Thank you, Serhat. I actually think it might be easier to burn to disk and post it to me, if that isn’t too inconvenient. I can then make copies for others who’d like them.
Postal address: CJ Hinke, Box 31, Udomsuk Post Office, Bangkok 10261
We “Burma guys” are caught up in the debate because we find it frustrating to read statements by people who have apparently never been to the country but presume to know more about it than those who have lived there and studied it extensively. In many respects Burma is a very beautiful place with an engaging people and it is heartrending to see this distorted by much of the media commentary, which seems to view it as a plaything to advance personal or ideological agendas. As for our knowledge of Burma generally, in my case, I was Political and Economic Counsellor at a major western embassy, was in daily contact with people at all levels of society, as well as many government officials, and traveled extensively thoughout the country on a regular basis. I also read extensively on Burmese culture and history, much of this from material obtained at the venerable Pagan Book Store in downtown Rangoon, which curiously has almost every significant book ever published on Burma in English. Since normally there was only one copy of each the proprietor made bound zerox copies for sale to customers. I also have some cherished first editions of classic writings by early English colonial administrators in Burma from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which I purchased from the same source. To suggest that such carefully and painstakingly developed knowledge is less meaningful than wild opinions based on often sensationalized media reporting boggles the mind. The simple fact seems to be that many of those commenting on Burma have never taken the time to study or understand the country in all its complexity and are thus free to tee off with any idea that pops off the top of their heads. I find that offensive and tremendously sad because the people of Burma, among whom I have many close friends, deserve much better from outside observers who claim to have their interests at heart but in many cases do not know what they are talking about.
Wow, you Burma guys really get caught up in your debates. A couple of points:
1) Most informed observers, including academics, agree that sanctions have failed and have been poorly targeted so that the impact has not been on the junta’s members.
2) Most of those observers also agree that the regime in Burma is providing bad government (witness the cyclone debacle). Aung-Thwin and a couple of other academic observers take a more pro-regime position, of course.
3) Steinberg suggesting that political change must be internally driven begs the question of why there has been so little change since 1962. It also ignores that most political change (generally) is not entirely internally driven; at least that seems to be the consensus of historians of SE Asia of late. (I should add that I don’t have access to the Steinberg article.)
4) Thinking that Soros et al are responsible for the monks uprising provides great succor to the regime. Recal that Aung-Thwin also joined the regime in accusing the monks of being false and depraved not real monks.
5) Having lived in a country (or even having been born there) is no guarantee of great insight or necessarily of the capacity to reject the views of others. My undergraduates always say that being “on the ground” is the best way to understand. I reject this unless that on the ground experience is based on critical academic study. I doubt that I am any great expert on the politics of the country of my birth and where I spent 30 years growing up when compared with others who have intensively studied that country (even if they are outside it). In other words, a capacity to understand a place is not obtained through osmosis but through learning and study.
That BA thesis sounds very interesting; if you would care to go in to more detail about it, it could very well help expand this discussion. Martin Smith in “Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity” has an appendix on millenarianism, and mentions several Karen millennial sects that were influenced by Christianity. It certainly be interesting to hear the missionary description of the Karen millennial movements.
Of course, those millennial movements cut both ways. Harold Young, the missionary patriarch of Young family, was helped in his conversions among the Lahus by Lahu prophecies (see pg 304 of McCoy’s “The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia”). As McCoy writes “Although investigators councluded that Reverand Young was pandering to pagan myths, Baptist congregations in the the United States were impressed by his statistical success and had already started sending large contributions to ‘gather in the harvest’ “.
Martin Smith notes that the Lahu rebellion in Burma began in 1972 headed by Pu Kyaung Long, a traditional Lahu spiritual leader ( the same type of spiritual leader Young was when he was “pandering to pagan myths), and that his followers included Christian Lahus from Thailand. I had lunch with one of his sons in the company of 3 Lahu Baptist pastors in a Lahu village on the Thai side of the border in the early 1990s. I didn’t know who he was until after lunch when one of the pastors informed me of who his father was. Despite the fact he wasn’t Christian, they all seemed to have known each other quite well and were on good terms.
Frank G. Anderson: I have to say that I don’t buy the argument that elections in Thailand are a sham. There are numerous problems with them that are well covered in the academic research literature over the years. However, to say that elections therefore amount to nought (I am paraphrasing, of course) is to ignore a lot of recent literature that attempts to place elections in local contexts.
