Dear Dr Williams, do you assume liberty is thrust onto man by default? *Star Wars death star music begins to play ominously*
The CCP might not necessarily be supporting ‘democracy’ in Burma remember. The CCP has always maintained that they would support stability and wherever it comes from. You totally disregard the ‘two systems one country’ philosophy. The issue of Tibet is not one of democracy, it is one of national self determination; much the same as Taiwan (who function democratically)….
[…] [email protected] (Leigh Connelly) wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSrithanonchai, funny example of AjarnPasuk’s hair style! On this case, I believe I gave a better example of Fox News and how the same set of data/rumors can be manipulated/twisted based on believes/ideology. Paul Handey stated so along … […]
John Butler, you cannot compare Gyanendra to Bhumibol because Gyanendra was not in direct line to the throne. When he assumed power he was already disliked by not only the (then fewer) Maoists but the majority of citizens who felt that he were corrupt due instances of him not paying taxes whilst being a major stakeholder in significant South Asian corporations (like Tata and Suriya). Furthermore, many Chetri and Brahmin did not recognize him as a true King from the beginning of his reign because of his suspected involvement in the massacre itself. Therefore, the divinity of Gyanendra has always been in question whereas Bhumibol’s has never and consequently your notion of tolerance of bad governance is myopic!
Don’t you think that the only flexibility that the Thai monarchs show is the image they want to portrait of themselves rather than what is really not so fortunate for Thai people.This is not some Western conception of what government should be like, its simply highlighting a lie. Or do you think that Queen Sirikit wearing makeup gives her right to tell everyone she is 21?
[…] steampunk fashion wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSidh’s could as well reject a book written by, say, Pasuk, “reasoning” that he did not like her hair style. As if such a thing had anything to do with the product. Trying to limit one’s reading to books of authors with whose intentions … […]
Are we going to sit around doing nothing? Well, the Burmese Junta is not very responsive to international opinion, we all know that. But their patron and protector, China, is. This actually can be an opportunity to apply some leverage on the Chinese government to do something about it, or they will face a boycott of Beijing olympics. I believe this threat of olympic boycott and high profile celebrity endorsement is partly behind the Chinese relenting on Darfur and Sudan.
Like many tourists, I noted the extraordinary number of pictures and posters of King Bhumibol all over Bangkok. I was sceptical about the apparently universal popularity of the King and about the respect the Royal Family has in Thailand. I cannot comment on the book as I have not read it, but I have seen plenty of photographs in which the King is smiling. I have seen no signs that the affection Thais appear to have for him is coerced or indoctrinated, although I am sure that since it is very bad form to criticise the King (as one Australian recently discovered) there may be some attempt on the part of authorities to encourage a cult. Even if this were true, however, it does not mean that the King encourages such behaviour, and indeed his sensible decision about the Australian lese-majeste seems to indicate quite the opposite. His political interventions, at least from what I read, seem equally sensible. That a country holds its Royal Family in respect or even reverence does not strike me as a bad thing, as long as the Royal Family in question deserves that respect; the recent humiliation of King Gyanendra in Nepal shows that people will not tolerate a ruler who acts arbitrarily and stupidly. Since the time of Rama I the Thai monarchy has shown itself flexible and progressive (if we take Rama IV and V as examples), and whilst governments like Prem’s come and go, the King is always there. That’s why monarchies, in the right hands, work. An idiot President like George Bush does much more damage to a country than an inept constitutional monarch, partly because there is no antidote to idiot Presidents and no “higher” authority. In my own country (Britain) the monarchy is not doing so well, and many of its members deserve the scorn people feel for them. The Thais are fortunate in their monarchy. Let them decide whether they want to keep it or not, and let’s stop applying our western notions of what governments should be like to Asian countries.
Imagine any brand which could have such amount of free advertisement as the monarchy had during 60 years. Every day hours on every TV-Channel, same in Radio. And huge coverage in the Newspapers. A brand which is shown on each village entry.
And now the best: A brand you may not speak badly, you may not discuss about it! It is just the brand as it is and it is good.
A brand which is promoted in the schools, in the wats, in the governmental buildings, everywhere.
A brand which is called to be the only really good brand in the country, because only member of this brand (family) did really good for the country. (Are there any other then Royals who did good for the country?)
