Mr. Varney, I didn’t ever say Samak doesn’t have a right to speak to the people. Then again, so do Sondhi and Chamlong. They all have a constitutional right to air their views. It’s for the people to decide who they believe.
I don’t think the average person voting for the PPP did so because constitutional change was high on their wish list, or because they wanted Samak as PM, for that matter.
Most people agree some sort of constitutional change is needed. But not calling a broad-based assembly and submitting proposed changes to the electorate for consideration doesn’t seem an appropriate way to go about it for an elected government. The proposed changes, and especially the manner in which the PPP intended to push them through, appeared self serving. So much so, they lost the support of coalition partners and senators.
And while Samak backed down on constitutional changes, he and party members clearly stated they would raise it again. It was a tactical retreat, not a surrender.
If you read my post you will see that I also blamed governments before Thaksin’s for not fostering an independent broadcast media. Previous governments did allow, however, the establishment of iTV as an independent broadcaster and did not tamper with it.
Thaksin bought it and turned it into his personal propaganda vehicle, so he took the one advance in independent broadcasting and destroyed it for personal gain.
>I wonder when the last public hearing on this matter took place – or was there ever one? It seems as if >the government has not complied with this article, or am I wrong?
I believe a court can decide if you are right or wrong. As your citation seems to indicate.
What we are talking about is intent.
Applying your logic, we could say the intent of all lese majeste complaints is to defend the monarchy. But we know it isn’t.
The intent of raising the Preah Vihear issue is to stir up an unpleasant and potent nationalistic temper. There’s always been a strong undercurrent of this, pre-dating Thaksin.
And it’s working, too.
Go down to the rally and people will talk to you about it. You know what, they’re not saying the government broke with constitutional procedures, they are saying it sold out the country and its land.
Just because there may be a legal basis for an argument doesn’t mean it isn’t really pitched at the emotions.
That’s not true only of Thailand. It’s effective, if obnoxious, politics.
P.S. Does the agreement clearly provide “for a change in the Thai territories?” More so than the joint exploration agreement with Malaysia, to take an example? Were the suggested consultations taken in those cases? I admit I don’t know.
But doesn’t law usually involves precedent as well as words?
21 June 2008
Can any of you ‘real scholars’ out there point me in the right direction to finding a copy of the 1941 Printing Act and subsequent amendments, etc.? I have spent considerable time to no avail.
Thank you!
Don Jamieson: I don’t understand. I make no claim to speak expertly on Burma. My initial post was to report other’s published and spoken claims. I do question your credentials. For me, critical study involves publication and subjecting one’s views to peer review. I know that sounds academic, but it is the best measure I have. Your views, expressed here, do not suggest to me that you have that training or the insight gained from that kind of experience.
On the media: You blame Thaksin for not fostering independent media. I would agree, but this same criticism could be made of just about every Thai administration.
On law: constitutions in Thailand have been “made” by those in power, including the 1997 version. That is basic law. And, the judiciary is not above reproach (to say the least). If you follow Samak’s recent offerings, it is clear that the govt side would compromise on constitutional reform. And, PPP did campaign on constitutional change. We can recall the last military-imposed government saying clearly that if people didn’t like the 2007 draft constitution, they could change it later. We do indeed reap what is sown.
On Samak: Whether your claim of his being convicted of libel is true or not, the fact remains that he is the leader of an elected government. As such he has every right to speak to the people. We know roughly who is behind him and what he stands for – he made it clear during the election campaign.
On Sondhi: Whether your claim of his being convicted of libel is true or not, he has a right to stand up for PAD (although currently it seems that Chamlong has taken over as chief spokesman, and he seems to be the one who can mobilize demonstrators). But do we really have a clear idea of who he represents? And do we know who is backing him? In Thailand it is often difficult to keep supporters on the streets without considerable financial backing. Who’s providing it this time?
Mr. Sinatra, there is no 2005 constitution. Yes, I know you mean the 2007 constitution.
All these constitutions are clearly flawed, and yes, the best solution is to have a broad-based assembly to draft a new one. That’s certainly not what the PPP is proposing. They don’t even want to put their constitutional amendments to a popular vote.
