Just to add that not all the asbestos fibres will have dispersed. The area where the work was being carried out will no doubt contain many fibres and it may take some time before they have are washed or blown away. As a rough guess, I would say that demolishing as asbestos cement roof with hammers would generate fibre levels of about 5 per ml in the immediate area. In other words, 50 times the minimal exposure as defined by the OHSA.
Those making fortunes from asbestos are really no better than the tobacco magnates.
Firstly i would like to say a very big SORRY to mandy.
Its very had to understand what, the situation in nothern myanmar is like with out seeing if for my self. You hear about the killings and rapes but as you says and im sure your right, thats the tip of the ice burg.
So just for you, if we get out pass i will put a small report containging interviews with locals together just for you. Its my way of appoligizing.
Lets hope the generals dont find out i am filming as already we have been told if we intend to take photographs we may have to pay for permission.
Rabinowitz in burma is a fascinating account, and i highly recommend reading up on his heavy steps throughout this country to get a glimpse of not only military-conservation alliances, but more generally of militarism [decision-making] in burma.
you can find a few of my previous articles on this man and his big cat conquests online in such articles as irrawaddy (recent book review), etc.
the hukawng valley tiger reserve (hvtr) presents a compelling case study of conservation and governance – when they collude and where they collide.
not only does this tight fit elucidate the murky decision making of a military apparatus, but also the anatomy of international conservation. what does it mean about international conservation when the SPDC latches onto such initiatives inside its country? Since so few outside ‘forces’ are ushered into the country, i think that conservation in burma deserves considerable attention as a window into the workings of the junta.
apart from this more theoretical fascination, the on-the-ground happenings of the hvtr deserves more attention and research, which is admittedly difficult given obvious travel restrictions, etc. (apart from alan and his foreign peers).
but it should be known that alan has left wcs. i am unsure at this point what that means about the hvtr and other wcs projects in burma.
and that wcs-burma is undergoing an apparent change to become more socially enlightened, so i am told, perhaps owing to much past criticism (so i would like to think). several foreign social scientists have visited the site to give recommendations, for example.
but now, even more new players have entered the scene, notably agribusinessmen. the plot thickens. question is, how will the aggrevated local villager/farmers’ voices reach an audience outside of denain?
i welcome more posts on this topic, and sending me any more recent articles about his work in burma as i am admittedly behind on internet postings now that i dont have regular internet access.
Also, if anyone would actually like to read Michael Aung-Thwin’s article it is available here.
I would also recommend reading Awzar Thi’s commentary Teaching Grandma How to Peel Onions regarding previous allegations in the South China Morning Post which were very much in line with the ‘Aung-Thwin paradigm’.
Thank you for digging deep with all the controversial juicy stuff, almost not fit to print, but should be in print.
New Mandala is the shining example for Web 2.0 interactive news focused on Southeast Asia.
It’s also nice to see a place where people can engage in heated, even troll-like, arguments while still maintaining some semblance of reason and respect for those who they are talking to. Some web forums suffer from something akin to lobotomization where everyone is taking some happy drug and agreeing with everything everyone else says. Yuck.
As media profit margins are pressed to the breaking point by internet news, blogging academics, acting as public intellectuals through their blogs, will claim some of that territory abandoned territory for themselves, slashing an intellectual pathway through the media jungle with the machete of their specialised expertise. You guys are the leaders.
New Mandala’s interview series is proof against the widely held notion that blogs are just a place where monomanic ranting ragamuffins hang out and cause mischief.
… and a big thankyou from me. Especially thankyou for the ecological posts. As with many topics, it is difficult to find teachers who don’t treat students as passing mosquitos– maybe Andrew and Nicholas do that, but as an online mosquito I can lurk about and leech as I please.
As Chris Baker and Tony Loader have already said, it does seem like New Mandala has been here since the dawn of the internet. Surely it will be around at it’s sunset. With this sense of manifest destiny, I wonder, do Andrew and Nicholas stare into tea demanding new perspectives from deities? Two years have gone by, surely the ‘new perspective’ (maaan) meter is running low by now!
