I get the impression this is merely an official statement, under the Senior General’s name, released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I doubt that he said any of these words. But I’m happy to be corrected…
Note: This year’s statement is not that different to those attributed to Than Shwe in 2002 and 2003. The tough talk on climate change is, however, a new addition to the standard “Than Shwe congratulates the UN” template.
Of the Millennium Development Goals, to ensure environmental sustainability is of utmost importance now as climate change is no longer a mere environmental problem but becoming a threat to global security.
Myanmar has ratified the Kyoto protocol after all…
Did he deliver this as a speech? If anyone has a copy of the video please let me know – I want to satirize it with cuts to Austrlaian politicians comments on climate change and put it on youtube…
For those of you who are interested enough and can read Thai, the Election Commission of Thailand has placed a number of laws and regulations on its web site. Amongst them are the organic laws on ECT, political parties, and elections, and the following pieces:
http://www.ect.go.th/thai/mp50/mp50_9.pdf
(“ECT regulation concerning the election of Members of the House of Representatives”; this is the main legal document detailing all major aspects of electoral organization; it has 177 pp.)
It is hard to disagree with the point that Thai politics has not moved forward since the miliary junta took over that Thepchai Yong made. I would not call the return to the corruption of ten years ago a success for the Junta.
But not matter how much corruption there is and how how deaths happen as Buddhists are driven out of the South while the Military idly stands by, or how poor the economy performs, many will be continue to bask in their “happiness” because the Thaksin is no longer in charge.
Now according to today’s news, the dictators have made plans to ensure the PPP doesn’t come to power regardless of the actual voting or will of the people. This along with the crack down on Democracy supporters must have the Col. and other anti-democracy posters smiling from ear to ear
Welcome to the brave new world of Thai electioneering, or a variant of bureaucratic fundamentalism:
“The media are also banned from organising any discussion or debate in which one representative or many representatives of one party or many parties are invited to speak.
…
Although the EC’s announcements do not impose restrictions on printed media, Mr Apichart said the owners of printed media were also prohibited from organising forums or inviting politicians to speak or debate.
He said the EC would set up forums which all parties could share. Any forums apart from the EC-sponsored forums are forbidden and the press are welcome to cover the stances of politicians at EC forums. ”
Bangkok Post, 25 October 2007
One wonders whether this in any way contradicts Section 45 of the 2007 Constitution, which guarantees press freedom. The mass media are also not allowed to conduct individual interviews with politicians. One is reminded of the time of the first senate election in 2000, when the ECT imposed a blanket press censureship by misinterpreting the constitution. At that time, the press, including The Nation, at first resisted the ECT’s attempt, but then complied with it. Such was the political atmosphere at that time. The only exception was Siam Rath.
“That ‘party switching’ is the same in Thailand as it is in other electoral democracies seems to be the implication of her statement and the paper she cites.” >> Yes, this might be the implication. The question is whether this is correct or not. In the past decades, where have you seen Thai-style party switching in Europe, and where, in Europe, do you find Thai-style party and electoral structures (Southern Europe, Germany, Denmark, UK?)?
I am not aware of any voters in the past being killed for voting against the wishes of his kamnan . . . or for taking the money and voting the other way. But to my maid, the threat is real and she said she could not think of anyone in her family or her village voting against her kamnan’s choice. Hence, I asked the forum whether my maid’s case is isolated and extreme or whether it is the norm (according to those residing in Thailand).
Thankfully Thailand’s politics, although as dirty as the Philippines and probably with the same scale of vote-buying, are NOT as violent prone.
But Thailand’s politicians can be as thuggish as their Philippines counterparts and with probably with the same proportional number of Thugs-Politicians in parliament.
She does credit Thaksin as the first with really national level policy platforms which later became very personal and less determined byu the party. Furthermore, she goes into the dynamics of the consitution and electoral system that led to the one party state. Her book is very interesting.
[There is still the issue of whether economic development proceeds better under democracy or not. South Korea and PRC are cases where democracy clearly played only a marginal role, in Korea’s case only very late did it play a role.
