liberal democracy. Whether that’s what’s really happening in South Korea or Singapore, even in Japan well ahead of the game , is rather a moot point. Definitely not in China for all those impressive growth rates.
China, India, ASEAN states, they’ve all been doing what the West, were it not for the high moral ground albeit with some major loopholes that they have seized, would ideally love to do – grab market share and resources, not least cheap labour. Western powers will probably never do the right thing i.e. put people before profits, since that’s not what they do within their own borders either. So it is rather a forlorn hope and a depressing future if you put all your eggs in that particular basket.
Of course it’s not like they have not intervened either covertly or overtly in the Third World. Quite on the contrary. But as you yourself have implied a few times, the principle behind it , though undeclared, is ‘what’s in it for me?’ And these days they make a profit from both destroying a country and rebuilding it afterwards. Can there possibly be a better plan? Even the Burmes regime has cottoned on to it. It’s planning to replace the peasants and fishermen of the delta with industrial scale farming and tourism. Fancy getting into the game of widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It’s the only game in town after all.
So that’s my bit being the prophet of doom and gloom, Jon.
Reporting from Burma
[…] long-term change has resulted in the religious sphere as a result of the cyclone]. Danny Fisher and New Mandala continue to aggregate and promote stories of wider […]
Thai politics quote of the day
so it is apparent from nganadeeleg’s quote at #20 that he too has been conversing with chimps on weighty mattters