My observations of election periods in 2000-1 and 2007-8 suggested to me that to say that Thais are bought, ordered and/or intimidated on how they should vote is a gross exaggeration of the reality of rural political activity. No doubt there is some of that, and some areas maybe a lot of it. However, the elections where TRT were elected by landslides suggests that other factors were at work. There is academic research there to be read.
The interesting debate from some of the PAD and quite a number of royalists is to say that elections = representation but not participation. That’s an interesting line for it raises notions of participation to the level of a political desire that has not really been articulated by the conservative elite before.
This is form Prachatai and illustrates a point I made:
“What is more ironical is the recognition that the international media have a better understanding of the Thai political situation than the Thai media or Thai people.”
I believe there are at least two major reasons for this truism. First is that Thais are blindsided by their own culture of illusion, and the other is that they are also generally deprived of information and the opportunity to intellectually analyze it when it is available.
And this is not being condescending.
19 June 2008
Like I already said, don’t read between the lines when there aren’t any. Sondhi, by the way, many times criticized the junta here and called them useless, wavering and uncommitted. And it didn’t take him long.
Perhaps stressing will help – no single person is THE solution. Sondhi thinks he is perhaps, but he is wrong. But this divisiveness here in Thailand where everyone rejects the other because of partial differences is what’s killing off hopes for democratic reform.
No need to merge, like Suwat Liptapanlop did with TRT, or to accept everything Giles or Jon says, but lots of people have the intellect to uncover things that need to be addressed and fought for.
I am convinced, also, that no one on this planet is entitled to give amnesty for genocide, war crimes and/or human rights violations. Yet, people do so.
I see the state enterprise labor unions are joining with the PAD. There is a case of different interests joining together. Not in all respects, but in many.
Ms. Moe Aung and Mr. Grasshopper: I will be in Narathiwat, Yala, and perhaps Pattani for the next six weeks. So if I don’t answer you posts, please don’t think I an not interested in your comments on ethnic minority civil war in Burma. I am interested in your analysis of this situation and will respond when I return.
(Correcting previous post by adding word “rally” in the first paragraph)
I remember Sondhi L. at a 2006 PAD rally urging soldiers to shoot Thaksin because he allegedly insulted the monarchy.
I also remember the PAD letting Manoon take the stage at another 2006 rally to go on about how the military saved the nation at various points, including 1976.
I remember just a week or so Sondhi delivering his attacks from the PAD stage in Chinese, spiced with an expression that roughly translates as “motherf***er.”
I *don’t* remember the PAD criticizing any of the business and political shenanigans pulled off by the 2006 coup makers.
Is this productive, educational discourse?
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.
Frank Anderson is on the right track, but hasn’t travelled very far down the line. Participatory democracy has to come from the grassroots, not be managed by a demagogue. Some veteran activists, footsoldiers of the October generation who unlike some PAD types haven’t become star-struck, recognize this and are in it for the long haul. Their work doesn’t get covered by ASTV.