Sorry. I did say that base flows would increase. That was a mistake. They could depending on the type of land cover present before reforestation, but they won’t for sure. My apologies.
I don’t want to divert from the initial argument quite yet. Lets remind ourselves what you stated: you think reforesting a catchment can be hazardous. I think you’re overstating the reduction in average stream flows involved and disingenuously equating this reduction with true hydrologic hazards. It should be plainly obvious that a forested landscape is less prone to hazardous hydrological events than a crop or urbanized area. And for the record I never once stated that base flows would increase with reforestation. Please re-read what I’ve said.
Again, I am arguing that increasing forested area within a catchment would stabilize base flows, reducing annual base flow coefficients of variation, and that the question of which landscape will loose more water to the atmosphere depends on the proportion of time the canopy is wet. In total water balance terms, a crop system will generally output more water than a forested system and store less water over a given time period. This is because crop systems have lower infiltration rates and higher runoff rates during wet periods, as well as higher transpiration rates during dry periods. Consider the following closed system water balance when comparing the two systems: dS/dt = P – E – Q, where S is system storage, t is time, P is precipitation input, E is evaporation and transpiration output, and Q is discharge output including deep percolation and surface runoff. The change in average base flow, on an annual basis, brought on by reforestation would depend on catchment characteristics; topography, soil texture, site history etc., i.e. it’s inherent ability to store water. But generally, average stream flows would decrease due to reforestation (remember that base flows and stream flows are different metrics and different things). But more importantly forested catchments are less likely to be subject to life damaging no flow, or zero flow occurrences because of their storage effect (or the sponge analogy you seem to like so much). Furthermore, forested systems are less likely to be subject to flood events because they store more water due to their higher infiltration rates, and reduce both instantaneous and short term runoff rates due to their above ground woody biomass. These qualities make forested catchments less prone to commonly identified hydrological hazards, namely no flow and flood events. Don’t forget what I am arguing against – namely your assertion that reforestation is somehow a hydrological hazard. Reforestation also provides a number of ancillary climate, ecological and social benefits as well. No hazards there!
In answer to your question: this would depend on the species planted and the management practices used. I’ve seen white pine plantations in Ontario and Massachusetts root to 3 m, grow to 8 m and achieve an LAI of 12 in less than 15 years. I know eucalyptus, bamboo and other common plantation species in your part of the world grow even quicker. Regardless, the probability of hazardous events occurring would begin to decrease shortly after planting. Weighing the associated hazards is the real question. Do you still think you can somehow unduly create hazards by planting trees and increasing biomass on a landscape?
In the likely event that you’ve skimmed my rebuttal, the bottom line is that reforestation will reduce the frequency of hazardous hydrological events when compared with crops or urban areas. Not cause “hydrological hazards”.
Relatedly, this is a footnote from the International Crisis Group report on the protests,
Maung Maung, director of the Free Trade Union of Burma (FTUB), attributed the protests to the work of activist networks established inside Myanmar with exile support and called for further Western funding to ensure that the revolution succeeded, press conference, Bangkok, October 2007.
See also Blaine Harden, “Capitalizing on Burma’s Autumn of Dissent”, The Washington Post, 4 December 2007. For other Myanmar activists rejecting this claim, see Wai Moe, “Activists Leaders Say Maung Maung Not ‘Mastermind’ of Uprising”, Irrawaddy Online, 13 December 2007, at http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=9591; also Bo Nyein, “The Fatal Flaws of Burma’s Opposition”, Kao Wao
News, no. 134, 6-19 October 2007.