Wow this brand after 60 years must have a huge value!
“You can’t fool all of the people all the time.” Every so often abusive authority stirs a “slave” revolt wherein the people rise up against their oppressors. This process happens when the balance of forces shifts from fear of the oppressors to appropriate collective rage resulting in an unstoppable revolution.
At such times the people most affected by this process cannot reasonably hope to enlist the aide and succor of surrounding countries who se leaders more often than not have their own abusive authoritarian governments to protect.
For example, if China was to come to the aide of the people revolting there would be an understandable and predictable concern by the Chinese government that those in favor of democracy might well use this support as encouragement to stage their own protests. (Note the history of Tibet.}
Thus those who participate in open rebellion against rulers who abuse their authority must be aware that they can be and often are slaughtered. But it is equally true that those who govern do so at the collective consent of the governed.
Human beings prefer freedom to oppression except for those who prefer to control everyone else except themselves. Those who rule by fear initially have the upper hand but only so long as the “slaves” cower. Let the “slaves” unite and the oppressors will eventually and inevitably be crushed.
Thanks Sidh S. (and Ngarn) for your responses. Sidh S., I would be interested to learn your reasons for concluding that HMK was a ‘force for democracy than for military dictatorship’. What makes you say that?
As for me, I think HMK’s priority has always been domestic stability, and the military – through their command and control, manpower, guns and tanks – have been the ‘preferred solution provider’ over the years. Democracy is permitted, but not at the expense of stability.
I cannot recall HMK ever risking his position or his institution to defend or promote democracy. I challenge you to find one speech, one paper, one act, anything, from HMK over the past 60 years (including Oct 74, May 97, and 2006) that advocates democracy over stability.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m don’t think HMK is a bad influence on the country. He’s certainly been a ‘big force’ for stability, but I just think is incorrect to say he’s been a ‘force’ for democracy.
I think most Thais have a view of HMK that is heavily influenced by the propaganda that surrounds him, and its a shame. HMK and the institution of monarchy can do with more open constructive criticism (HMK even said so himself).
I hope that the figures don’t increase and that this time there will be the chance that the Burmese Soldiers remember their humanity and refuse to shoot on monks. But maybe they are already so brainwashed by their generals who have lost all humanity themselves.
Unless you can go to Burma independently, avoid Junta owned and liscenced hotel, avoid liscenced tour guides then don’t go.
Don’t say your money helps poor Burmeese people, it doesn’t.
You give the junta 100 dollars and a Burmeese gets 50cents if he’s lucky and tomorrow his family will be slaved to bild a nice road for you and a nice hotel.
The boycott is not working because people like you thinks it’s no good.
Keep out of Burma, give the Junta nothing and maybe when he is hungry, he will go away.
Peacefully . . . is not how the Myanmar\’s ugly oppressive politics will be resolved. And although many people will NOT outrightly say it, the only way to kick out Myanmar\’s generals is through violent force and show of massive resistance by Myanmar\’s oppressed people.
FORCE and threats of force is the only language these ugly Generals, with lineage we can trace to that really ugly General Ne Win, can understand.
The situation now at Myanmar is very explosive with the hungry very angry Burmese nation of nearly 50 million people up against the ugly generals. Blood will be shed and I think is unavoidable . . to rid Myanmar of its monstrous oppressive generals.
The Irrawaddy mentioned that 3 monks were very visibly shot in Rangoon today when I checked at 4pm. It also mentioned that in various other locations, protesters and monks had been shot at and mostly wounded, but there had been some deaths.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
To hell with heffalumps
Some similar cowboy capitalist exploitation of the environment (with added Australians) seems to be about to happen in Cambodia:
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=715&Itemid=31
Monastic protests in Burma
Dear Dr Williams, do you assume liberty is thrust onto man by default? *Star Wars death star music begins to play ominously*
The CCP might not necessarily be supporting ‘democracy’ in Burma remember. The CCP has always maintained that they would support stability and wherever it comes from. You totally disregard the ‘two systems one country’ philosophy. The issue of Tibet is not one of democracy, it is one of national self determination; much the same as Taiwan (who function democratically)….