NKPVET, I tend to believe that enforcing the illusion of state apparatus will only serve to promote traditional ethnic conflict. What I would like to see happen by the time the Myanmar regime folds is to Burma/Myanmar geography is incorporated into an ASEAN region … or a region for mainland South East Asia that is not only about fostering economies, but about fostering common laws which reflect views on justice significant to regional citizens, and are not arbitrarily connected to colonialism by either being reactionary or counter-reactionary. So by reducing the importance of borders, the traditional hostilities in Burmese territories are overwhelmed by an influx of multicultural opportunity. If the international community is not evolving into an interregional community, and we are stagnating in state based tit for tat righteousness, then perhaps the inevitable outcome would resemble a self-hating hydra…
There are so many articles on this site about this, I wouldn’t worry. As for my pub like reaction, yes whenever I see the prophecies of Huntington looming in front of me I forget being in lotus position on the top of a sepulchral cliff and instead try to control the lightening… *fades out into deft, deep cymbal chimes* Welcome to New Mandala though, it’s floorboards may only be two years old but there has been enough spilt on them to make it seem much older…
Apparently Robert Horn has never been to Burma, as jonfernquest and I have (I lived there for three years) and thus has no appreciation for the actual situation on the ground. He also has been brainwashed by the media on Burma it appears. No one is saying that the Burmese military government is good. What we are saying is that it is not much different from many other similar governments in the third world which do not get this sort of treatment by western governments and media. He has noted that isolation did not work but blames China, India and others for this rather than recognizing that it was ill advised to embark on a policy of isolation under these conditions in the first place. The result has been to drive Burma into the arms of governments which have no interest in promoting democracy and human rights rather than maintaining contacts which would make it possible to influence the situation there, however marginally. David Steinberg is one of the few realistic commentators on the situation in Burma, which he has been studying since he lived there in the 1950s. How stupid is it to dismiss the advice of people with lengthy experience on the spot in Burma while adopting policies based on ignorance of the actual situation and then complaining that they did not work because others see through this nonsense and do not go along with it. This is a head in the sand approach to international affairs and no amount of abuse directed at those who actually understand the situation will change that fact. This attitude is reminiscent of the “who lost China” debate of the 1950s/60s and the “who lost Vietnam” debate which surfaces again at every election cycle. Soon there will be a “who lost Iraq” debate of the same nature. These places were never ours to lose but the failures in each case can be attributed very clearly to those who made the original erroneous policies and no amount of bluster to the contrary can alter that fact, except perhaps in the minds of people who are so ill informed that they do not realize what actually happened. With this kind of thinking so widespread in America we can expect more such disasters in the future, unfortunately.
The book blurb on the right is a short bio of the author and says (my rough translation):
Takazumi Nishiyama was born in Kyoto in 1964, did not complete his universitiy studies, but travelled overseas in search of adventure. Based in Thailand he roamed around Indochina, experiencing volunteer activities for about a year, before returning to Japan. A year later he again went overseas, and was in contact with anti-government guerillas in Tahiland, Lasom Cambodia an Vitenam.
From January 1989, joining the democracy movement in Burma, he participated in the anti-government KNU forces. In the KNLA army after giving instruction to the student soldiers of the ABSDF all-Burma students’ front, he fought against the Burmese (Myanmar) military regime’s army at frontlines such as Wankha, Paru, Dagween (spelling not clear). At present he is still active on frontline of the Karen Liberation Army.
18 June 2008
Gentlemen, and I hope I am not misusing the word…
Do not confuse issues, actions, personalities and what is said or not said. I get enough of that from expats and Thais up here in Korat. Sure you august writers should know better. Condescension and presumptions do not have a place in honest debate.
I am not backing down from my earlier point or current arguments. As well, don’t paint me in the PAD corner blindly. I am there often but stand on my own and don’t mind having differences with the PAD and/or its membership should circumstances and principles warrant.
You mention Sondhi being convicted of libel. What does that have to do with the price of chicken? Argue to the argument and not to side issues. And, I believe the decision is in appellate court, is it not?
It seems that the bigger and more powerful you are here in Thailand, the easier it is to get convictions against people you don’t like, especially when using that large harpoon lese majeste. Why is defamation in Thailand also a criminal offense? A crime to insult someone? Is 400 million Baht against a poor little female reporter not sufficient for the likes of Thaksin?
I find that reputations in the LOS don’t need to be based on anything except secrecy, insistence and intimidation. Then when someone opens the can of worms all of a sudden it’s criminal defamation! Courts here in Thailand are also subject to error, and deserve criticism whenever they make a mistake, and certainly questions when they are apparently doing so.
I listen to some of the PAD, for example such as today, and quickly reach my saturation level and get online or listen to some soothing music instead. But as I said, Thailand needs a thousand PADs all over the place – obstinate people who won’t take no for an answer, people who stick with it, people who have honest motives in trying to straighten out messes they have been handed. Not everyone in the PAD or outside the PAD is like this, but there are plenty there who have the right direction and their heads screwed on right. If these guys don’t start populating Thai society, you are headed for another 3-4 centuries of sticking your heads in the sand while everything gets stolen, cheated and otherwise mishandled. Participative democracy is not making the general population of Thailand very happy, obviously. After all, people are not conforming to the “Thai way” but instead are shouting, refusing to accept stupid explanations and persisting in getting rid of another bunch of crooks. Listening to MI1, the PM, etc., is an absolute tragedy in the best of Shakespearean tradition. As someone in NIDA where I taught many years ago said, Samak is a moron. Bush I don’t argue is any different. In fact, I support actively his impeachment by writing to my congressmen and senators, and complain to him and other agencies directly. This is not to prolong this discussion, but to offer some insight into things that people say – don’t be too ready to accuse them of waffling unless you know it, and don’t be too ready to dismiss a phenomenon that has lots of faults but more to its credit. The message to thinkers is…think.