Without intending to take this discussion away from the important and interesting issue of ex-KMT soldiers in Thailand (Nicholas, I couldn’t seem to get through with the links you posted here), but regarding the issue of nationalisation of foreigners in Thailand more generally, does anyone know what’s behind the current registration and granting of 10-year-residency permits to Burmese migrants which began on Saturday? This is not nationalisation like that of the ex-KMT decedents, as such, but ten years is quite a long time. There is apparently no cost for these residency permits, they are not work permits (i.e. the holders are technically not legally allowed to work), and some Burmese have told me that they think that they will be allowed to temporarily travel outside of the border area (to Bangkok, for example) with no-cost written permission slips from local Thai authorities! There also does not seem to be any cap on the numbers. So far, none of my Burmese friends are quite sure why this has come about. There were earlier work permit registrations a couple of months ago, which cost about 4,000 baht. This is clearly different. If this document can serve as a get out of jail (get out of bribe) free card, then I suspect quite a few local Thai policemen won’t be too happy. Some have speculated that it’s an act of HMK Bumibol’s benevolence or alternatively an effort to document just how many migrants from Burma are actually in Thailand. But none of these seem particularly convincing. I have heard of earlier Thai nationalisation cases of particularly wealthy individuals from Burma, but nothing on this scale. And this, of course, isn’t nationalisation, just extended residency. Perhaps I missed something in the news over the last couple of days. If anyone has information, I’d be interested to hear it. Also, more specifically with Thai nationalisation like that of the ex-KMT descendants like Meisun sae Chao, is there much precedence for such nationalisation, especially in the case of those from Burma?
I think jonferquest has it about right. Since the US and most western countries perceive no strategic interest in Burma thay have made it into a whipping boy to demonstrate concern about human rights abuses that are generally glossed over elsewhere because of larger interests. China and Saudi Arabia are two prime examples but the list could also include smaller human rights abusers such as Cambodia and Laos where the western world, out of guilt and/or a desire to develop ties useful to waging the “war on terror”, has decided to overlook continued human rights abuses and an absence of progress toward real democracy, not to mention rampant corruption and government incompetence. So it is convient to have Burma as a vehicle to demonstrate outrage over human rights abuses, however hypocritical this may be. The presence of Aung San Suu Kyi as a symbol of the opposition to military rule helps to make this more credible. But as Justin Wintle points out in his recent biography of Suu Kyi “Perfect Hostage” her presence, along with frequent statements of strong support for her by western nations, may in fact be retarding progress toward democracy in Burma because it further fuels the paranoia of an already quite paranoid group. As someone has said, “even paranoids have enemies”, and the Burmese generals certainly do, in spades. So most likely we are stuck in a continuing stalemate on Burma, as we have been for the last twenty years. Only a new, more realistic and more innovative approach can break this log jam and that appears very unlikely given the political benefits to nearly all concerned, except the Burmese people, in perpetuating this situation.
[…] by commenting on some of the highlights of New Mandala’s short life (our 500th post; our first year). This time we would like to hear what our readers have to say. Feel free to join the birthday […]
I’m not surprised people have begun to question ASSK’s political acumen in recent times. Admirable as she is for her resolute moral stand and sacrifice, deservedly a true icon of our decadant, troubled and violent world, I was sadly taken aback in 1988 by her political naivety and my heart sank when she refused outright to work with U Nu. She had already failed to split the army and pull off a Cori Aquino, after so many ordinary Burmese had laid down their lives.
I have to agree with Dominic Faulder too that she certainly is no Aung San who had no qualms about the right to take up arms aginst the oppressor. Her political impotence appears to be rooted in a Western liberal democratic commitment to non-violence despite references to Gandhi. Mandela on the other hand was a leader of an armed national liberation movement though sainted as she is now for a very protracted incarceration. Besides she is a mere pawn these days in a game that the generals play so well.
Burmese opposition is fractious and the expression “all chiefs and no indians” seems to have been invented for the Burmese. And yes, any criticism levelled at ASSK , not only by the likes of Taylor and Aung Thwin, known junta apologists, offends so many that it is un-PC and risks being tarred with the same brush. Like it or not by the lady, the personality cult is alive and well in Burma.
Justin Wintle is right in concluding that perhaps her kind of politics just doesn’t work in this scenario. Most Burmese above all realise that having been on the receiving end for so long and having gone through so much talk and gesture politics. Just how do you reconcile with someone holding a gun to your head? If Burma were flush with AK47s as in Afghanistan or Iraq, how do you think things would begin to shape up? Fear of chaos and anarchy and civil war exercises the urban middle class liberal democratic mindset so much, the reality of this happening in Burma for six decades seems to have escaped them.