Perhaps Thaksin strove to be a forceful Park Chung Hee type (Korea) of leader, which certainly seems to be the case reading Pasuk and Baker’s biography, but ultimately important and large parts of society (NGOs, media, middle class, etc) rejected this approach. The military just finalised this rejection with the coup which everyone grudgingly accepts with the stock phrase: “I’m anti-Thaksin, but also anti-coup”….implying I’m not going to protest anymore because I basically got what I wanted.]
Col. Jeru: I did not believe Siripan but problematized her statement by a) questioning her concept of “political parties” in the Thai context and b) introducing a comparative reference.
“To my mind, they [foreigtners living in rural Thailand] are perfectly placed to take advantage of Deputy Prime Minister Sonthi Boonyaratglin’s generous offer to those who inform on vote buyers…”
I can feel the teeth of the local dog biting my leg.
And five rabies shots .
editor, Not everything has to be qualified as in :
“Yesterday, 3pm convoy of mysterious trucks entered Burma from Ruili and its up to you, dear reader, to work out what this was all about!!”
but…
“Wang Jun sells weapons to Burma”, “Poly Technology ties up major arms deal with Burmese Junta”, or “Hong Kong tycoon Li-Ka Shing linked to Myanmar arms supplier” wouldn’t be to onerous would it? If I can find this out, surely a paid journalist can too! Even if it were contained within an article with a sensationalised headline.. However I’ve seldom seen an article that goes beyond holding “China” directly responsible and then leaving it with no real explanation. However, there are detailed accounts of BAE selling Saudi Arabia weaponry in the IHT (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/27/africa/27saudi.php) Yet we have some sort of exceptionalism for China because? Maybe it is another standard?!
Discretion as to how things are painted in Western media can reduce international tension and improve relations simply by observing the same practices of accountability we use in our societiy. However, we don’t do this because as you acknowledge – there is a major problem with the publics intellect and education. Not editors and journalists pandering to what is easily readable ?? Surely you can’t argue that the two go hand in hand…
Restorationist: One other lesson you might need to learn is that there is a vast difference between expressing an opinion on a proposed law, and interfering in the operation of an existing law.
If journalists have to presume that their readers are incapable of making the most basic assumption that referring to ‘China’ as an actor, refers to the government and not the entirety of the population, then there is a serious problem not in journalism, but in the state of publics’ intellect and education. It is standard practice to phrase things that way, and it would be a little onerous to have to qualify every reference to a state’s actions as only being in reference to the government and not the people, just to ensure that someone who takes things literally isn’t confused. Did you really think that the population of China was equipping the junta with weapons ?
“Presumably we’ll now hear from all the admirers of the king that he doesn’t want this revised law and that it is being forced on him by nasty politicians seeking to use the law for their own purposes.
It seems your presumption was correct.”
So the lesson of this is that we can now never have anyone complain that the king and/or palace have no control over the LM laws and their use. It is crystal clear that they can have opinions and intentions, and when they express an opinion, everyone seems to snap to attention.
@col. jeru: “And get killed for the Baht 400 to vote kamnan’s choice”. Did you mean this figuratively, or did voters actually get physically killed (being physically dead afterwards) for voting the wrong way?
I have heard of canvassers getting killed by opposing parties but never of voters?! With the junta moving the vote counting back to the voting areas, away from centralized places as it was according to the venerable 1997 constitution, canvassers and voters are now in more (mortal) danger than in the previous elections. And of course the army together with the “kamnans for life” will take care that the vote count is just right in the areas under martial law.
And we thought it was the “stupid folk”, whose “unpricipled wants some party was pandering to…”. And you suggest it’s actually the smart people who have their votes bought from them? Indeed, no need to emulate this anywhere else.