No amount of money from George Soros or any American foundation could pushed those monks onto the streets of Rangoon and in front of soldiers with a track record of shooting unarmed civilians if there wasn’t genuine, severe and desperate suffering among the Burmese people. It’s sad to see academics and bloggers who don’t live under these conditions completely ignoring them in their “analysis”.
The notion that the actions of the US made the junta’s criminal response to the victims of Cyclone Nargis possible is also completely ludicrous. The US has failed to isolate Burma. The regime in Burma receives more than ample support and succor from the Chinese, Indians, Russians and ASEAN. Yet all that money, arms and coddling from those “allies” did nothing to make the junta the least bit more responsible in dealing with the suffering of its own people. So, blame the US and Western Europe instead.
I wouldn’t call some of the views expressed here “thought crimes” (oh how ye noble defenders of the SPDC regime suffer at the hands of your heartless persecutors, woe unto you), but I would call them thoughtless.
Frank: “The problem here in Thailand is that these ‘elected’ and bought politicians get right to work cheating, raking off and hiding without any fear of losing their chair. ”
The problem with the PAD is that its leader has been convicted of libel, yet persists in “educating” the public without any shred of evidence. The PAD’s self-righteousness is to the point of contempt for the law they supposedly want to uphold. They will push on regardless of law or reason, much like how the Eurocrats are pushing the Lisbon Treaty irrespective of Ireland’s referendum (might I say the only referendum held in the EU). So when the PAD applies the same standards to itself, it will then begin to re-gain some credibility in my eyes, because at the moment you are all talking sh*t and acting like spoilt children, basically.
BTW, what were the original reasons for the protest? If remember correctly, you were protesting was to remove Jakrapob and stop the Constitutional Amendments (which ironically all parties do support). Guess what, you’ve succeeded, now disperse. Don’t be people who р╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Др╕╖р╕Ър╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕ир╕нр╕Б, or are you protesting for protest’s sake?
Grasshopper: you tend to be emotional and sometimes bitter in your posts. You also belittle people.
This is constructive criticism because you have some very good points, but the tone of your posts detracts from them. We are not your enemy. If you think my post contained a simplistic statement, OK. But don’t go off on a tangent. It helps no one.
If we were in a bar drinking and discussing politics, your ranting (and I would be ranting also) would be perfectly acceptable. But in a discussion group, I believe it is best to be polite and also to show a bit of humility.
Now, I want to thank you for your last pretty much unemotional and informative post. I agree with you that when (hopefully) the SPDC government collapses that the citizens should get the chance to bring the tyrants to justice. Only then can justice be served.
You seem to imply that Than Shwe will not be able to flee to another country and live a life of luxury in safety.
A couple of hours ago I would have disagreed with you. After reading your post and ruminating for a bit, I now agree.
The international community has read about the injustices of the SPDC for so many years that no country would accept him or his cronies and allow them to live in exile.
Emotionally, I hope the people of Burma lynch the SOB, but intellectually I know that law must prevail.
Please read the last four paragraphs of my post before yours. It is off this subject, but I would like to hear your views concerning long term civil wars between the ethnic minorities.
I’m a new guy here. Maybe it is more appropriate to find an article on this site dealing with this situation. If you can point me to one, I’d appreciate it. Then I will post there and you and Ms. Moe Aung can, if you wish, give me your opinions.
Please stay calm. You remind me of me when I was young.
I see, I am dealing not with a comment, but with its “spirit”! Didn’t know that I would need that much supernatural hermeneutics… Or is this an evasive writing strategy, suggesting that the author did not really write what he wrote? Indeed, that’s suitable for rambling.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
Thank you, Serhat. I actually think it might be easier to burn to disk and post it to me, if that isn’t too inconvenient. I can then make copies for others who’d like them.
Postal address: CJ Hinke, Box 31, Udomsuk Post Office, Bangkok 10261
Thank you so much!