Interview with Paul Handley
[…] [email protected] (Leigh Connelly) wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSrithanonchai, funny example of AjarnPasuk’s hair style! On this case, I believe I gave a better example of Fox News and how the same set of data/rumors can be manipulated/twisted based on believes/ideology. Paul Handey stated so along … […]
More on the Rebellion Resistance Force
What’s the religious affiliation of the Rawangs? Might they be more willing to take action against monks?
The King Never Smiles?
John Butler, you cannot compare Gyanendra to Bhumibol because Gyanendra was not in direct line to the throne. When he assumed power he was already disliked by not only the (then fewer) Maoists but the majority of citizens who felt that he were corrupt due instances of him not paying taxes whilst being a major stakeholder in significant South Asian corporations (like Tata and Suriya). Furthermore, many Chetri and Brahmin did not recognize him as a true King from the beginning of his reign because of his suspected involvement in the massacre itself. Therefore, the divinity of Gyanendra has always been in question whereas Bhumibol’s has never and consequently your notion of tolerance of bad governance is myopic!
Don’t you think that the only flexibility that the Thai monarchs show is the image they want to portrait of themselves rather than what is really not so fortunate for Thai people.This is not some Western conception of what government should be like, its simply highlighting a lie. Or do you think that Queen Sirikit wearing makeup gives her right to tell everyone she is 21?
Interview with Paul Handley
[…] steampunk fashion wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSidh’s could as well reject a book written by, say, Pasuk, “reasoning” that he did not like her hair style. As if such a thing had anything to do with the product. Trying to limit one’s reading to books of authors with whose intentions … […]
Academic commentary on Burma uprising
Are we going to sit around doing nothing? Well, the Burmese Junta is not very responsive to international opinion, we all know that. But their patron and protector, China, is. This actually can be an opportunity to apply some leverage on the Chinese government to do something about it, or they will face a boycott of Beijing olympics. I believe this threat of olympic boycott and high profile celebrity endorsement is partly behind the Chinese relenting on Darfur and Sudan.
The King Never Smiles?
Like many tourists, I noted the extraordinary number of pictures and posters of King Bhumibol all over Bangkok. I was sceptical about the apparently universal popularity of the King and about the respect the Royal Family has in Thailand. I cannot comment on the book as I have not read it, but I have seen plenty of photographs in which the King is smiling. I have seen no signs that the affection Thais appear to have for him is coerced or indoctrinated, although I am sure that since it is very bad form to criticise the King (as one Australian recently discovered) there may be some attempt on the part of authorities to encourage a cult. Even if this were true, however, it does not mean that the King encourages such behaviour, and indeed his sensible decision about the Australian lese-majeste seems to indicate quite the opposite. His political interventions, at least from what I read, seem equally sensible. That a country holds its Royal Family in respect or even reverence does not strike me as a bad thing, as long as the Royal Family in question deserves that respect; the recent humiliation of King Gyanendra in Nepal shows that people will not tolerate a ruler who acts arbitrarily and stupidly. Since the time of Rama I the Thai monarchy has shown itself flexible and progressive (if we take Rama IV and V as examples), and whilst governments like Prem’s come and go, the King is always there. That’s why monarchies, in the right hands, work. An idiot President like George Bush does much more damage to a country than an inept constitutional monarch, partly because there is no antidote to idiot Presidents and no “higher” authority. In my own country (Britain) the monarchy is not doing so well, and many of its members deserve the scorn people feel for them. The Thais are fortunate in their monarchy. Let them decide whether they want to keep it or not, and let’s stop applying our western notions of what governments should be like to Asian countries.
The vote of the poor
By the way, did I ever actually say I was a Socialist?
I just like being able to vote socialist if and when I feel like it.
I’m against SE because it is IMPOSED by someone who really isn’t all that clued up.
Kachin news on repression in Burma
Reports from various sources concerning the day’s events in Burma collated at my website.
Interview with Paul Handley
Imagine any brand which could have such amount of free advertisement as the monarchy had during 60 years. Every day hours on every TV-Channel, same in Radio. And huge coverage in the Newspapers. A brand which is shown on each village entry.
And now the best: A brand you may not speak badly, you may not discuss about it! It is just the brand as it is and it is good.
A brand which is promoted in the schools, in the wats, in the governmental buildings, everywhere.
