Is this kind of conference open for the public to attend?
Re Handley speaking on this panel, i doubt that could happen. Understand he is persona non grata here in Thailand.
Actually, in its current state, any constitution would be meaningless in Thailand. For a constitution to be vaild, it requires the concepts of civil virtue, civil society, and rule of law (as opposed to rule of men) to be presented in the culture.
As of now, all three of these concepts are absent in the Thai world-view.
If everything that Dr. Thongchai wrote is true, then this is a progressive step in the right direction.
But, this being Thailand, and not everything is what it seems to be, I have my doubts that this will be pulled off. One has to wonder what indirect but persuasive and forceful barriers will be put up by the powers at be to prevent these panels from happening at the last moment.
I hope that there are written guarantees in place that no panelist or participant, Thai or foreigner, will prosecuted for lese majeste ( as well as economic and physical threats) for whatever views that he or she puts forth on any subject relating to the monarchy. And, I have to wonder if the “usual suspects” will be the only voices we get to hear. In other words, are we going to get to hear from the mavericks or from the same ancient quote meisters, like Sulak and Thinitan, who we hear in the media over and over again?
I am also curious to know if there will be a media blackout on this event.
I don’t disagree with any of those points, Jon. Although, I think this has been the same scenario played out in other situations as well, to differing degrees. Ie. Cambodia, Bosnia, WWII, Darfur. Of course, the difference is that there is a more established framework for carrying out the theatre of publicising human rights abuses and NGOs with funding address them, some thing that has been developed over the course of the century. Of course there are individuals really and truly committed to helping, but they are up against a system that does not want to change, and a government committed to deflecting obligations.
I do wish that we could hear more voices from those doing constructive work on the ground. But, really, why should they have to? What does publishing their opinion or experiences for us to read and debate have to do with accomplishing their goals in relation to say, a health training or village development project inside Burma? What it boils down to is that it is not their responsibility to inform us. They are not exactly hiding, and it is not their fault that journos, flit about looking for the most ‘sellable’ story, one easily digested by the West. (Or that Soros and other foundations operate the way they do, marginalizing certain groups from their support – I don’t see how they could necessarily fix that)
As for the government, if you’d like to see the US gov. portray the historical realities an complications of the situation, that’s easy. Just drum up some vocal public support for real intervention – and watch how it suddenly becomes an intractable ethnic conflict in which all sides are guilty, and which would be foolish to even try to get involved in because the situation is hopeless. At no point has consideration for actually helping people ever been a priority in the government’s policy on Burma, nor will it ever be.
There is definitely an over-abundance of journalists, and a deficiency of academics researching Burma and all the related issues.
If and when it happens, I’ll be breaking out the champagne. About time!
I don’t know how it will turn out – perhaps badly – but God bless Thongchai for keeping his colleagues’ feet to the fire in the face of overwhelming hostility over the past 1 1/2 years.
Overall there is not a lot of publicly available debate or engagement with the issues, not much balance, outrage being the usual analytical mode, so fear and predictable polemics are the result.
The news stories tend to repeat the same issues over and over, as if there weren’t some odd 47 million people, most of whose lives are more affected by the long-term isolationist policies and the economic sanctions, than human rights violations per se.
I know Zani who I met during the summer when I was at SEASSI several years ago, was trashed pretty harshly when he decided to engage with the government.
“But, there are also a lot of young people (as well as older leaders) from Burma who do get it, and are focused on addressing this issue. No one ever hears about them, though.”
Maybe they should blog or publish. How else will their views become known. Fresh blood, particularly non-elite, would be great. As David Mathieson observes of papers in a volume:
“..[papers] .that promise insight but deliver the same tired arguments, borrowed research and bland summations. …they have nothing new to report and read like graduate student literature reviews from 1992 than serious modern scholarship.”
But I don’t agree with him on this one:
“…When Steinberg refers to reports of “corvee labor,” by which I assume he means civilians herded at gunpoint and with threats of violence to build roads and clear land for the military, he must realize other people call this “forced labor.” His meticulously neutral terminology fails to address contending legitimacies among the country’s embattled ethnic nationalities.”
