Comments

Well, that argument is up for grabs. UNSC, particularly in recent years, has acted in cases where countries that did not pose international security threats but had internal domestic problems had resolutions passed to deal with such problems. This year, UNSC passed a resolution for the Ivory Coast, which like Burma, faces a similar situation, including large-scale civilian suffering and displacement and an civil war. In addition, depending on opinion, some may see Burma as posing an international threat to security in the region, as 5 major strains of HIV originate in Burma, and drugs/human trafficking.

Jon seems to be taking argument for limiting suffrage for the poor seriously, so I’ll give him a serious response.

He notes that the rich are alone worthy of representation because they,
> 1. Send their to school: Mattayom, college, graduate school.

This is not limited to Thailand. In nearly every country, developed and developing, income is always correlated with education. Yet universal (or near universal) suffrage is the norm for most democracies. This is because without representation, the poor can not trust the altruistic elite to provide them with the economic and social reforms to raise their status.

> 2. Less likely to allow their children to run around at night on motorcycles, drink, and take drugs.

If that was a criteria for suffrage, I think the Greatest Generation – the parents of American Baby Boomers, hippies, stoners, and the Summer of Love generation – would all be disenfranchised as well.

> 3. More likely to expect their children to get married in a traditional fashion and raise their family in a responsible fashoin, rather than to get some young woman pregnant and then runaway.

Teenage pregnancy is correlated with income and education in most countries of the world. But is taking away voting rights really the best means to improve sexual education and access to low-cost condoms?

> 4. Less likely to send their daughter to a Bangkok brothel, karaoke, massage parlour, etc.

I’ve never slept with a single prostitute (and I’ve slept with dozens of them) who was sold into prositution by her parents. In fact, I’ve never met a single prostitute who told her parents how she was making a living.

> 5. More likely to experience some change in family fortunes, from generation to generation, like increased social status, or wealth, because their children move in a higher status university educated social group university, for instance..

You’re saying that the rich will get richer, but the poor never will. This is wrong, of course – the advances in educational and economic standards among the Thai poor over the past decades proves you wrong.

=)

Let us move on to the second page of the book concerning HRH the Princess Mother. Handley wrote that “A commoner, part Chinese, Sangwal was born to a poor parents in 1900 just across the Chaophraya River from the Grand Palace.”

Also wrong !

HRH the Princess Mother was born in Nonthaburi Province according to the book “My Mother Told Me” by Princess Galyani Vadhana, her owed daughter.

HRH the Princess Mother’s grandfather lived across the Chaophraya River from the Grand Palace as Handley understood, but her father and mother moved to Nonthaburi before she was born. This is why HRH the Princess Mother actually born in Nonthaburi not just across the Chaophraya River from the Grand Palace. In fact, many websites got this fact wrong. So, was Handley.

If I have more time, I will point out to you further on Handley’s other mistakes on page 2. There are several more. And I can tell you, since his book has around 500 pages, there are plenty of other mistakes within the book and it shows how careful and how well research the author has been with his subject.

Well should I say any more….. =)

Steinberg says embargo doesn’t work so we should engage but he doesn’t say just how engagement should be shaped to push the generals in a direction even Steinberg says is necessary.
But Kyi May Kaung is off to simply dismiss Steinberg’s viewpoint on the grounds that Steinberg isn’t inside Burma. Such dismissals undermine Kyi May Kaung’s arguement.

Does anyone have any good reason to believe certain military figures backing certain candidate to the throne when the time finally come?

I thought it’s pretty clear now, given certain roles (e.g. preside the NLA opening) and pr events (e.g. charter flight, Kru Ju Ling’s funeral, etc.) the Crown Prince has been taking up lately, that he’s going to be get it.

???