16 June 2008
I have put up a Lese Majeste Thai Style link on our website http://www.thekoratpost.com.
The aim is to provide me and others with a library of resources on the subject as it relates to Thailand, to either compile their own background or see what others have written.
Did you all hear of the lese majeste case filed against a Thai in San Francisco, USA, by 20 other Thais because he had the temerity to suggest that reimbursement to the people of billions spent in Thaksin’s last useless election be obtained not from the Election Commission but from the King as he had signed the Royal Act.
Of course, the Thai thought police are having a bit of a problem, and Thai consulate in L.A. is maneuvering so as not to be caught in the middle, as the problem occurred outside the kingdom here. Here are Thai do-gooders interfering in freedom of speech inside the United States. There are other such silly occurrences. My posit is to have the Thai police taken completely out of the picture (corrupt AND inept) and as others, including David Streckfuss, et. al, have suggested to put the charge right at the Royal Household and let them decide when and if to prosecute.
This will slow down the charades.
Thanks again Josh for your detailed comment. We have discussed many of these issues in our book (Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers). You can get a copy from Amazon – not so expensive!
I think we agree that forests take more water out of the system than other land-covers.
I think we also agree that deforestation is likely to increase annual stream flow and that reforestation is likely to reduce annual stream flow.
Where we disagree (I think) is on the effect of reforestation on dry-season flow. You are arguing that greatly improved infiltration will lead to increased base flow (even if the total annual flow is reduced). In other words you are arguing that, in relation to dry season flow, the sponge effect of reforestation will outweigh the pump effect.
There are many aspects of this we could debate. But, for now, can I ask just one question – how long do you think it will take for reforested land to recover the sponge effect that you suggest is lost when deforestation occurs?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Asbestos in Thailand
Just to add that not all the asbestos fibres will have dispersed. The area where the work was being carried out will no doubt contain many fibres and it may take some time before they have are washed or blown away. As a rough guess, I would say that demolishing as asbestos cement roof with hammers would generate fibre levels of about 5 per ml in the immediate area. In other words, 50 times the minimal exposure as defined by the OHSA.
Those making fortunes from asbestos are really no better than the tobacco magnates.
The Stilwell Road
Firstly i would like to say a very big SORRY to mandy.
Its very had to understand what, the situation in nothern myanmar is like with out seeing if for my self. You hear about the killings and rapes but as you says and im sure your right, thats the tip of the ice burg.
So just for you, if we get out pass i will put a small report containging interviews with locals together just for you. Its my way of appoligizing.
Lets hope the generals dont find out i am filming as already we have been told if we intend to take photographs we may have to pay for permission.
Alan Rabinowitz and the Colbert Report, etc
Rabinowitz in burma is a fascinating account, and i highly recommend reading up on his heavy steps throughout this country to get a glimpse of not only military-conservation alliances, but more generally of militarism [decision-making] in burma.
you can find a few of my previous articles on this man and his big cat conquests online in such articles as irrawaddy (recent book review), etc.
the hukawng valley tiger reserve (hvtr) presents a compelling case study of conservation and governance – when they collude and where they collide.
not only does this tight fit elucidate the murky decision making of a military apparatus, but also the anatomy of international conservation. what does it mean about international conservation when the SPDC latches onto such initiatives inside its country? Since so few outside ‘forces’ are ushered into the country, i think that conservation in burma deserves considerable attention as a window into the workings of the junta.
apart from this more theoretical fascination, the on-the-ground happenings of the hvtr deserves more attention and research, which is admittedly difficult given obvious travel restrictions, etc. (apart from alan and his foreign peers).
but it should be known that alan has left wcs. i am unsure at this point what that means about the hvtr and other wcs projects in burma.
and that wcs-burma is undergoing an apparent change to become more socially enlightened, so i am told, perhaps owing to much past criticism (so i would like to think). several foreign social scientists have visited the site to give recommendations, for example.
but now, even more new players have entered the scene, notably agribusinessmen. the plot thickens. question is, how will the aggrevated local villager/farmers’ voices reach an audience outside of denain?
i welcome more posts on this topic, and sending me any more recent articles about his work in burma as i am admittedly behind on internet postings now that i dont have regular internet access.