IMHO “Corvee labor” is not only appropriate way of conveying it. He certainly isn’t being an apologist. Articles that, for instance, describe the horrible work conditions in Mae Sot duty free manufacturing are absolutely necessary, like the recent Reuters article, but there are other dimensions to the problem, and the hyper-political correct stance that everything you say has to be about human rights violations, is counterproductive.
After decades of isolation and with all discourse being highly charged partisan polemics, you get what you ask for, of in the case of Soros, funded.
Burmese history itself, rather than repetitions of the same activist talking points, is possible when you dig into the historical sources a bit. Repetition is why people just forget and ignore Burma. They’ve read the same story a million times and grown numb to it. IMHO a lot more needs to be written about China’s relationship with Burma.
[…] to this conversation (or hoping to refresh their memories) will find these two posts – 15 March and 13 April – particularly helpful. At the time, there were many critical comments and […]
Disposable constitution.
Amnesty clause say it all. If this constitution is passed, it would put Thailand on road of military dictatorship and military power play for years to come. And every constitution would mean as much as the guy with gun want them to be; hence, a toilet paper to wipe the coup mess. Forget the reform or any promise of amendment.
Jon, I think a lot of activists and Burmese exiles are well aware of the issue you point out, which really gets to the heart of the matter doesn’t it? I have the same frustration when seeing the way the issue is typically represented, and I don’t doubt that many ethnic leaders are also missing this point. But, there are also a lot of young people (as well as older leaders) from Burma who do get it, and are focused on addressing this issue. No one ever hears about them, though.
nganadeeleg: I agree with you. I hope that this is just the beginning and that it will improve, which also includes not posting already out-dated stuff. Manager is so hopeless that even calling it a newspaper is too much of an honor. Thanks for the link.
I am actually getting more convinced Historicus that I really should vote YES because that would irritate Andrew Walker and many righteously very indignant democrracy adherents at New Mandala like Historicus, et al. After all I have NOT actually found any sense or merit or value to any of the ’causes’ dear to the NM crowd. And those so called NM causes I dismiss as spurious at best, meant to diminish the grievousness of the Thaksin crimes and keep alive “The ‘Legend of Thaksin Shinawatra as Thailand’s Champion of the Poor and Thai democracy-symbol”.
If this junta-authored constitution will substantially prevent a Thaksin or a Thaksin-wannabe return, that by itself would already merit my YES vote. And if there are flaws, as surely there would be, then the next elected government/national assembly can move towards the appropriate amendment that would remove the more serious thorns yet keep the constitutional fragrance in bloom.
There is no such thing as a perfect constitution Historicus. Thailand thought the 1997 constitution was nearly perfect until a very criminally flawed Thaksin Shinawatra demonstrated to the Thai people otherwise.
What a great idea! Vote Yes for the military because NM’s Andrew says “No”. Why not just vote Yes because you like the idea that the military will be the guardians of the future or because you fear that they might choose a worse constitution if this version is thrown out?
Thai Rath/Manager: For an example of what sort of bizarrely nonsensical form this ideological complex can assume in the Thai public discourse, see http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/
Wouldn’t the eventual goal be to have a professional army that doesn’t intervene in politics as, for instance, South Korea has now, but certainly didn’t always have? I guess people don’t think this far ahead.
“It is a bad idea [yes] that will not only get Sonthi entangled [yes] in the most cynical [no or ???] form of politics that he obviously knows little about [yes], but also belie the claim [who?] that the military is a force for good [try “order”] and a promoter of democracy [no].”
Golly, when someone covers so many issues and ideas in one tiny little sentence like this, it’s hard enough just trying to figure out what he or she means, much less respond to or engage with it.
IMHO Good old academic citation practices that force one to engage with ideas in the world of citable texts in a systematic and meaningful way, on an item by item basis, would be of much value here.
If the generals suddenly disappeared and Burma had democracy, do activists really honestly believe that Burma’s problems (e.g. ethnic insurgencies) are going to end there?
Look at every other country in the region.
