Just the kind of one sided very B&W view that perpetuates conflict and merely generates lip service to peace and national reconciliation. Surrender or else. There is no alternative.
Why do men rebel? No legitimate grievances nor entitlement. Just for fun emulating Rambo or for loot I guess.
Doubt it if this is relevant at all. It was simply a case of her dynastic ambition realised as opportunity knocked. Never engaged in any kind of opposition ever before.
Always at the mercy and enjoying wriggle room only by the grace of the generals. Never organised or even fronted any kind of mass protest or action (typically carried out by extra-parliamentary activists such as Htin Kyaw, ex-Capt. Nay Myo Zin and Naw Ohn Hla) that would actually provoke the generals.
Gainfully used by both the generals and the West to achieve détente (the really aimed for reconciliation) so Business Rules, OK.
I do not deny what you state at the end, if I understand you correctly. On the contrary, it was China and not the Alliance, that Chin Peng intended to hand Malaya over to. The connection between CPM and Mao was irrevocable; Chin Peng said so himself. Aside from #2 being a counter-counter spy, I never denied that Chin Peng had no intention to hand over Malaya to Malaysians; I said quite the opposite. His intentions were very much anticipated by him. Chin Peng was as much a proxy of the Chinese Communist Party as Sukarno would have been, had he not been deposed (and I am not defending necessarily the way Sukarno was deposed; but there were 2.5 million Communists in Indonesia, the third largest Communist Party in Asia, 1965 is a discussion that has already taken place on NM and will continue to in Indonesia).
Re-read my post. I am 90 % agreement with your last paragraph. The 10 % is that I think you are optimistic when you say the consequences were unanticipated, some are and some aren’t, but make no mistake, in his own mind, Chin Peng was a Communist (at that time), an opportunist (a good one at that), and loved China far, far more than Malaya, in the context of a Malay Malaya. He may have suggested otherwise in his last interview, but as I was living in Malaya, while the Emergency took place, and my father fought the Emergency, I speak with some experience. Am I biased ? YES. I am resolutely anti-Communist and I will always despise Chin Peng and the CPM. I have stated my reasons here and before.
Strange, we didn’t see 90 academics (birds of a feather…) comment on the possible larceny of PM Najib in Malaysia. Is it because President Jokowi is a softer target ? While corruption is endemic in Southeast Asia, in general, has Michael Buehler supplied proof that has been examined by a Forensic Accountant ? If the consensus is that no court in Indonesia will provide fair and objective rulings, in addition to the usual academic love-fest, what proposals do these experts offer to improve the quality of Indonesia’s legal system (both Indonesian and foreign scholars). Pseudo-nationalistic whining about “Foreign influence” and “Agents of the West” are certainly inflammatory and are meaningless, but unless both Indonesian and foreign legal scholars are prepared to work together to reform Indonesia’s legal system, throwing up your hands in despair (or derision), mass academic whining and Indonesian defensiveness are all inimical to a rational and productive solution to corruption and illegality in Indonesia, when and where it exists.
Truth, we must allow, may still remain elusive. Also bear in mind that CPeng used ANU and other platforms in his post-1990 campaign to paint himself on the right side of history. His bottom-line seems to be that he was at least willing to fight for what he believed in. This is an admirable quality in itself but insufficient for his final project: one’s beliefs, even if not entirely self-centered and self-serving, may be misguided and bad for others.
I find Peter Cohen’s view generally plausible and persuasive. What I do not understand is his insistent denial of CPeng’s role in speeding up Malayan independence. The British returned to economically important Malaya after the war intending to delay its (inevitable) progress towards independence for as long
as possible. But the communist revolt forced the British to grant independence earlier (together with other measures including relaxing citizenship conditions) in order to contain support for the communists. This seems widely accepted and consistent with available evidence.
CPeng did not intend for the British to hand over the country to the Alliance. And for sure this was not what he was trying to speed up. But his actions did have these consequences, even if unintended and unanticipated by him. I wonder why Peter Cohen denies even this.
I took a boat tour on the Irrawaddy this spring and just happened on this essay. Wonderful research. And interesting how one poem can have such progeny.
Why ”the NLD’s decisive victory in Myanmar’s election” has to be ”labeled as being a victory for democracy”, and, not as a victory for or of the advance and progress of science and information technology over politics?
Is the ballot box, anywhere, the only solution to all problems facing humanity?
I think people will be more trusting in science and technology(eg transparent infinite connectivity, moving ahead to shape and reshape, environment, ideas with greater certainty,..)because it works. It always tells the truth or nearest to the truth, while most politicians choose to lie.