JSEAS special issue on Burma is out now
Also, if anyone would actually like to read Michael Aung-Thwin’s article it is available here.
I would also recommend reading Awzar Thi’s commentary Teaching Grandma How to Peel Onions regarding previous allegations in the South China Morning Post which were very much in line with the ‘Aung-Thwin paradigm’.
Two years of New Mandala
Thank you for digging deep with all the controversial juicy stuff, almost not fit to print, but should be in print.
New Mandala is the shining example for Web 2.0 interactive news focused on Southeast Asia.
It’s also nice to see a place where people can engage in heated, even troll-like, arguments while still maintaining some semblance of reason and respect for those who they are talking to. Some web forums suffer from something akin to lobotomization where everyone is taking some happy drug and agreeing with everything everyone else says. Yuck.
As media profit margins are pressed to the breaking point by internet news, blogging academics, acting as public intellectuals through their blogs, will claim some of that territory abandoned territory for themselves, slashing an intellectual pathway through the media jungle with the machete of their specialised expertise. You guys are the leaders.
New Mandala’s interview series is proof against the widely held notion that blogs are just a place where monomanic ranting ragamuffins hang out and cause mischief.
Kuominthai after almost 40 years
Sorry Stephen,
The Post kills its links after a few days. As Blaster Bates noted, I should have just taken the full text for posterity. Next time.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Two years of New Mandala
… and a big thankyou from me. Especially thankyou for the ecological posts. As with many topics, it is difficult to find teachers who don’t treat students as passing mosquitos– maybe Andrew and Nicholas do that, but as an online mosquito I can lurk about and leech as I please.
As Chris Baker and Tony Loader have already said, it does seem like New Mandala has been here since the dawn of the internet. Surely it will be around at it’s sunset. With this sense of manifest destiny, I wonder, do Andrew and Nicholas stare into tea demanding new perspectives from deities? Two years have gone by, surely the ‘new perspective’ (maaan) meter is running low by now!
Two years of New Mandala
In no time you became a refreshing, insightful and always reliable reference site.
No mean task!
Congrats and keep on staying alert.
The hydrological hazards of tree planting
Sorry. I did say that base flows would increase. That was a mistake. They could depending on the type of land cover present before reforestation, but they won’t for sure. My apologies.
The hydrological hazards of tree planting
Hi Andrew,
I don’t want to divert from the initial argument quite yet. Lets remind ourselves what you stated: you think reforesting a catchment can be hazardous. I think you’re overstating the reduction in average stream flows involved and disingenuously equating this reduction with true hydrologic hazards. It should be plainly obvious that a forested landscape is less prone to hazardous hydrological events than a crop or urbanized area. And for the record I never once stated that base flows would increase with reforestation. Please re-read what I’ve said.
Again, I am arguing that increasing forested area within a catchment would stabilize base flows, reducing annual base flow coefficients of variation, and that the question of which landscape will loose more water to the atmosphere depends on the proportion of time the canopy is wet. In total water balance terms, a crop system will generally output more water than a forested system and store less water over a given time period. This is because crop systems have lower infiltration rates and higher runoff rates during wet periods, as well as higher transpiration rates during dry periods. Consider the following closed system water balance when comparing the two systems: dS/dt = P – E – Q, where S is system storage, t is time, P is precipitation input, E is evaporation and transpiration output, and Q is discharge output including deep percolation and surface runoff. The change in average base flow, on an annual basis, brought on by reforestation would depend on catchment characteristics; topography, soil texture, site history etc., i.e. it’s inherent ability to store water. But generally, average stream flows would decrease due to reforestation (remember that base flows and stream flows are different metrics and different things). But more importantly forested catchments are less likely to be subject to life damaging no flow, or zero flow occurrences because of their storage effect (or the sponge analogy you seem to like so much). Furthermore, forested systems are less likely to be subject to flood events because they store more water due to their higher infiltration rates, and reduce both instantaneous and short term runoff rates due to their above ground woody biomass. These qualities make forested catchments less prone to commonly identified hydrological hazards, namely no flow and flood events. Don’t forget what I am arguing against – namely your assertion that reforestation is somehow a hydrological hazard. Reforestation also provides a number of ancillary climate, ecological and social benefits as well. No hazards there!