The Karen generals wanted an independent state of Kawthoolei in the middle of the jungle with a 95% malaria infection rate last time I was there.
And are they the only ethnic group in Burma that wants independence from the “Burmans” ?
Sudden “freedom” might in fact mean in the end “anarchy” and “violence”.
Western activists, scholars, journalists, who want to micromanage countries that they don’t even deign to look at very closely or fund much in the way of area studies in, why should I think that they have the solution to any problem in Burma.
They can’t even describe what’s happening there adequately!
**After they get democracy** it’s going to be a lot, lot more difficult than getting outraged and protesting or all holding hands in a circle and singing Koom Baa Yaa…..
On a tangential note, I am currently making my way (slowly) through the book “A problem from hell: America and the age of genocide”. There was an anecdote about Elie Weisel, who was pushing for intervention in Bosnia, and some US State Department officials. He asked why they just don’t liberate one of the concentration camps, and the reply was basicllay, “We’re afraid if we liberate one that it cause a backlash and people in the camps will be killed”. Weisel’s reply was that that was exactly the excuse given in WWII for not liberating the Jewish concentration camps.
Not that different from this girl’s attitude about publicity causing backlash. Also not that different from the way people react to situations of prolonged domestic violence. Where did this attitude come from and why is it so pervasive?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
Is this kind of conference open for the public to attend?
Re Handley speaking on this panel, i doubt that could happen. Understand he is persona non grata here in Thailand.
No!
re fall>
Actually, in its current state, any constitution would be meaningless in Thailand. For a constitution to be vaild, it requires the concepts of civil virtue, civil society, and rule of law (as opposed to rule of men) to be presented in the culture.
As of now, all three of these concepts are absent in the Thai world-view.
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
Thongchai’s post is very encouraging. Re the panel on Handley’s book, it was not mentioned whether Handley would be on this panel, too.
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
If everything that Dr. Thongchai wrote is true, then this is a progressive step in the right direction.
But, this being Thailand, and not everything is what it seems to be, I have my doubts that this will be pulled off. One has to wonder what indirect but persuasive and forceful barriers will be put up by the powers at be to prevent these panels from happening at the last moment.
I hope that there are written guarantees in place that no panelist or participant, Thai or foreigner, will prosecuted for lese majeste ( as well as economic and physical threats) for whatever views that he or she puts forth on any subject relating to the monarchy. And, I have to wonder if the “usual suspects” will be the only voices we get to hear. In other words, are we going to get to hear from the mavericks or from the same ancient quote meisters, like Sulak and Thinitan, who we hear in the media over and over again?
I am also curious to know if there will be a media blackout on this event.
Catch 22 takes aim at the BBC, the KNU, the SPDC…Annie Lennox
I don’t disagree with any of those points, Jon. Although, I think this has been the same scenario played out in other situations as well, to differing degrees. Ie. Cambodia, Bosnia, WWII, Darfur. Of course, the difference is that there is a more established framework for carrying out the theatre of publicising human rights abuses and NGOs with funding address them, some thing that has been developed over the course of the century. Of course there are individuals really and truly committed to helping, but they are up against a system that does not want to change, and a government committed to deflecting obligations.
I do wish that we could hear more voices from those doing constructive work on the ground. But, really, why should they have to? What does publishing their opinion or experiences for us to read and debate have to do with accomplishing their goals in relation to say, a health training or village development project inside Burma? What it boils down to is that it is not their responsibility to inform us. They are not exactly hiding, and it is not their fault that journos, flit about looking for the most ‘sellable’ story, one easily digested by the West. (Or that Soros and other foundations operate the way they do, marginalizing certain groups from their support – I don’t see how they could necessarily fix that)
As for the government, if you’d like to see the US gov. portray the historical realities an complications of the situation, that’s easy. Just drum up some vocal public support for real intervention – and watch how it suddenly becomes an intractable ethnic conflict in which all sides are guilty, and which would be foolish to even try to get involved in because the situation is hopeless. At no point has consideration for actually helping people ever been a priority in the government’s policy on Burma, nor will it ever be.