M. Lardprao: See my post which Andrew graciously linked to. Here is an excerpt:
Thailand actually has a trade surplus with China in the fruit and vegetable trade and that surplus has been increasing since the bilateral trade agreement came into force. The surplus for the first 8 months of 2005 stood at 8.6 billion baht, up 42.1 percent from the same period last year. The Nation on 9 November 2004 says that while Thailand has imported more garlic and onions from China, Thailand has also made its own gains since the bilateral trade agreement come into force as “fresh longan exports had increased 986 per cent, durian had exploded by 21,850 per cent, mangosteen jumped 1,911 per cent and mango surged 150 per cent”.
But Srithanonchai you were so quick to believe ONE Thai author Siripan, despite common knowledge that Thai politicians are easily bought (remember Thaksin Shinawatra?), and I quote you below:
Srithanonchai Oct 24, 2007 at 10:24 pm
In Thailand, they do not switch parties, actually. They switch party labels and personal allegiances. If Siripan’s statement (Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee, Thai Poltical Parties in an Age of Reform, Dec 2006, p. 107) is true, then the degree of democraticness of Thailand is very high, while that of Germany or the UK is very low.
Forget the IF, Srithanonchai . . . you just love Thai democracy, don’t you?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
General Than Shwe’s statement on the UN
Thanks Grasshopper,
I get the impression this is merely an official statement, under the Senior General’s name, released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I doubt that he said any of these words. But I’m happy to be corrected…
Note: This year’s statement is not that different to those attributed to Than Shwe in 2002 and 2003. The tough talk on climate change is, however, a new addition to the standard “Than Shwe congratulates the UN” template.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
General Than Shwe’s statement on the UN
Than Shwe the greenie?
Of the Millennium Development Goals, to ensure environmental sustainability is of utmost importance now as climate change is no longer a mere environmental problem but becoming a threat to global security.
Myanmar has ratified the Kyoto protocol after all…
Did he deliver this as a speech? If anyone has a copy of the video please let me know – I want to satirize it with cuts to Austrlaian politicians comments on climate change and put it on youtube…
New Mandala’s election watch
ECT documents:
For those of you who are interested enough and can read Thai, the Election Commission of Thailand has placed a number of laws and regulations on its web site. Amongst them are the organic laws on ECT, political parties, and elections, and the following pieces:
http://www.ect.go.th/thai/mp50/mp50_8.pdf
(an ECT summary on “New direction in the campaign for the MP election of 2007”)
http://www.ect.go.th/thai/mp50/mp50_7.pdf
(“ECT regulation concerning campaigning…”)
http://www.ect.go.th/thai/mp50/mp50_6.pdf
(“ECT announcement concerning principles and performance of the state in support of the MP election”)
http://www.ect.go.th/thai/mp50/mp50_9.pdf
(“ECT regulation concerning the election of Members of the House of Representatives”; this is the main legal document detailing all major aspects of electoral organization; it has 177 pp.)
Thepchai Yong on normality in Thai politics
It is hard to disagree with the point that Thai politics has not moved forward since the miliary junta took over that Thepchai Yong made. I would not call the return to the corruption of ten years ago a success for the Junta.
But not matter how much corruption there is and how how deaths happen as Buddhists are driven out of the South while the Military idly stands by, or how poor the economy performs, many will be continue to bask in their “happiness” because the Thaksin is no longer in charge.
Now according to today’s news, the dictators have made plans to ensure the PPP doesn’t come to power regardless of the actual voting or will of the people. This along with the crack down on Democracy supporters must have the Col. and other anti-democracy posters smiling from ear to ear
New Mandala’s election watch
Welcome to the brave new world of Thai electioneering, or a variant of bureaucratic fundamentalism:
“The media are also banned from organising any discussion or debate in which one representative or many representatives of one party or many parties are invited to speak.
…
Although the EC’s announcements do not impose restrictions on printed media, Mr Apichart said the owners of printed media were also prohibited from organising forums or inviting politicians to speak or debate.