A brand which is called to be the only really good brand in the country, because only member of this brand (family) did really good for the country. (Are there any other then Royals who did good for the country?)
Wow this brand after 60 years must have a huge value!
Monastic protests in Burma
Slave Revolts
“You can’t fool all of the people all the time.” Every so often abusive authority stirs a “slave” revolt wherein the people rise up against their oppressors. This process happens when the balance of forces shifts from fear of the oppressors to appropriate collective rage resulting in an unstoppable revolution.
At such times the people most affected by this process cannot reasonably hope to enlist the aide and succor of surrounding countries who se leaders more often than not have their own abusive authoritarian governments to protect.
For example, if China was to come to the aide of the people revolting there would be an understandable and predictable concern by the Chinese government that those in favor of democracy might well use this support as encouragement to stage their own protests. (Note the history of Tibet.}
Thus those who participate in open rebellion against rulers who abuse their authority must be aware that they can be and often are slaughtered. But it is equally true that those who govern do so at the collective consent of the governed.
Human beings prefer freedom to oppression except for those who prefer to control everyone else except themselves. Those who rule by fear initially have the upper hand but only so long as the “slaves” cower. Let the “slaves” unite and the oppressors will eventually and inevitably be crushed.
Interview with Paul Handley
Thanks Sidh S. (and Ngarn) for your responses. Sidh S., I would be interested to learn your reasons for concluding that HMK was a ‘force for democracy than for military dictatorship’. What makes you say that?
As for me, I think HMK’s priority has always been domestic stability, and the military – through their command and control, manpower, guns and tanks – have been the ‘preferred solution provider’ over the years. Democracy is permitted, but not at the expense of stability.
I cannot recall HMK ever risking his position or his institution to defend or promote democracy. I challenge you to find one speech, one paper, one act, anything, from HMK over the past 60 years (including Oct 74, May 97, and 2006) that advocates democracy over stability.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m don’t think HMK is a bad influence on the country. He’s certainly been a ‘big force’ for stability, but I just think is incorrect to say he’s been a ‘force’ for democracy.
I think most Thais have a view of HMK that is heavily influenced by the propaganda that surrounds him, and its a shame. HMK and the institution of monarchy can do with more open constructive criticism (HMK even said so himself).
Interview with Professor David Steinberg
[…] National University) available here and Professor David Steinberg (who has been previously interviewed by New Mandala) available […]
Repression
[…] also New Mandala and Danny Fisher’s blogs. The latter has a link to an online petition to support the monks. […]
“Internal and external destructionists”
I hope that the figures don’t increase and that this time there will be the chance that the Burmese Soldiers remember their humanity and refuse to shoot on monks. But maybe they are already so brainwashed by their generals who have lost all humanity themselves.
Burma boycott – some questions about “avoided tourism”
Unless you can go to Burma independently, avoid Junta owned and liscenced hotel, avoid liscenced tour guides then don’t go.
Don’t say your money helps poor Burmeese people, it doesn’t.
You give the junta 100 dollars and a Burmeese gets 50cents if he’s lucky and tomorrow his family will be slaved to bild a nice road for you and a nice hotel.
The boycott is not working because people like you thinks it’s no good.
Keep out of Burma, give the Junta nothing and maybe when he is hungry, he will go away.
Repression
Peacefully . . . is not how the Myanmar\’s ugly oppressive politics will be resolved. And although many people will NOT outrightly say it, the only way to kick out Myanmar\’s generals is through violent force and show of massive resistance by Myanmar\’s oppressed people.
FORCE and threats of force is the only language these ugly Generals, with lineage we can trace to that really ugly General Ne Win, can understand.
The situation now at Myanmar is very explosive with the hungry very angry Burmese nation of nearly 50 million people up against the ugly generals. Blood will be shed and I think is unavoidable . . to rid Myanmar of its monstrous oppressive generals.
Repression
The Irrawaddy mentioned that 3 monks were very visibly shot in Rangoon today when I checked at 4pm. It also mentioned that in various other locations, protesters and monks had been shot at and mostly wounded, but there had been some deaths.
It was from this page > http://www.irrawaddy.org/protests/BurmaProtests.php
“Internal and external destructionists”
Sadly, our worse fears have proven true, the military crackdown has begun”