Lets paint a scenario: tomorrow morning we wake up to find out that the King had passed away in his sleep overnight. Prem announces on TV that HMK had previously selected Sirindthorn as his successor. But by the afternoon Prem is arrested by a military faction associated with Saprang who has formed an alliance with Vachiralongkorn & Thaksin (the alliance was one of convenience to enable (1) V. to be installed as the next King; (2) Saprang to be installed as CinC of the armed forces; and (3) Thaksin to be allowed to return to Thailand & retake government (i.e. a counter-coup to restore democracy! The West would love it). Army units from the same faction also put Sirindthorn under effective house arrest. Queen Sirikit goes on TV saying the King really wanted his son to be the next King but Prem & Sonthi were trying to usurp the throne by appointing Sirindthorn, who they thought they could control, as the next monarch instead. Sonthi moves in with tanks to arrest the military faction holding Prem & Sirindthorm. In the ensuing fighting Sirindthorn is killed by a stray bullet. Other units associated with Saprang, Vachiralongkorn and Thaksin move in from the North and heavy fighting ensues in Nakorn Sawan. The Queen manages to go on radio to say Sonthi killed Sirindthorn. Prem meanwhile had escaped with the help of Sonthi’s tanks and appears on TV5 to say he is the true caretaker of Bhumipol’s will. The populace is divided. One side believes the Queen, one side believes Prem/Sonthi….

Just a wild scenario…unlikely to unfold as depicted but not outside the realm of possibility….

And why would you want to run, let alone hide?

As a half-Thai student of modern Southeast Asian studies whose better half works in the Thai tourist empire, I’ve never understood the degree to which so-called anthropologists like to make themselves self-aggrandizing little badges labeling themselves “non-tourist”. To my mind we are all outsiders and voyeurs.

Perhaps instead of running and hiding we should instead engage. Besides what tourism may often lack in cross-cultural understanding it more than makes up for in cold hard cash – probably more of a contribution to the livelihoods of ordinary Thais than some unread thesis gathering dust on a shelf.

In addition, a new socially responsible face to toursim is emerging in some parts, which is not all ,marketing hype but genuinely succeeds in having a positive impact upon the communities in which they exist.

Example: http://www.shintamani.com/

Perhaps students of modern Southeast Asia should also consider giving back a little more to the communities in which they study.

I have to give credit to Steinberg for bringing up the issue of ethnic minorities in Burma, which I personally think is the critical issue to ultimately resolving Burma’s political problems, and note that Kyi May Maung doesn’t address it. That would be one area I would like to see both of them discuss in more detail.

Howeever, I can’t figure out what Steinberg is trying to say when he writes “The issue of legitimacy may internally also be disaggregated: how minorities, for example, regard a central regime may be quite different from the views of the majority Burmese population. ” Really? In my talks with both populations in Burma, I’m pretty sure that with regard to the current central regime it isn’t disaggregated: both groups don’t think it is legitimate.

Also, I’m not sure I buy Steinberg’s contention that sanctions are meant to cause economic collaspe. As Kyi May Maung points out, Ne Win had already done an outstanding job of that. Especially in the aftermath of 8-8-88, the military regime was bankrupt, and desparate to raise funds in order to stay in power. That is why it sold off its natural resources and tried to gain foreign investment. Sanctions weren’t meant just to cause collapse, but rather to keep the regime from consolidating power.

Kasumo, while technically true, that’s like saying that somebody born in Siriraj Hospital wasn’t born in Bangkok. The town of Brookline is opposite the Charles River from the city of Cambridge. Mt. Auburn Hospital itself is right next to the river.

I agree with Chang Noi here. There is just too much Hollywood coup romanticism. Coup all over the world cites 108-pretext and all ended up just another military regime. That’s why this coup from the start try to differentiate itself, that it is not an ordinary coup. It is a brave Aragon goes against the evil Mordon.

This coup might seem to be the revolution from “imperfect democracy” to “benevolent tyrant”. But the only thing that put in the word “benevolent” is *this* king. Like Cao Cao, he cited the king as pretext to enforce his unity. Now, for any afore mention reasons, try take *this* king involvement out and look at the meaning again.