He said the EC would set up forums which all parties could share. Any forums apart from the EC-sponsored forums are forbidden and the press are welcome to cover the stances of politicians at EC forums. ”
Bangkok Post, 25 October 2007
One wonders whether this in any way contradicts Section 45 of the 2007 Constitution, which guarantees press freedom. The mass media are also not allowed to conduct individual interviews with politicians. One is reminded of the time of the first senate election in 2000, when the ECT imposed a blanket press censureship by misinterpreting the constitution. At that time, the press, including The Nation, at first resisted the ECT’s attempt, but then complied with it. Such was the political atmosphere at that time. The only exception was Siam Rath.
Thepchai Yong on normality in Thai politics
“That ‘party switching’ is the same in Thailand as it is in other electoral democracies seems to be the implication of her statement and the paper she cites.” >> Yes, this might be the implication. The question is whether this is correct or not. In the past decades, where have you seen Thai-style party switching in Europe, and where, in Europe, do you find Thai-style party and electoral structures (Southern Europe, Germany, Denmark, UK?)?
Getting rich from vote-buying
I am not aware of any voters in the past being killed for voting against the wishes of his kamnan . . . or for taking the money and voting the other way. But to my maid, the threat is real and she said she could not think of anyone in her family or her village voting against her kamnan’s choice. Hence, I asked the forum whether my maid’s case is isolated and extreme or whether it is the norm (according to those residing in Thailand).
Thankfully Thailand’s politics, although as dirty as the Philippines and probably with the same scale of vote-buying, are NOT as violent prone.
But Thailand’s politicians can be as thuggish as their Philippines counterparts and with probably with the same proportional number of Thugs-Politicians in parliament.
Thepchai Yong on normality in Thai politics
“In Thailand, they do not switch parties, actually. They switch party labels and personal allegiances.”
That “party switching” is the same in Thailand as it is in other electoral democracies seems to be the implication of her statement and the paper she cites:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/partyswitching/papers/cv05-heller-mershon.pdf
She does credit Thaksin as the first with really national level policy platforms which later became very personal and less determined byu the party. Furthermore, she goes into the dynamics of the consitution and electoral system that led to the one party state. Her book is very interesting.
[There is still the issue of whether economic development proceeds better under democracy or not. South Korea and PRC are cases where democracy clearly played only a marginal role, in Korea’s case only very late did it play a role.
Perhaps Thaksin strove to be a forceful Park Chung Hee type (Korea) of leader, which certainly seems to be the case reading Pasuk and Baker’s biography, but ultimately important and large parts of society (NGOs, media, middle class, etc) rejected this approach. The military just finalised this rejection with the coup which everyone grudgingly accepts with the stock phrase: “I’m anti-Thaksin, but also anti-coup”….implying I’m not going to protest anymore because I basically got what I wanted.]
Getting rich from vote-buying
Col. Jeru: I did not believe Siripan but problematized her statement by a) questioning her concept of “political parties” in the Thai context and b) introducing a comparative reference.
Getting rich from vote-buying
“To my mind, they [foreigtners living in rural Thailand] are perfectly placed to take advantage of Deputy Prime Minister Sonthi Boonyaratglin’s generous offer to those who inform on vote buyers…”
I can feel the teeth of the local dog biting my leg.
And five rabies shots .
Finding out about Burma
editor, Not everything has to be qualified as in :
“Yesterday, 3pm convoy of mysterious trucks entered Burma from Ruili and its up to you, dear reader, to work out what this was all about!!”
but…
“Wang Jun sells weapons to Burma”, “Poly Technology ties up major arms deal with Burmese Junta”, or “Hong Kong tycoon Li-Ka Shing linked to Myanmar arms supplier” wouldn’t be to onerous would it? If I can find this out, surely a paid journalist can too! Even if it were contained within an article with a sensationalised headline.. However I’ve seldom seen an article that goes beyond holding “China” directly responsible and then leaving it with no real explanation. However, there are detailed accounts of BAE selling Saudi Arabia weaponry in the IHT (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/27/africa/27saudi.php) Yet we have some sort of exceptionalism for China because? Maybe it is another standard?!