Even so, it is worth noting that not one of the 90 or more governments (including several OIC Members) and not one of the 30 or more civil society oganisations mentioned the word ‘genodice’ during Myanmar’s recent Universal Periodic Review in Geneva.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that reflection, since all OIC UN members have called for a vote on condemning Myanmar. Interesting that no non-Islamic nation has…..heretofore. Mahathir as usual, now hates Myanmar, before he vigorously defended their initial entry into ASEAN. A changed man I suppose; just like he is lovey-dovey with Malaysian Chinese and Indians now. Truly a UN man for all seasons.
A nice Coup de Pouffe by the UN. The same UN that “deplores” Omar al-Bashir’s behaviour in Sudan but didn’t criticise South Africa and India, when he visited there recently. The same UN that allows Iran to call for the extinction of Jews but has nothing to say about the extinction of the Yezidi in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. I guess “Devil-Worshipping” is a no-no in lower Manhattan, but the OIC has no problem buying off Ban Ki-Moon. If I relied on the UN to solve anything from “Rohingya” issues in Myanmar to the Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara (remember Front Polisario ?), I would die long before the UN could even agree on what non-alcoholic beverages and hors d’oeuvres to serve at the daily 3 hour luncheons at the General Assembly dining room. The UN is less useful than athlete’s foot.
On 12 November 2015 FCO Minister of State Hugo Swire (who has visited Rakhine State at least twice) had these words to say. No doubt they were gone over very carefully by FCO legal advisers. I would also think they reflect the views of most of if not all the other 192 members of the UN apart from Myanmar:
“The UK deplores the treatment of the Rohingya community in Rakhine State, who are subject to persecution and denied the most basic rights. We welcome the work of the highly effective UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, who has shone a spotlight on violations against the Rohingya in Rakhine. She has not characterised the treatment of the Rohingya as genocide, and neither did the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide in his 4 November statement on Burma’s elections. However, any judgement on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for international judicial decision, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies. A UN investigation would require high level international support for which, we assess, there is little prospect of agreement at this stage. Our approach is to seek an end to all violations, irrespective of whether or not they fit the definition of specific international crimes.”
It is unfortunate that the author has limited his scrutiny to the haze-causing fires to Kalimantan. If President Jokowi had eliminated the fires in Sumatra with equal facility, it would have been no mean achievement. It is surely the Sumatran fires, rather than those in Kalimantan, that have caused the most irritation and health problems across the Malacca Straits in Singapore and Malaysia.
Jokowi’s handling of the haze problem is a good example of the capacity deficit from which his government suffers.
Visiting Riau on 26 November 2014, Jokowi said: “Masalah tiap tahun selalu berulang, masalah gambut yang terbakar, itu yang mau kita selesaikan. Kalau masalahnya kita ketahui, di lapangannya kita kuasai, memutuskannya gampang.”
Despite this confident statement, virtually a full year later Jokowi used the haze as a pretext for cutting short his visit to the United States. Itu kapan akan kita selesaikan? Masalahnya kapan akan kita kuasai?
It may be that that ‘what you see is what you get, a plain man without guile’. What I, like most observers, didn’t see was how this plain man would cultivate TNI army officers, active and retired, to such an extent that now the Coordinating Minister, Defence Minister and TNI Commander are all army officers. This, and Jokowi’s indifference to human rights abuses the army has perpetrated, threaten to reverse the process of the army’s withdrawal from political life.
For example,the Defence Minister, General Ryamizard Ryacudu of ‘60,000 foreign spies’ fame, is currently pushing a scheme, presumably with Jokowi’s approval, to recruit up to 100 million volunteers to defend the state (Bela Negara) against threats to its sovereignty. The program will reportedly include instruction in Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution, Unity in Diversity and the Unitary State.
There’s certainly no guile at work here. This reeks of nothing more than a rehash of Soeharto’s P4 indoctrination program, which was one of the most effective means yet found of dumbing down Indonesian society.