The 1997 was a disaster when it came to checks and balances. It shouldn’t have been ripped up (although every coup government has ripped up the constitution in force when it seized power), but simply reinstating the 1997 constitution without significant changes wouldn’t provide a solution.
The blanket amnesty was unnecessary, according to Abhisit Vejjajiva who spoke at the Foreign Correspondents Club last year. I don’t remember the exact reasons he stated why, but it had to do with Thai legal precedents in trying to bring coup leaders to court for prosecution. He claimed that, basically, they were already off the hook.
In any event, I’m not here to defend the coup leaders. But the PPP is an elected government, and so they have a greater responsibility to submit constitutional changes to the public for approval, instead of acting like the coup leaders.
Some of the PAD’s tactics are troubling. Nonetheless, they still have a constitutional right to protest.
I don’t like the fact that PAD “security” has baseball bats. They should not have them. But had police acted fairly and done their job to protect them from assaults with rocks, bottles and fists from pro-government supporters, it might not have escalated to this point.
We’ve had four police injuries, two of them minor, during a brief scuffle yesterday and that’s basically been it as far as “increasingly violent” is concerned. And credit goes to the police for their restraint. But it’s hardly been a “riot.”
Contrast that with over 200 injured policemen as result of the assault on Prem’s residence by the UDD demonstrators. While some UDD leaders were arrested, the UDD was allowed to continue its protests.
The Burmese junta uses French mercenaries to guard the Total pipelines. They also use Chinese military advisors. The Israelis provide instructors to the Burmese secret police and intelligence agencies.
Andrew Selth uses his position as a movie reviewer to argue that the small number of western ex-military people assisting the Karens is what is prolonging the war.
I would retort that what is prolonging the war are the Israelis, French mercenaries, Chinese advisors, Indian arms dealers and Washington lobbyists who assist in propping up the Burmese junta.
If all of these people exited the scene – not likely – then the SPDC would collapse in short order.
I don’t know why it is, but academics always seem to favor appeasement and accommodation with evil. Perhaps they need to get out of the classroom more often, and out into the real world.
21 June 2008
Ah…
It’s as if the PD has committed violence, but I don’t remember seeing any, other than that wedge-barge-through yesterday when they broke the police lines to Government House.
In fact, it’s the PPP and Thaksin supporters who HAVE committed violence. What of this PPP MP Karoon who kicked Khun Somkiet of PAD in the Parliament cafeteria, then said if he was found to have really done that he’d quit, and then cops out when a penel found he did do it by saying he had not been tried in court, etc.?
Secondly, before that Dr. Kraisak Choonhavan, who was formerly Chairman of Thailand’s Senate Foreign Relations committee, was severaly kicked by an irate pro-Thaksin supporter as he was innocently standing out near a demonstration. Given Thaksin’s violence-prone record and that of his supporters, I for the life of me can’t understand how anyone could possible cite the PAD as violent. Oh, well…
While it’s true that some of what ASTV broadcasts is misinformation, wasn’t that clearly true of iTV and other non-cable television stations under the Thaksin government (and previous governments, except in the case of iTV)?
That’s not meant as a justification for broadcasting misinformation. But, when accurate, balanced and fair news coverage can’t be found or is difficult to find, rumor and misinformation will fill the vacuum.
Had Thaksin and previous governments done more to foster the growth of an independent broadcast media, instead of using it for propaganda, ASTV would have fewer viewers.
I didn’t see Dr. Weng, Jon and Giles getting a lot of airtime on non-cable stations when they were criticizing Thaksin.
It’s also well known that TRT/PPP has a war room of paid posters using dozens of names infusing websites and web boards with pro-TRT/PPP views. Lying on the web is hardly an innovation of Manager Group.
Once again, this isn’t meant as a justification. But, you reap what you sow.
LOL. You really are a comical fellow, Don Jameson. If anyone is bitter it is obviously you, roaming web boards and blogs denouncing anyone who has a different view on Burma than your own as brainwashed, crazy or just not knowing anything at all about the country. That’s how a loser argues.
Even worse, you make things up about people.
I’m certain that no one by the name of Robert Horn has ever been “expelled” from Burma.