In answer to your question: this would depend on the species planted and the management practices used. I’ve seen white pine plantations in Ontario and Massachusetts root to 3 m, grow to 8 m and achieve an LAI of 12 in less than 15 years. I know eucalyptus, bamboo and other common plantation species in your part of the world grow even quicker. Regardless, the probability of hazardous events occurring would begin to decrease shortly after planting. Weighing the associated hazards is the real question. Do you still think you can somehow unduly create hazards by planting trees and increasing biomass on a landscape?
In the likely event that you’ve skimmed my rebuttal, the bottom line is that reforestation will reduce the frequency of hazardous hydrological events when compared with crops or urban areas. Not cause “hydrological hazards”.
Two years of New Mandala
Now regular reading. Thx and good work
JSEAS special issue on Burma is out now
Relatedly, this is a footnote from the International Crisis Group report on the protests,
Kuominthai after almost 40 years
Without intending to take this discussion away from the important and interesting issue of ex-KMT soldiers in Thailand (Nicholas, I couldn’t seem to get through with the links you posted here), but regarding the issue of nationalisation of foreigners in Thailand more generally, does anyone know what’s behind the current registration and granting of 10-year-residency permits to Burmese migrants which began on Saturday? This is not nationalisation like that of the ex-KMT decedents, as such, but ten years is quite a long time. There is apparently no cost for these residency permits, they are not work permits (i.e. the holders are technically not legally allowed to work), and some Burmese have told me that they think that they will be allowed to temporarily travel outside of the border area (to Bangkok, for example) with no-cost written permission slips from local Thai authorities! There also does not seem to be any cap on the numbers. So far, none of my Burmese friends are quite sure why this has come about. There were earlier work permit registrations a couple of months ago, which cost about 4,000 baht. This is clearly different. If this document can serve as a get out of jail (get out of bribe) free card, then I suspect quite a few local Thai policemen won’t be too happy. Some have speculated that it’s an act of HMK Bumibol’s benevolence or alternatively an effort to document just how many migrants from Burma are actually in Thailand. But none of these seem particularly convincing. I have heard of earlier Thai nationalisation cases of particularly wealthy individuals from Burma, but nothing on this scale. And this, of course, isn’t nationalisation, just extended residency. Perhaps I missed something in the news over the last couple of days. If anyone has information, I’d be interested to hear it. Also, more specifically with Thai nationalisation like that of the ex-KMT descendants like Meisun sae Chao, is there much precedence for such nationalisation, especially in the case of those from Burma?
JSEAS special issue on Burma is out now
I think jonferquest has it about right. Since the US and most western countries perceive no strategic interest in Burma thay have made it into a whipping boy to demonstrate concern about human rights abuses that are generally glossed over elsewhere because of larger interests. China and Saudi Arabia are two prime examples but the list could also include smaller human rights abusers such as Cambodia and Laos where the western world, out of guilt and/or a desire to develop ties useful to waging the “war on terror”, has decided to overlook continued human rights abuses and an absence of progress toward real democracy, not to mention rampant corruption and government incompetence. So it is convient to have Burma as a vehicle to demonstrate outrage over human rights abuses, however hypocritical this may be. The presence of Aung San Suu Kyi as a symbol of the opposition to military rule helps to make this more credible. But as Justin Wintle points out in his recent biography of Suu Kyi “Perfect Hostage” her presence, along with frequent statements of strong support for her by western nations, may in fact be retarding progress toward democracy in Burma because it further fuels the paranoia of an already quite paranoid group. As someone has said, “even paranoids have enemies”, and the Burmese generals certainly do, in spades. So most likely we are stuck in a continuing stalemate on Burma, as we have been for the last twenty years. Only a new, more realistic and more innovative approach can break this log jam and that appears very unlikely given the political benefits to nearly all concerned, except the Burmese people, in perpetuating this situation.