Discretion as to how things are painted in Western media can reduce international tension and improve relations simply by observing the same practices of accountability we use in our societiy. However, we don’t do this because as you acknowledge – there is a major problem with the publics intellect and education. Not editors and journalists pandering to what is easily readable ?? Surely you can’t argue that the two go hand in hand…
For instance:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DA1F3BF931A25756C0A96E948260 This standard NY times article is rubbish and plays into a prophetic international fairy tale. Aren’t journalists responsible for what is written to be percieved?
What I’m percieving is : we’re liberals when it suits us!
Contract farming
[…] full story here […]
Lese Majeste
Restorationist: One other lesson you might need to learn is that there is a vast difference between expressing an opinion on a proposed law, and interfering in the operation of an existing law.
Finding out about Burma
If journalists have to presume that their readers are incapable of making the most basic assumption that referring to ‘China’ as an actor, refers to the government and not the entirety of the population, then there is a serious problem not in journalism, but in the state of publics’ intellect and education. It is standard practice to phrase things that way, and it would be a little onerous to have to qualify every reference to a state’s actions as only being in reference to the government and not the people, just to ensure that someone who takes things literally isn’t confused. Did you really think that the population of China was equipping the junta with weapons ?
Lese Majeste
“Presumably we’ll now hear from all the admirers of the king that he doesn’t want this revised law and that it is being forced on him by nasty politicians seeking to use the law for their own purposes.
It seems your presumption was correct.”
So the lesson of this is that we can now never have anyone complain that the king and/or palace have no control over the LM laws and their use. It is crystal clear that they can have opinions and intentions, and when they express an opinion, everyone seems to snap to attention.
Getting rich from vote-buying
@col. jeru: “And get killed for the Baht 400 to vote kamnan’s choice”. Did you mean this figuratively, or did voters actually get physically killed (being physically dead afterwards) for voting the wrong way?
I have heard of canvassers getting killed by opposing parties but never of voters?! With the junta moving the vote counting back to the voting areas, away from centralized places as it was according to the venerable 1997 constitution, canvassers and voters are now in more (mortal) danger than in the previous elections. And of course the army together with the “kamnans for life” will take care that the vote count is just right in the areas under martial law.
And we thought it was the “stupid folk”, whose “unpricipled wants some party was pandering to…”. And you suggest it’s actually the smart people who have their votes bought from them? Indeed, no need to emulate this anywhere else.
More academic commentary on Burma
Check out Indonesian defense minister’s views.
A flood of Chinese garlic?
M. Lardprao: See my post which Andrew graciously linked to. Here is an excerpt:
Thailand actually has a trade surplus with China in the fruit and vegetable trade and that surplus has been increasing since the bilateral trade agreement came into force. The surplus for the first 8 months of 2005 stood at 8.6 billion baht, up 42.1 percent from the same period last year. The Nation on 9 November 2004 says that while Thailand has imported more garlic and onions from China, Thailand has also made its own gains since the bilateral trade agreement come into force as “fresh longan exports had increased 986 per cent, durian had exploded by 21,850 per cent, mangosteen jumped 1,911 per cent and mango surged 150 per cent”.
Getting rich from vote-buying
But Srithanonchai you were so quick to believe ONE Thai author Siripan, despite common knowledge that Thai politicians are easily bought (remember Thaksin Shinawatra?), and I quote you below:
Srithanonchai Oct 24, 2007 at 10:24 pm
In Thailand, they do not switch parties, actually. They switch party labels and personal allegiances. If Siripan’s statement (Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee, Thai Poltical Parties in an Age of Reform, Dec 2006, p. 107) is true, then the degree of democraticness of Thailand is very high, while that of Germany or the UK is very low.
Forget the IF, Srithanonchai . . . you just love Thai democracy, don’t you?
Getting rich from vote-buying
Col. Jeru: “Now Srithanonchai, do you still think Thai democracy should be emulated by Germany or U.K.?” > Show me were I have made this statement.