Which of the 37 Nats told you that?
Why don’t you tell us who YOU are, Mr. Jameson? And not with cryptic references to documents that require us to file a Freedom of Information Act request or travel to the National Archives in Maryland.
Your scholarly work on Burma must of incredible earth-shaking insight and importance if that’s the only place it can be found.
As for credentials, Ralph Cramden has a credential you never will:
Anything that complicates a war where nationalism is at stake will prolong it. Having American nationals involved in the KNLA can only serve to be used as propaganda by the Junta, and consequently foster mistrust and bad communication. As to how much credit those foreign fighters receive can perhaps best be gauged by the Junta’s reaction to them — whether it is an over-exaggerated response or not. A speedy resolution to the conflict will obviously see both parties agreeing on what they can agree on, so perhaps your questions point to another: how long will it be before the Junta will agree to forget their xenophobic, paranoid fascism? Maybe a similar question can be asked of Sylvester Stallone..?
“I also find it hard to imagine that anyone actually thinks “This Khao Preah Vihear business” is a matter of principle rather than pandering to the worst sort of nationalist instincts.”
You know, article 190 of the Constitution is interesting. It reads:
“Section 190. The King has the prerogative to conclude a peace treaty, armistice and other treaties with other countries or international organisations.
A treaty which provides for a change in the Thai territories or the Thai external territories that Thailand has sovereign right or jurisdiction over such territories under any treaty or an international law or requires the enactment of an Act for its implementation or affects immensely to economic or social security of the country or results in the binding of trade, investment budget of the country significantly must be approved by the National Assembly. In such case, the National Assembly must complete its consideration within sixty days as from the date of receipt of such matter.
Before the conclusion of a treaty with other countries or international organisations under paragraph two, the Council of Ministers must provide information thereon to the public, conduct public consultation and state information in relevant thereto to the National Assembly. In such case, the Council of Ministers must submit negotiation framework to the National Assembly for approval.
Upon giving signature to the treaty under paragraph two, the Council of Ministers shall, prior to give consent to be bound, facilitate the public to get access to the details of such treaty. In the case where the application of such treaty has affected the public or small and medium entrepreneurs, the Council of Ministers must revise or render remedy to such effects rapidly, expediently and fairly.
There shall be a law determining measure and procedure for the conclusion of a treaty having immense effects to economic or social security of the country or resulting in the binding of trade or investment of the country significantly and the revision or rendering of remedy to the effects of such treaty with due regard to the fairness among the beneficiaries, the affected persons and the general public.
A matter arising from the provisions of paragraph two falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and the provisions of section 154 (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the referring of the matter to the Constitutional Court.”
I wonder when the last public hearing on this matter took place – or was there ever one? It seems as if the government has not complied with this article, or am I wrong?
Mr Horn, the PAD protests have begun to appear increasingly violent and illegal, in rhetoric and in action. Protesters brandishing sticks and building makeshift shields, erecting barricades of barbed wire, anyone? They have not cooperated with the authorities nor and intend to do everything they can to bring down an elected government. This much they have said.
Ironically, they want to protect the constitution four months into the term of a government, but where were they when the 1997 Constitution was actually ripped up?
Based on what you’ve said, Mr Horn, I assume that you also disagree with the whole 2005 constitution and the NLA, speaking about self-serving governments that write blanket amnesties for itself? While I am highly suspect of PPP’s intentions, I do believe a fair Parliamentary procedure involving all parties to amend the 2005 is justified and necessary.
I suggest that those interested in media coverage of Burma after the cyclone consult the article “Burma and the Grey Lady” on the blogspot “Informed Comment: Global Affairs” at icga.blogspot.com.
We can argue all month back and forth about fabrication online and in print, on the air, etc. The problem with the government side with all this is that YOU are paying for it as a taxpayer on the one hand, and on the other as a citizen subject to the decisions being made.
As I said and will likely keep saying until eventually even I see light at the end of the tunnel is that things here are more illusion than substance, no matter which side they come from.