There is definitely an over-abundance of journalists, and a deficiency of academics researching Burma and all the related issues.
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
If and when it happens, I’ll be breaking out the champagne. About time!
I don’t know how it will turn out – perhaps badly – but God bless Thongchai for keeping his colleagues’ feet to the fire in the face of overwhelming hostility over the past 1 1/2 years.
Catch 22 takes aim at the BBC, the KNU, the SPDC…Annie Lennox
Overall there is not a lot of publicly available debate or engagement with the issues, not much balance, outrage being the usual analytical mode, so fear and predictable polemics are the result.
The news stories tend to repeat the same issues over and over, as if there weren’t some odd 47 million people, most of whose lives are more affected by the long-term isolationist policies and the economic sanctions, than human rights violations per se.
I know Zani who I met during the summer when I was at SEASSI several years ago, was trashed pretty harshly when he decided to engage with the government.
“But, there are also a lot of young people (as well as older leaders) from Burma who do get it, and are focused on addressing this issue. No one ever hears about them, though.”
Maybe they should blog or publish. How else will their views become known. Fresh blood, particularly non-elite, would be great. As David Mathieson observes of papers in a volume:
“..[papers] .that promise insight but deliver the same tired arguments, borrowed research and bland summations. …they have nothing new to report and read like graduate student literature reviews from 1992 than serious modern scholarship.”
But I don’t agree with him on this one:
“…When Steinberg refers to reports of “corvee labor,” by which I assume he means civilians herded at gunpoint and with threats of violence to build roads and clear land for the military, he must realize other people call this “forced labor.” His meticulously neutral terminology fails to address contending legitimacies among the country’s embattled ethnic nationalities.”
IMHO “Corvee labor” is not only appropriate way of conveying it. He certainly isn’t being an apologist. Articles that, for instance, describe the horrible work conditions in Mae Sot duty free manufacturing are absolutely necessary, like the recent Reuters article, but there are other dimensions to the problem, and the hyper-political correct stance that everything you say has to be about human rights violations, is counterproductive.
“Khin Zaw Win’s mercurial, anti-sanctions soap-boxing employs questionable economics, culturally deterministic nationalism (veering toward xenophobia) and pundit amateurism masquerading as authority.”
After decades of isolation and with all discourse being highly charged partisan polemics, you get what you ask for, of in the case of Soros, funded.
Burmese history itself, rather than repetitions of the same activist talking points, is possible when you dig into the historical sources a bit. Repetition is why people just forget and ignore Burma. They’ve read the same story a million times and grown numb to it. IMHO a lot more needs to be written about China’s relationship with Burma.
A Thai Studies boycott?
[…] to this conversation (or hoping to refresh their memories) will find these two posts – 15 March and 13 April – particularly helpful. At the time, there were many critical comments and […]
No!
Disposable constitution.
Amnesty clause say it all. If this constitution is passed, it would put Thailand on road of military dictatorship and military power play for years to come. And every constitution would mean as much as the guy with gun want them to be; hence, a toilet paper to wipe the coup mess. Forget the reform or any promise of amendment.
Catch 22 takes aim at the BBC, the KNU, the SPDC…Annie Lennox
Jon, I think a lot of activists and Burmese exiles are well aware of the issue you point out, which really gets to the heart of the matter doesn’t it? I have the same frustration when seeing the way the issue is typically represented, and I don’t doubt that many ethnic leaders are also missing this point. But, there are also a lot of young people (as well as older leaders) from Burma who do get it, and are focused on addressing this issue. No one ever hears about them, though.
Prachatai in English
nganadeeleg: I agree with you. I hope that this is just the beginning and that it will improve, which also includes not posting already out-dated stuff. Manager is so hopeless that even calling it a newspaper is too much of an honor. Thanks for the link.
No!
I am actually getting more convinced Historicus that I really should vote YES because that would irritate Andrew Walker and many righteously very indignant democrracy adherents at New Mandala like Historicus, et al. After all I have NOT actually found any sense or merit or value to any of the ’causes’ dear to the NM crowd. And those so called NM causes I dismiss as spurious at best, meant to diminish the grievousness of the Thaksin crimes and keep alive “The ‘Legend of Thaksin Shinawatra as Thailand’s Champion of the Poor and Thai democracy-symbol”.