JSEAS special issue on Burma is out now
We “Burma guys” are caught up in the debate because we find it frustrating to read statements by people who have apparently never been to the country but presume to know more about it than those who have lived there and studied it extensively. In many respects Burma is a very beautiful place with an engaging people and it is heartrending to see this distorted by much of the media commentary, which seems to view it as a plaything to advance personal or ideological agendas. As for our knowledge of Burma generally, in my case, I was Political and Economic Counsellor at a major western embassy, was in daily contact with people at all levels of society, as well as many government officials, and traveled extensively thoughout the country on a regular basis. I also read extensively on Burmese culture and history, much of this from material obtained at the venerable Pagan Book Store in downtown Rangoon, which curiously has almost every significant book ever published on Burma in English. Since normally there was only one copy of each the proprietor made bound zerox copies for sale to customers. I also have some cherished first editions of classic writings by early English colonial administrators in Burma from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which I purchased from the same source. To suggest that such carefully and painstakingly developed knowledge is less meaningful than wild opinions based on often sensationalized media reporting boggles the mind. The simple fact seems to be that many of those commenting on Burma have never taken the time to study or understand the country in all its complexity and are thus free to tee off with any idea that pops off the top of their heads. I find that offensive and tremendously sad because the people of Burma, among whom I have many close friends, deserve much better from outside observers who claim to have their interests at heart but in many cases do not know what they are talking about.
JSEAS special issue on Burma is out now
Wow, you Burma guys really get caught up in your debates. A couple of points:
1) Most informed observers, including academics, agree that sanctions have failed and have been poorly targeted so that the impact has not been on the junta’s members.
2) Most of those observers also agree that the regime in Burma is providing bad government (witness the cyclone debacle). Aung-Thwin and a couple of other academic observers take a more pro-regime position, of course.
3) Steinberg suggesting that political change must be internally driven begs the question of why there has been so little change since 1962. It also ignores that most political change (generally) is not entirely internally driven; at least that seems to be the consensus of historians of SE Asia of late. (I should add that I don’t have access to the Steinberg article.)
4) Thinking that Soros et al are responsible for the monks uprising provides great succor to the regime. Recal that Aung-Thwin also joined the regime in accusing the monks of being false and depraved not real monks.
5) Having lived in a country (or even having been born there) is no guarantee of great insight or necessarily of the capacity to reject the views of others. My undergraduates always say that being “on the ground” is the best way to understand. I reject this unless that on the ground experience is based on critical academic study. I doubt that I am any great expert on the politics of the country of my birth and where I spent 30 years growing up when compared with others who have intensively studied that country (even if they are outside it). In other words, a capacity to understand a place is not obtained through osmosis but through learning and study.
Mission to Burma, and to the Lahu, and the rest…
Kate G. ,
That BA thesis sounds very interesting; if you would care to go in to more detail about it, it could very well help expand this discussion. Martin Smith in “Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity” has an appendix on millenarianism, and mentions several Karen millennial sects that were influenced by Christianity. It certainly be interesting to hear the missionary description of the Karen millennial movements.
Of course, those millennial movements cut both ways. Harold Young, the missionary patriarch of Young family, was helped in his conversions among the Lahus by Lahu prophecies (see pg 304 of McCoy’s “The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia”). As McCoy writes “Although investigators councluded that Reverand Young was pandering to pagan myths, Baptist congregations in the the United States were impressed by his statistical success and had already started sending large contributions to ‘gather in the harvest’ “.
Martin Smith notes that the Lahu rebellion in Burma began in 1972 headed by Pu Kyaung Long, a traditional Lahu spiritual leader ( the same type of spiritual leader Young was when he was “pandering to pagan myths), and that his followers included Christian Lahus from Thailand. I had lunch with one of his sons in the company of 3 Lahu Baptist pastors in a Lahu village on the Thai side of the border in the early 1990s. I didn’t know who he was until after lunch when one of the pastors informed me of who his father was. Despite the fact he wasn’t Christian, they all seemed to have known each other quite well and were on good terms.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
Frank G. Anderson: I have to say that I don’t buy the argument that elections in Thailand are a sham. There are numerous problems with them that are well covered in the academic research literature over the years. However, to say that elections therefore amount to nought (I am paraphrasing, of course) is to ignore a lot of recent literature that attempts to place elections in local contexts.