I was happy to see that “Sly” used Burma as the subject of his latest Rambo movie. The KNLA freedom fighters that I met in Burma enjoyed seeing the SPDC laid to waste in the movie. Some one asked me what moment struck me as the” strangest during my trip into Burma?” I would have to say sitting in a house with KNLA freedom fighters watching a bootleg version of Rambo 4. That will always be one of the most memorial moments in my life as a movie watcher.
There were a few things I did not like about the movie and a several that I did like. Since I like to see the positive things in life I will consentrate on the things I liked about the movie.
1) The films opening shows actual video shot by the Free Burma Rangers, and news footage of crimes against humanity and human rights violations.
2) It was filmed in Thailand which is about as close as possible to filming inside Burma. The production company had to get permission from the Thai Government to bring in weapons and over 90,000 rounds of ammo. That shows some level of understanding from the Thai Government.
3)They used real Karen and Burmese people who had lost limbs and family members as castmembers, crewmember, and porters in the film.
4)The film is full of positive and upbeat comments about defeating the SPDC with politcal means as well as by force.
5) The Rambo character takes on his fight for the right reasons and not money. He wasn’t paid. He is just trying to save the lives of the people he dropped off in Burma, reguardless of nationality, race, or religion.
6)The movie shows the brutality of the SPDC, a tonned down hollywood version, but at least they don’t portray them as the good guys.
7)It shows IDPs hiding in the jungle, landmines, and people be hunted like animals by the SPDC.
8) It also shows the “Karen rebels” bounding over the hill and turning the SPDC into pink mist and spagetti sauce.
In the end John Rambo goes home and that is what every Karen wants, to go HOME.
I bought the DVD following the advice of a friend. I was told to watch the last clip in the special features section which I did. There I learned of some other people who have been involved in this fight for many years( some for over 40 years) I attempted to contact all of them. Because of this movie I met one wonderful person with whom I plan on getting to know very well over the next few years.
Did the Rambo movie make the situation in Burma worse? No.
Does people from other countries going to Burma to learn, document it, report it, or fight make the situation worse? To that I say, worse than what?
War is pretty bad as it is. If the war in Burma seems a little one sided that is because it is one sided. If some white guy from half way around the planet takes it upon himself to even the odds a little then I would have to say “good for him and may God bless him for caring enough to stick up for the innocent people getting slaughtered everyday.”
There are groups that spend good amounts of money to visit the refugees in their camps and deliver aid. This is a good and wonderful thing to do, with out a doubt. However, just think if that amount money was used to put the Karen people back into their homes and out of the camps. This is possible…. if that money were put into the right technology in the hands of the right people. There are a great number of tactics that the KNLA could use that would ensure victory in a resonably short amount of time. The KNLA needs the people to train them and they need the right equipment.
The KNLA are great fighters and they know how to fight a guerilla war on a shoestring budget. Increase their budget, training, and technology and you will see a rapid shift in the way things are going. I am telling you, all of you intellectuals out there, there is a way to win this war. I know the way. It will not be easy. We just need to commit to not give up.
I would like to tell you more but…..maybe I’ll save it for Christmas.
I would disagree that there aren’t high quality movies. I transcribed and studied some of the scripts from them years ago. Kyaw Hein being the obvious great actor in so many films:
One of the problems, is that with one TV station, movies effectively became a substitute for TV, being produced in mass quantities and distributed via videotapes, which produced a decline in quality. At least that’s the way it seemed circa 1999-2002 when I lived there.
There was a wonderful book in Burmese produced to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a film organisation in Burma. Most of the films documented in the book unfortunately are only memories, having long decayed in the humid tropical atmosphere.
For those interested, Selth has a longer analysis of Hollywood movies and the politics of Burma over at Southeast Asia Research Centre’s working papers series. Follow this link and scroll down to the 2008 section.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
Mr. Varney, I didn’t ever say Samak doesn’t have a right to speak to the people. Then again, so do Sondhi and Chamlong. They all have a constitutional right to air their views. It’s for the people to decide who they believe.
I don’t think the average person voting for the PPP did so because constitutional change was high on their wish list, or because they wanted Samak as PM, for that matter.