The first year of New Mandala
[…] by commenting on some of the highlights of New Mandala’s short life (our 500th post; our first year). This time we would like to hear what our readers have to say. Feel free to join the birthday […]
Kuominthai after almost 40 years
[…] New Mandala on the former KMT soldiers in Thailand becoming Thai citizens. […]
Interview with Justin Wintle
I’m not surprised people have begun to question ASSK’s political acumen in recent times. Admirable as she is for her resolute moral stand and sacrifice, deservedly a true icon of our decadant, troubled and violent world, I was sadly taken aback in 1988 by her political naivety and my heart sank when she refused outright to work with U Nu. She had already failed to split the army and pull off a Cori Aquino, after so many ordinary Burmese had laid down their lives.
I have to agree with Dominic Faulder too that she certainly is no Aung San who had no qualms about the right to take up arms aginst the oppressor. Her political impotence appears to be rooted in a Western liberal democratic commitment to non-violence despite references to Gandhi. Mandela on the other hand was a leader of an armed national liberation movement though sainted as she is now for a very protracted incarceration. Besides she is a mere pawn these days in a game that the generals play so well.
Burmese opposition is fractious and the expression “all chiefs and no indians” seems to have been invented for the Burmese. And yes, any criticism levelled at ASSK , not only by the likes of Taylor and Aung Thwin, known junta apologists, offends so many that it is un-PC and risks being tarred with the same brush. Like it or not by the lady, the personality cult is alive and well in Burma.
Justin Wintle is right in concluding that perhaps her kind of politics just doesn’t work in this scenario. Most Burmese above all realise that having been on the receiving end for so long and having gone through so much talk and gesture politics. Just how do you reconcile with someone holding a gun to your head? If Burma were flush with AK47s as in Afghanistan or Iraq, how do you think things would begin to shape up? Fear of chaos and anarchy and civil war exercises the urban middle class liberal democratic mindset so much, the reality of this happening in Burma for six decades seems to have escaped them.
Two years of New Mandala
A big thank you to Nicholas and Andrew for the vital service you provide to those of us studying the machinations of Thai politics and society.
Chris Baker is right, it does somehow seem like New Mandala has always been there. Long may it live on!
The lèse majesté plot thickens
16 June 2008
I have put up a Lese Majeste Thai Style link on our website http://www.thekoratpost.com.
The aim is to provide me and others with a library of resources on the subject as it relates to Thailand, to either compile their own background or see what others have written.
Did you all hear of the lese majeste case filed against a Thai in San Francisco, USA, by 20 other Thais because he had the temerity to suggest that reimbursement to the people of billions spent in Thaksin’s last useless election be obtained not from the Election Commission but from the King as he had signed the Royal Act.
Of course, the Thai thought police are having a bit of a problem, and Thai consulate in L.A. is maneuvering so as not to be caught in the middle, as the problem occurred outside the kingdom here. Here are Thai do-gooders interfering in freedom of speech inside the United States. There are other such silly occurrences. My posit is to have the Thai police taken completely out of the picture (corrupt AND inept) and as others, including David Streckfuss, et. al, have suggested to put the charge right at the Royal Household and let them decide when and if to prosecute.
This will slow down the charades.
The hydrological hazards of tree planting
Thanks again Josh for your detailed comment. We have discussed many of these issues in our book (Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers). You can get a copy from Amazon – not so expensive!
I think we agree that forests take more water out of the system than other land-covers.
I think we also agree that deforestation is likely to increase annual stream flow and that reforestation is likely to reduce annual stream flow.
Where we disagree (I think) is on the effect of reforestation on dry-season flow. You are arguing that greatly improved infiltration will lead to increased base flow (even if the total annual flow is reduced). In other words you are arguing that, in relation to dry season flow, the sponge effect of reforestation will outweigh the pump effect.
There are many aspects of this we could debate. But, for now, can I ask just one question – how long do you think it will take for reforested land to recover the sponge effect that you suggest is lost when deforestation occurs?