My observations of election periods in 2000-1 and 2007-8 suggested to me that to say that Thais are bought, ordered and/or intimidated on how they should vote is a gross exaggeration of the reality of rural political activity. No doubt there is some of that, and some areas maybe a lot of it. However, the elections where TRT were elected by landslides suggests that other factors were at work. There is academic research there to be read.
The interesting debate from some of the PAD and quite a number of royalists is to say that elections = representation but not participation. That’s an interesting line for it raises notions of participation to the level of a political desire that has not really been articulated by the conservative elite before.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
This is form Prachatai and illustrates a point I made:
“What is more ironical is the recognition that the international media have a better understanding of the Thai political situation than the Thai media or Thai people.”
I believe there are at least two major reasons for this truism. First is that Thais are blindsided by their own culture of illusion, and the other is that they are also generally deprived of information and the opportunity to intellectually analyze it when it is available.
And this is not being condescending.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
19 June 2008
Like I already said, don’t read between the lines when there aren’t any. Sondhi, by the way, many times criticized the junta here and called them useless, wavering and uncommitted. And it didn’t take him long.
Perhaps stressing will help – no single person is THE solution. Sondhi thinks he is perhaps, but he is wrong. But this divisiveness here in Thailand where everyone rejects the other because of partial differences is what’s killing off hopes for democratic reform.
No need to merge, like Suwat Liptapanlop did with TRT, or to accept everything Giles or Jon says, but lots of people have the intellect to uncover things that need to be addressed and fought for.
I am convinced, also, that no one on this planet is entitled to give amnesty for genocide, war crimes and/or human rights violations. Yet, people do so.
I see the state enterprise labor unions are joining with the PAD. There is a case of different interests joining together. Not in all respects, but in many.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
CJ Hinke: A friend of mine recorded the documentary for me. It’s a huge file but I will try to post a copy to you within the next few days.
Does Than Shwe have anything to fear from international law?
Ms. Moe Aung and Mr. Grasshopper: I will be in Narathiwat, Yala, and perhaps Pattani for the next six weeks. So if I don’t answer you posts, please don’t think I an not interested in your comments on ethnic minority civil war in Burma. I am interested in your analysis of this situation and will respond when I return.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
(Correcting previous post by adding word “rally” in the first paragraph)
I remember Sondhi L. at a 2006 PAD rally urging soldiers to shoot Thaksin because he allegedly insulted the monarchy.
I also remember the PAD letting Manoon take the stage at another 2006 rally to go on about how the military saved the nation at various points, including 1976.
I remember just a week or so Sondhi delivering his attacks from the PAD stage in Chinese, spiced with an expression that roughly translates as “motherf***er.”
I *don’t* remember the PAD criticizing any of the business and political shenanigans pulled off by the 2006 coup makers.
Is this productive, educational discourse?
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.
Frank Anderson is on the right track, but hasn’t travelled very far down the line. Participatory democracy has to come from the grassroots, not be managed by a demagogue. Some veteran activists, footsoldiers of the October generation who unlike some PAD types haven’t become star-struck, recognize this and are in it for the long haul. Their work doesn’t get covered by ASTV.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Does Than Shwe have anything to fear from international law?