Most people agree some sort of constitutional change is needed. But not calling a broad-based assembly and submitting proposed changes to the electorate for consideration doesn’t seem an appropriate way to go about it for an elected government. The proposed changes, and especially the manner in which the PPP intended to push them through, appeared self serving. So much so, they lost the support of coalition partners and senators.
And while Samak backed down on constitutional changes, he and party members clearly stated they would raise it again. It was a tactical retreat, not a surrender.
If you read my post you will see that I also blamed governments before Thaksin’s for not fostering an independent broadcast media. Previous governments did allow, however, the establishment of iTV as an independent broadcaster and did not tamper with it.
Thaksin bought it and turned it into his personal propaganda vehicle, so he took the one advance in independent broadcasting and destroyed it for personal gain.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
re: Preah Vihear
>I wonder when the last public hearing on this matter took place – or was there ever one? It seems as if >the government has not complied with this article, or am I wrong?
I believe a court can decide if you are right or wrong. As your citation seems to indicate.
What we are talking about is intent.
Applying your logic, we could say the intent of all lese majeste complaints is to defend the monarchy. But we know it isn’t.
The intent of raising the Preah Vihear issue is to stir up an unpleasant and potent nationalistic temper. There’s always been a strong undercurrent of this, pre-dating Thaksin.
And it’s working, too.
Go down to the rally and people will talk to you about it. You know what, they’re not saying the government broke with constitutional procedures, they are saying it sold out the country and its land.
Just because there may be a legal basis for an argument doesn’t mean it isn’t really pitched at the emotions.
That’s not true only of Thailand. It’s effective, if obnoxious, politics.
P.S. Does the agreement clearly provide “for a change in the Thai territories?” More so than the joint exploration agreement with Malaysia, to take an example? Were the suggested consultations taken in those cases? I admit I don’t know.
But doesn’t law usually involves precedent as well as words?
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
Frank: So the comminque was a treaty?
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
21 June 2008
Can any of you ‘real scholars’ out there point me in the right direction to finding a copy of the 1941 Printing Act and subsequent amendments, etc.? I have spent considerable time to no avail.
Thank you!
JSEAS special issue on Burma is out now
Don Jamieson: I don’t understand. I make no claim to speak expertly on Burma. My initial post was to report other’s published and spoken claims. I do question your credentials. For me, critical study involves publication and subjecting one’s views to peer review. I know that sounds academic, but it is the best measure I have. Your views, expressed here, do not suggest to me that you have that training or the insight gained from that kind of experience.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
Partly responding to Robert Horn:
On the media: You blame Thaksin for not fostering independent media. I would agree, but this same criticism could be made of just about every Thai administration.
On law: constitutions in Thailand have been “made” by those in power, including the 1997 version. That is basic law. And, the judiciary is not above reproach (to say the least). If you follow Samak’s recent offerings, it is clear that the govt side would compromise on constitutional reform. And, PPP did campaign on constitutional change. We can recall the last military-imposed government saying clearly that if people didn’t like the 2007 draft constitution, they could change it later. We do indeed reap what is sown.
On Samak: Whether your claim of his being convicted of libel is true or not, the fact remains that he is the leader of an elected government. As such he has every right to speak to the people. We know roughly who is behind him and what he stands for – he made it clear during the election campaign.
On Sondhi: Whether your claim of his being convicted of libel is true or not, he has a right to stand up for PAD (although currently it seems that Chamlong has taken over as chief spokesman, and he seems to be the one who can mobilize demonstrators). But do we really have a clear idea of who he represents? And do we know who is backing him? In Thailand it is often difficult to keep supporters on the streets without considerable financial backing. Who’s providing it this time?
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
Mr. Sinatra, there is no 2005 constitution. Yes, I know you mean the 2007 constitution.
All these constitutions are clearly flawed, and yes, the best solution is to have a broad-based assembly to draft a new one. That’s certainly not what the PPP is proposing. They don’t even want to put their constitutional amendments to a popular vote.
The 1997 was a disaster when it came to checks and balances. It shouldn’t have been ripped up (although every coup government has ripped up the constitution in force when it seized power), but simply reinstating the 1997 constitution without significant changes wouldn’t provide a solution.