‘..navy paying boats to return to Indonesia (not denied by the Australian government)’
Deny deny deny. Unfortunately they didn’t take their own advice but tried to wheel out weasel cover stories to selected journos. The prosecution in Rote has been unable to present any ‘bribe’ money as evidence because ‘It’s gone missing.’ Hidayat, the boss plod, had originally said he’d sent the money to the crew’s villages. Then they mysteriously found some again, not all, to show selected cameras. Now they’ve changed their story yet again, saying they gave it back to the crew to send home. And if they did, weren’t they facilitating bribery and people smuggling? So who’s the moron who thought paying crew with Greenbacks didn’t require the usual risk assessment, mitigation and management? Ok Dutton and moron are cognates. But there must be some uber morons lurking in the magic forest of Canberra to believe the plods and/or LANAL wouldn’t get their sweaty mits on it. Because, well, they always do. The only possible place crew could exchange it without being noticed is the surfing resort of Nemberala. And the plods moonlight there too.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The realities of power in Myanmar
[…] the full “The realities of power in Myanmar” article authored by Associate Professor Andrew […]
Statement of support for Michael Buehler
[…] Mengunggah pernyataan ini dalam format PDF di sini. Membaca pernyataan ini dalam Bahasa Inggris di sini. […]
The president and the proxy
Just the kind of one sided very B&W view that perpetuates conflict and merely generates lip service to peace and national reconciliation. Surrender or else. There is no alternative.
Why do men rebel? No legitimate grievances nor entitlement. Just for fun emulating Rambo or for loot I guess.
The president and the proxy
Doubt it if this is relevant at all. It was simply a case of her dynastic ambition realised as opportunity knocked. Never engaged in any kind of opposition ever before.
Always at the mercy and enjoying wriggle room only by the grace of the generals. Never organised or even fronted any kind of mass protest or action (typically carried out by extra-parliamentary activists such as Htin Kyaw, ex-Capt. Nay Myo Zin and Naw Ohn Hla) that would actually provoke the generals.
Gainfully used by both the generals and the West to achieve détente (the really aimed for reconciliation) so Business Rules, OK.
Soal lobi, pertanyaan yang belum dijawab
Another US 32,000 paid to R&R Partners by Pereira?
http://www.fara.gov/docs/6229-Supplemental-Statement-20150730-2.pdf
Statement of support for Michael Buehler
It is not so much about Widodo but about the overreaction of the Indonesian Government to Buehler’s article.
Chin Peng, an obituary
Lim,
I do not deny what you state at the end, if I understand you correctly. On the contrary, it was China and not the Alliance, that Chin Peng intended to hand Malaya over to. The connection between CPM and Mao was irrevocable; Chin Peng said so himself. Aside from #2 being a counter-counter spy, I never denied that Chin Peng had no intention to hand over Malaya to Malaysians; I said quite the opposite. His intentions were very much anticipated by him. Chin Peng was as much a proxy of the Chinese Communist Party as Sukarno would have been, had he not been deposed (and I am not defending necessarily the way Sukarno was deposed; but there were 2.5 million Communists in Indonesia, the third largest Communist Party in Asia, 1965 is a discussion that has already taken place on NM and will continue to in Indonesia).
Re-read my post. I am 90 % agreement with your last paragraph. The 10 % is that I think you are optimistic when you say the consequences were unanticipated, some are and some aren’t, but make no mistake, in his own mind, Chin Peng was a Communist (at that time), an opportunist (a good one at that), and loved China far, far more than Malaya, in the context of a Malay Malaya. He may have suggested otherwise in his last interview, but as I was living in Malaya, while the Emergency took place, and my father fought the Emergency, I speak with some experience. Am I biased ? YES. I am resolutely anti-Communist and I will always despise Chin Peng and the CPM. I have stated my reasons here and before.
Statement of support for Michael Buehler
Strange, we didn’t see 90 academics (birds of a feather…) comment on the possible larceny of PM Najib in Malaysia. Is it because President Jokowi is a softer target ? While corruption is endemic in Southeast Asia, in general, has Michael Buehler supplied proof that has been examined by a Forensic Accountant ? If the consensus is that no court in Indonesia will provide fair and objective rulings, in addition to the usual academic love-fest, what proposals do these experts offer to improve the quality of Indonesia’s legal system (both Indonesian and foreign scholars). Pseudo-nationalistic whining about “Foreign influence” and “Agents of the West” are certainly inflammatory and are meaningless, but unless both Indonesian and foreign legal scholars are prepared to work together to reform Indonesia’s legal system, throwing up your hands in despair (or derision), mass academic whining and Indonesian defensiveness are all inimical to a rational and productive solution to corruption and illegality in Indonesia, when and where it exists.
Statement of support for Michael Buehler
Sy ikut mendukung
Chin Peng, an obituary
Truth, we must allow, may still remain elusive. Also bear in mind that CPeng used ANU and other platforms in his post-1990 campaign to paint himself on the right side of history. His bottom-line seems to be that he was at least willing to fight for what he believed in. This is an admirable quality in itself but insufficient for his final project: one’s beliefs, even if not entirely self-centered and self-serving, may be misguided and bad for others.