NKPVET, I tend to believe that enforcing the illusion of state apparatus will only serve to promote traditional ethnic conflict. What I would like to see happen by the time the Myanmar regime folds is to Burma/Myanmar geography is incorporated into an ASEAN region … or a region for mainland South East Asia that is not only about fostering economies, but about fostering common laws which reflect views on justice significant to regional citizens, and are not arbitrarily connected to colonialism by either being reactionary or counter-reactionary. So by reducing the importance of borders, the traditional hostilities in Burmese territories are overwhelmed by an influx of multicultural opportunity. If the international community is not evolving into an interregional community, and we are stagnating in state based tit for tat righteousness, then perhaps the inevitable outcome would resemble a self-hating hydra…
There are so many articles on this site about this, I wouldn’t worry. As for my pub like reaction, yes whenever I see the prophecies of Huntington looming in front of me I forget being in lotus position on the top of a sepulchral cliff and instead try to control the lightening… *fades out into deft, deep cymbal chimes* Welcome to New Mandala though, it’s floorboards may only be two years old but there has been enough spilt on them to make it seem much older…
JSEAS special issue on Burma is out now
Apparently Robert Horn has never been to Burma, as jonfernquest and I have (I lived there for three years) and thus has no appreciation for the actual situation on the ground. He also has been brainwashed by the media on Burma it appears. No one is saying that the Burmese military government is good. What we are saying is that it is not much different from many other similar governments in the third world which do not get this sort of treatment by western governments and media. He has noted that isolation did not work but blames China, India and others for this rather than recognizing that it was ill advised to embark on a policy of isolation under these conditions in the first place. The result has been to drive Burma into the arms of governments which have no interest in promoting democracy and human rights rather than maintaining contacts which would make it possible to influence the situation there, however marginally. David Steinberg is one of the few realistic commentators on the situation in Burma, which he has been studying since he lived there in the 1950s. How stupid is it to dismiss the advice of people with lengthy experience on the spot in Burma while adopting policies based on ignorance of the actual situation and then complaining that they did not work because others see through this nonsense and do not go along with it. This is a head in the sand approach to international affairs and no amount of abuse directed at those who actually understand the situation will change that fact. This attitude is reminiscent of the “who lost China” debate of the 1950s/60s and the “who lost Vietnam” debate which surfaces again at every election cycle. Soon there will be a “who lost Iraq” debate of the same nature. These places were never ours to lose but the failures in each case can be attributed very clearly to those who made the original erroneous policies and no amount of bluster to the contrary can alter that fact, except perhaps in the minds of people who are so ill informed that they do not realize what actually happened. With this kind of thinking so widespread in America we can expect more such disasters in the future, unfortunately.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
Maybe I am dense but still would like to know how to obtain that book, digitally in English or Thai.
Thanks.
A Japanese tale
The book blurb on the right is a short bio of the author and says (my rough translation):
Takazumi Nishiyama was born in Kyoto in 1964, did not complete his universitiy studies, but travelled overseas in search of adventure. Based in Thailand he roamed around Indochina, experiencing volunteer activities for about a year, before returning to Japan. A year later he again went overseas, and was in contact with anti-government guerillas in Tahiland, Lasom Cambodia an Vitenam.
From January 1989, joining the democracy movement in Burma, he participated in the anti-government KNU forces. In the KNLA army after giving instruction to the student soldiers of the ABSDF all-Burma students’ front, he fought against the Burmese (Myanmar) military regime’s army at frontlines such as Wankha, Paru, Dagween (spelling not clear). At present he is still active on frontline of the Karen Liberation Army.
[The publication date in not present]
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
18 June 2008
Gentlemen, and I hope I am not misusing the word…
Do not confuse issues, actions, personalities and what is said or not said. I get enough of that from expats and Thais up here in Korat. Sure you august writers should know better. Condescension and presumptions do not have a place in honest debate.
I am not backing down from my earlier point or current arguments. As well, don’t paint me in the PAD corner blindly. I am there often but stand on my own and don’t mind having differences with the PAD and/or its membership should circumstances and principles warrant.
You mention Sondhi being convicted of libel. What does that have to do with the price of chicken? Argue to the argument and not to side issues. And, I believe the decision is in appellate court, is it not?
It seems that the bigger and more powerful you are here in Thailand, the easier it is to get convictions against people you don’t like, especially when using that large harpoon lese majeste. Why is defamation in Thailand also a criminal offense? A crime to insult someone? Is 400 million Baht against a poor little female reporter not sufficient for the likes of Thaksin?
I find that reputations in the LOS don’t need to be based on anything except secrecy, insistence and intimidation. Then when someone opens the can of worms all of a sudden it’s criminal defamation! Courts here in Thailand are also subject to error, and deserve criticism whenever they make a mistake, and certainly questions when they are apparently doing so.
I listen to some of the PAD, for example such as today, and quickly reach my saturation level and get online or listen to some soothing music instead. But as I said, Thailand needs a thousand PADs all over the place – obstinate people who won’t take no for an answer, people who stick with it, people who have honest motives in trying to straighten out messes they have been handed. Not everyone in the PAD or outside the PAD is like this, but there are plenty there who have the right direction and their heads screwed on right. If these guys don’t start populating Thai society, you are headed for another 3-4 centuries of sticking your heads in the sand while everything gets stolen, cheated and otherwise mishandled. Participative democracy is not making the general population of Thailand very happy, obviously. After all, people are not conforming to the “Thai way” but instead are shouting, refusing to accept stupid explanations and persisting in getting rid of another bunch of crooks. Listening to MI1, the PM, etc., is an absolute tragedy in the best of Shakespearean tradition. As someone in NIDA where I taught many years ago said, Samak is a moron. Bush I don’t argue is any different. In fact, I support actively his impeachment by writing to my congressmen and senators, and complain to him and other agencies directly. This is not to prolong this discussion, but to offer some insight into things that people say – don’t be too ready to accuse them of waffling unless you know it, and don’t be too ready to dismiss a phenomenon that has lots of faults but more to its credit. The message to thinkers is…think.