The blanket amnesty was unnecessary, according to Abhisit Vejjajiva who spoke at the Foreign Correspondents Club last year. I don’t remember the exact reasons he stated why, but it had to do with Thai legal precedents in trying to bring coup leaders to court for prosecution. He claimed that, basically, they were already off the hook.
In any event, I’m not here to defend the coup leaders. But the PPP is an elected government, and so they have a greater responsibility to submit constitutional changes to the public for approval, instead of acting like the coup leaders.
Some of the PAD’s tactics are troubling. Nonetheless, they still have a constitutional right to protest.
I don’t like the fact that PAD “security” has baseball bats. They should not have them. But had police acted fairly and done their job to protect them from assaults with rocks, bottles and fists from pro-government supporters, it might not have escalated to this point.
We’ve had four police injuries, two of them minor, during a brief scuffle yesterday and that’s basically been it as far as “increasingly violent” is concerned. And credit goes to the police for their restraint. But it’s hardly been a “riot.”
Contrast that with over 200 injured policemen as result of the assault on Prem’s residence by the UDD demonstrators. While some UDD leaders were arrested, the UDD was allowed to continue its protests.
So why doesn’t the PAD have the same right?
Rambo and the real war in Burma
The Burmese junta uses French mercenaries to guard the Total pipelines. They also use Chinese military advisors. The Israelis provide instructors to the Burmese secret police and intelligence agencies.
Andrew Selth uses his position as a movie reviewer to argue that the small number of western ex-military people assisting the Karens is what is prolonging the war.
I would retort that what is prolonging the war are the Israelis, French mercenaries, Chinese advisors, Indian arms dealers and Washington lobbyists who assist in propping up the Burmese junta.
If all of these people exited the scene – not likely – then the SPDC would collapse in short order.
I don’t know why it is, but academics always seem to favor appeasement and accommodation with evil. Perhaps they need to get out of the classroom more often, and out into the real world.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
21 June 2008
Ah…
It’s as if the PD has committed violence, but I don’t remember seeing any, other than that wedge-barge-through yesterday when they broke the police lines to Government House.
In fact, it’s the PPP and Thaksin supporters who HAVE committed violence. What of this PPP MP Karoon who kicked Khun Somkiet of PAD in the Parliament cafeteria, then said if he was found to have really done that he’d quit, and then cops out when a penel found he did do it by saying he had not been tried in court, etc.?
Secondly, before that Dr. Kraisak Choonhavan, who was formerly Chairman of Thailand’s Senate Foreign Relations committee, was severaly kicked by an irate pro-Thaksin supporter as he was innocently standing out near a demonstration. Given Thaksin’s violence-prone record and that of his supporters, I for the life of me can’t understand how anyone could possible cite the PAD as violent. Oh, well…
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
While it’s true that some of what ASTV broadcasts is misinformation, wasn’t that clearly true of iTV and other non-cable television stations under the Thaksin government (and previous governments, except in the case of iTV)?
That’s not meant as a justification for broadcasting misinformation. But, when accurate, balanced and fair news coverage can’t be found or is difficult to find, rumor and misinformation will fill the vacuum.
Had Thaksin and previous governments done more to foster the growth of an independent broadcast media, instead of using it for propaganda, ASTV would have fewer viewers.
I didn’t see Dr. Weng, Jon and Giles getting a lot of airtime on non-cable stations when they were criticizing Thaksin.
It’s also well known that TRT/PPP has a war room of paid posters using dozens of names infusing websites and web boards with pro-TRT/PPP views. Lying on the web is hardly an innovation of Manager Group.
Once again, this isn’t meant as a justification. But, you reap what you sow.
JSEAS special issue on Burma is out now
LOL. You really are a comical fellow, Don Jameson. If anyone is bitter it is obviously you, roaming web boards and blogs denouncing anyone who has a different view on Burma than your own as brainwashed, crazy or just not knowing anything at all about the country. That’s how a loser argues.
Even worse, you make things up about people.
I’m certain that no one by the name of Robert Horn has ever been “expelled” from Burma.
Which of the 37 Nats told you that?