If this junta-authored constitution will substantially prevent a Thaksin or a Thaksin-wannabe return, that by itself would already merit my YES vote. And if there are flaws, as surely there would be, then the next elected government/national assembly can move towards the appropriate amendment that would remove the more serious thorns yet keep the constitutional fragrance in bloom.
There is no such thing as a perfect constitution Historicus. Thailand thought the 1997 constitution was nearly perfect until a very criminally flawed Thaksin Shinawatra demonstrated to the Thai people otherwise.
No!
What a great idea! Vote Yes for the military because NM’s Andrew says “No”. Why not just vote Yes because you like the idea that the military will be the guardians of the future or because you fear that they might choose a worse constitution if this version is thrown out?
Prachatai in English
I see it more as an antidote to The Manager, and to a lesser extent The Nation and the Bangkok Post.
Interesting reading, but very one dimensional and judging by the articles, I doubt it is truly independent.
Still, I agree with Srithanonchai that it is a welcome addition, along with http://www.thaksinfightsback.com
National jaundice
Thai Rath/Manager: For an example of what sort of bizarrely nonsensical form this ideological complex can assume in the Thai public discourse, see http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/
The most cynical form of politics?
Wouldn’t the eventual goal be to have a professional army that doesn’t intervene in politics as, for instance, South Korea has now, but certainly didn’t always have? I guess people don’t think this far ahead.
“It is a bad idea [yes] that will not only get Sonthi entangled [yes] in the most cynical [no or ???] form of politics that he obviously knows little about [yes], but also belie the claim [who?] that the military is a force for good [try “order”] and a promoter of democracy [no].”
Golly, when someone covers so many issues and ideas in one tiny little sentence like this, it’s hard enough just trying to figure out what he or she means, much less respond to or engage with it.
IMHO Good old academic citation practices that force one to engage with ideas in the world of citable texts in a systematic and meaningful way, on an item by item basis, would be of much value here.
Catch 22 takes aim at the BBC, the KNU, the SPDC…Annie Lennox
If the generals suddenly disappeared and Burma had democracy, do activists really honestly believe that Burma’s problems (e.g. ethnic insurgencies) are going to end there?
Look at every other country in the region.
The Karen generals wanted an independent state of Kawthoolei in the middle of the jungle with a 95% malaria infection rate last time I was there.
And are they the only ethnic group in Burma that wants independence from the “Burmans” ?
Sudden “freedom” might in fact mean in the end “anarchy” and “violence”.
Western activists, scholars, journalists, who want to micromanage countries that they don’t even deign to look at very closely or fund much in the way of area studies in, why should I think that they have the solution to any problem in Burma.
They can’t even describe what’s happening there adequately!
**After they get democracy** it’s going to be a lot, lot more difficult than getting outraged and protesting or all holding hands in a circle and singing Koom Baa Yaa…..
“Rural no more”
Do they get to vote for the mayor of Bangkok? I don’t think so. I
In the UK we have the Watford gap, something similar would be the Don Muang Ditch.
Catch 22 takes aim at the BBC, the KNU, the SPDC…Annie Lennox
Wow. I good grammar. Sorry.
Catch 22 takes aim at the BBC, the KNU, the SPDC…Annie Lennox
On a tangential note, I am currently making my way (slowly) through the book “A problem from hell: America and the age of genocide”. There was an anecdote about Elie Weisel, who was pushing for intervention in Bosnia, and some US State Department officials. He asked why they just don’t liberate one of the concentration camps, and the reply was basicllay, “We’re afraid if we liberate one that it cause a backlash and people in the camps will be killed”. Weisel’s reply was that that was exactly the excuse given in WWII for not liberating the Jewish concentration camps.
Not that different from this girl’s attitude about publicity causing backlash. Also not that different from the way people react to situations of prolonged domestic violence. Where did this attitude come from and why is it so pervasive?