Privatise the profits. Socialise the losses.
Pork? Oh wait….
JSEAS special issue on Burma is out now
No amount of money from George Soros or any American foundation could pushed those monks onto the streets of Rangoon and in front of soldiers with a track record of shooting unarmed civilians if there wasn’t genuine, severe and desperate suffering among the Burmese people. It’s sad to see academics and bloggers who don’t live under these conditions completely ignoring them in their “analysis”.
The notion that the actions of the US made the junta’s criminal response to the victims of Cyclone Nargis possible is also completely ludicrous. The US has failed to isolate Burma. The regime in Burma receives more than ample support and succor from the Chinese, Indians, Russians and ASEAN. Yet all that money, arms and coddling from those “allies” did nothing to make the junta the least bit more responsible in dealing with the suffering of its own people. So, blame the US and Western Europe instead.
I wouldn’t call some of the views expressed here “thought crimes” (oh how ye noble defenders of the SPDC regime suffer at the hands of your heartless persecutors, woe unto you), but I would call them thoughtless.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
Frank: “The problem here in Thailand is that these ‘elected’ and bought politicians get right to work cheating, raking off and hiding without any fear of losing their chair. ”
The problem with the PAD is that its leader has been convicted of libel, yet persists in “educating” the public without any shred of evidence. The PAD’s self-righteousness is to the point of contempt for the law they supposedly want to uphold. They will push on regardless of law or reason, much like how the Eurocrats are pushing the Lisbon Treaty irrespective of Ireland’s referendum (might I say the only referendum held in the EU). So when the PAD applies the same standards to itself, it will then begin to re-gain some credibility in my eyes, because at the moment you are all talking sh*t and acting like spoilt children, basically.
BTW, what were the original reasons for the protest? If remember correctly, you were protesting was to remove Jakrapob and stop the Constitutional Amendments (which ironically all parties do support). Guess what, you’ve succeeded, now disperse. Don’t be people who р╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Др╕╖р╕Ър╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕ир╕нр╕Б, or are you protesting for protest’s sake?
Does Than Shwe have anything to fear from international law?
Grasshopper: you tend to be emotional and sometimes bitter in your posts. You also belittle people.
This is constructive criticism because you have some very good points, but the tone of your posts detracts from them. We are not your enemy. If you think my post contained a simplistic statement, OK. But don’t go off on a tangent. It helps no one.
If we were in a bar drinking and discussing politics, your ranting (and I would be ranting also) would be perfectly acceptable. But in a discussion group, I believe it is best to be polite and also to show a bit of humility.
Now, I want to thank you for your last pretty much unemotional and informative post. I agree with you that when (hopefully) the SPDC government collapses that the citizens should get the chance to bring the tyrants to justice. Only then can justice be served.
You seem to imply that Than Shwe will not be able to flee to another country and live a life of luxury in safety.
A couple of hours ago I would have disagreed with you. After reading your post and ruminating for a bit, I now agree.
The international community has read about the injustices of the SPDC for so many years that no country would accept him or his cronies and allow them to live in exile.
Emotionally, I hope the people of Burma lynch the SOB, but intellectually I know that law must prevail.
Please read the last four paragraphs of my post before yours. It is off this subject, but I would like to hear your views concerning long term civil wars between the ethnic minorities.
I’m a new guy here. Maybe it is more appropriate to find an article on this site dealing with this situation. If you can point me to one, I’d appreciate it. Then I will post there and you and Ms. Moe Aung can, if you wish, give me your opinions.
Please stay calm. You remind me of me when I was young.
Leave the PA(S)D alone!
I see, I am dealing not with a comment, but with its “spirit”! Didn’t know that I would need that much supernatural hermeneutics… Or is this an evasive writing strategy, suggesting that the author did not really write what he wrote? Indeed, that’s suitable for rambling.