Why don’t you tell us who YOU are, Mr. Jameson? And not with cryptic references to documents that require us to file a Freedom of Information Act request or travel to the National Archives in Maryland.
Your scholarly work on Burma must of incredible earth-shaking insight and importance if that’s the only place it can be found.
As for credentials, Ralph Cramden has a credential you never will:
Common sense.
Rambo and the real war in Burma
Anything that complicates a war where nationalism is at stake will prolong it. Having American nationals involved in the KNLA can only serve to be used as propaganda by the Junta, and consequently foster mistrust and bad communication. As to how much credit those foreign fighters receive can perhaps best be gauged by the Junta’s reaction to them — whether it is an over-exaggerated response or not. A speedy resolution to the conflict will obviously see both parties agreeing on what they can agree on, so perhaps your questions point to another: how long will it be before the Junta will agree to forget their xenophobic, paranoid fascism? Maybe a similar question can be asked of Sylvester Stallone..?
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
“I also find it hard to imagine that anyone actually thinks “This Khao Preah Vihear business” is a matter of principle rather than pandering to the worst sort of nationalist instincts.”
You know, article 190 of the Constitution is interesting. It reads:
“Section 190. The King has the prerogative to conclude a peace treaty, armistice and other treaties with other countries or international organisations.
A treaty which provides for a change in the Thai territories or the Thai external territories that Thailand has sovereign right or jurisdiction over such territories under any treaty or an international law or requires the enactment of an Act for its implementation or affects immensely to economic or social security of the country or results in the binding of trade, investment budget of the country significantly must be approved by the National Assembly. In such case, the National Assembly must complete its consideration within sixty days as from the date of receipt of such matter.
Before the conclusion of a treaty with other countries or international organisations under paragraph two, the Council of Ministers must provide information thereon to the public, conduct public consultation and state information in relevant thereto to the National Assembly. In such case, the Council of Ministers must submit negotiation framework to the National Assembly for approval.
Upon giving signature to the treaty under paragraph two, the Council of Ministers shall, prior to give consent to be bound, facilitate the public to get access to the details of such treaty. In the case where the application of such treaty has affected the public or small and medium entrepreneurs, the Council of Ministers must revise or render remedy to such effects rapidly, expediently and fairly.
There shall be a law determining measure and procedure for the conclusion of a treaty having immense effects to economic or social security of the country or resulting in the binding of trade or investment of the country significantly and the revision or rendering of remedy to the effects of such treaty with due regard to the fairness among the beneficiaries, the affected persons and the general public.
A matter arising from the provisions of paragraph two falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and the provisions of section 154 (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the referring of the matter to the Constitutional Court.”
I wonder when the last public hearing on this matter took place – or was there ever one? It seems as if the government has not complied with this article, or am I wrong?
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
Mr Horn, the PAD protests have begun to appear increasingly violent and illegal, in rhetoric and in action. Protesters brandishing sticks and building makeshift shields, erecting barricades of barbed wire, anyone? They have not cooperated with the authorities nor and intend to do everything they can to bring down an elected government. This much they have said.
Ironically, they want to protect the constitution four months into the term of a government, but where were they when the 1997 Constitution was actually ripped up?
Based on what you’ve said, Mr Horn, I assume that you also disagree with the whole 2005 constitution and the NLA, speaking about self-serving governments that write blanket amnesties for itself? While I am highly suspect of PPP’s intentions, I do believe a fair Parliamentary procedure involving all parties to amend the 2005 is justified and necessary.
JSEAS special issue on Burma is out now
I suggest that those interested in media coverage of Burma after the cyclone consult the article “Burma and the Grey Lady” on the blogspot “Informed Comment: Global Affairs” at icga.blogspot.com.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
21 June 2008
We can argue all month back and forth about fabrication online and in print, on the air, etc. The problem with the government side with all this is that YOU are paying for it as a taxpayer on the one hand, and on the other as a citizen subject to the decisions being made.
As I said and will likely keep saying until eventually even I see light at the end of the tunnel is that things here are more illusion than substance, no matter which side they come from.
Rambo and the real war in Burma
I was happy to see that “Sly” used Burma as the subject of his latest Rambo movie. The KNLA freedom fighters that I met in Burma enjoyed seeing the SPDC laid to waste in the movie. Some one asked me what moment struck me as the” strangest during my trip into Burma?” I would have to say sitting in a house with KNLA freedom fighters watching a bootleg version of Rambo 4. That will always be one of the most memorial moments in my life as a movie watcher.
There were a few things I did not like about the movie and a several that I did like. Since I like to see the positive things in life I will consentrate on the things I liked about the movie.
1) The films opening shows actual video shot by the Free Burma Rangers, and news footage of crimes against humanity and human rights violations.
2) It was filmed in Thailand which is about as close as possible to filming inside Burma. The production company had to get permission from the Thai Government to bring in weapons and over 90,000 rounds of ammo. That shows some level of understanding from the Thai Government.
3)They used real Karen and Burmese people who had lost limbs and family members as castmembers, crewmember, and porters in the film.
4)The film is full of positive and upbeat comments about defeating the SPDC with politcal means as well as by force.
5) The Rambo character takes on his fight for the right reasons and not money. He wasn’t paid. He is just trying to save the lives of the people he dropped off in Burma, reguardless of nationality, race, or religion.
6)The movie shows the brutality of the SPDC, a tonned down hollywood version, but at least they don’t portray them as the good guys.
7)It shows IDPs hiding in the jungle, landmines, and people be hunted like animals by the SPDC.
8) It also shows the “Karen rebels” bounding over the hill and turning the SPDC into pink mist and spagetti sauce.
In the end John Rambo goes home and that is what every Karen wants, to go HOME.
I bought the DVD following the advice of a friend. I was told to watch the last clip in the special features section which I did. There I learned of some other people who have been involved in this fight for many years( some for over 40 years) I attempted to contact all of them. Because of this movie I met one wonderful person with whom I plan on getting to know very well over the next few years.
Did the Rambo movie make the situation in Burma worse? No.
Does people from other countries going to Burma to learn, document it, report it, or fight make the situation worse? To that I say, worse than what?
War is pretty bad as it is. If the war in Burma seems a little one sided that is because it is one sided. If some white guy from half way around the planet takes it upon himself to even the odds a little then I would have to say “good for him and may God bless him for caring enough to stick up for the innocent people getting slaughtered everyday.”
There are groups that spend good amounts of money to visit the refugees in their camps and deliver aid. This is a good and wonderful thing to do, with out a doubt. However, just think if that amount money was used to put the Karen people back into their homes and out of the camps. This is possible…. if that money were put into the right technology in the hands of the right people. There are a great number of tactics that the KNLA could use that would ensure victory in a resonably short amount of time. The KNLA needs the people to train them and they need the right equipment.
The KNLA are great fighters and they know how to fight a guerilla war on a shoestring budget. Increase their budget, training, and technology and you will see a rapid shift in the way things are going. I am telling you, all of you intellectuals out there, there is a way to win this war. I know the way. It will not be easy. We just need to commit to not give up.
I would like to tell you more but…..maybe I’ll save it for Christmas.
God bless those who fight for freedom, Jack
Rambo and the real war in Burma
The Selth paper on the Burmese cinema was very informative. Couldn’t put it down once I started reading it.
I would disagree that there aren’t high quality movies. I transcribed and studied some of the scripts from them years ago. Kyaw Hein being the obvious great actor in so many films:
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/jfernquest/bcinema.html
One of the problems, is that with one TV station, movies effectively became a substitute for TV, being produced in mass quantities and distributed via videotapes, which produced a decline in quality. At least that’s the way it seemed circa 1999-2002 when I lived there.
There was a wonderful book in Burmese produced to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a film organisation in Burma. Most of the films documented in the book unfortunately are only memories, having long decayed in the humid tropical atmosphere.
Rambo and the real war in Burma
For those interested, Selth has a longer analysis of Hollywood movies and the politics of Burma over at Southeast Asia Research Centre’s working papers series. Follow this link and scroll down to the 2008 section.
http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc/
Minute-by-minute from Bangkok
[…] that will direct you to, as they put it, minute-by-minute (not to say, blow-by-blow) coverage. Check it out if it’s not too depressing for […]