I find Peter Cohen’s view generally plausible and persuasive. What I do not understand is his insistent denial of CPeng’s role in speeding up Malayan independence. The British returned to economically important Malaya after the war intending to delay its (inevitable) progress towards independence for as long
as possible. But the communist revolt forced the British to grant independence earlier (together with other measures including relaxing citizenship conditions) in order to contain support for the communists. This seems widely accepted and consistent with available evidence.
CPeng did not intend for the British to hand over the country to the Alliance. And for sure this was not what he was trying to speed up. But his actions did have these consequences, even if unintended and unanticipated by him. I wonder why Peter Cohen denies even this.
Burma and the Kipling mystique
I took a boat tour on the Irrawaddy this spring and just happened on this essay. Wonderful research. And interesting how one poem can have such progeny.
Taking new paths
Why ”the NLD’s decisive victory in Myanmar’s election” has to be ”labeled as being a victory for democracy”, and, not as a victory for or of the advance and progress of science and information technology over politics?
Is the ballot box, anywhere, the only solution to all problems facing humanity?
I think people will be more trusting in science and technology(eg transparent infinite connectivity, moving ahead to shape and reshape, environment, ideas with greater certainty,..)because it works. It always tells the truth or nearest to the truth, while most politicians choose to lie.
Private: Genocide and the vote
Even so, it is worth noting that not one of the 90 or more governments (including several OIC Members) and not one of the 30 or more civil society oganisations mentioned the word ‘genodice’ during Myanmar’s recent Universal Periodic Review in Geneva.
Private: Genocide and the vote
I wouldn’t be so sure about that reflection, since all OIC UN members have called for a vote on condemning Myanmar. Interesting that no non-Islamic nation has…..heretofore. Mahathir as usual, now hates Myanmar, before he vigorously defended their initial entry into ASEAN. A changed man I suppose; just like he is lovey-dovey with Malaysian Chinese and Indians now. Truly a UN man for all seasons.
A nice Coup de Pouffe by the UN. The same UN that “deplores” Omar al-Bashir’s behaviour in Sudan but didn’t criticise South Africa and India, when he visited there recently. The same UN that allows Iran to call for the extinction of Jews but has nothing to say about the extinction of the Yezidi in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. I guess “Devil-Worshipping” is a no-no in lower Manhattan, but the OIC has no problem buying off Ban Ki-Moon. If I relied on the UN to solve anything from “Rohingya” issues in Myanmar to the Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara (remember Front Polisario ?), I would die long before the UN could even agree on what non-alcoholic beverages and hors d’oeuvres to serve at the daily 3 hour luncheons at the General Assembly dining room. The UN is less useful than athlete’s foot.
Private: Genocide and the vote
On 12 November 2015 FCO Minister of State Hugo Swire (who has visited Rakhine State at least twice) had these words to say. No doubt they were gone over very carefully by FCO legal advisers. I would also think they reflect the views of most of if not all the other 192 members of the UN apart from Myanmar:
“The UK deplores the treatment of the Rohingya community in Rakhine State, who are subject to persecution and denied the most basic rights. We welcome the work of the highly effective UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, who has shone a spotlight on violations against the Rohingya in Rakhine. She has not characterised the treatment of the Rohingya as genocide, and neither did the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide in his 4 November statement on Burma’s elections. However, any judgement on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for international judicial decision, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies. A UN investigation would require high level international support for which, we assess, there is little prospect of agreement at this stage. Our approach is to seek an end to all violations, irrespective of whether or not they fit the definition of specific international crimes.”
Stopover charm is not enough
It is unfortunate that the author has limited his scrutiny to the haze-causing fires to Kalimantan. If President Jokowi had eliminated the fires in Sumatra with equal facility, it would have been no mean achievement. It is surely the Sumatran fires, rather than those in Kalimantan, that have caused the most irritation and health problems across the Malacca Straits in Singapore and Malaysia.
Jokowi’s handling of the haze problem is a good example of the capacity deficit from which his government suffers.
Visiting Riau on 26 November 2014, Jokowi said: “Masalah tiap tahun selalu berulang, masalah gambut yang terbakar, itu yang mau kita selesaikan. Kalau masalahnya kita ketahui, di lapangannya kita kuasai, memutuskannya gampang.”
Despite this confident statement, virtually a full year later Jokowi used the haze as a pretext for cutting short his visit to the United States. Itu kapan akan kita selesaikan? Masalahnya kapan akan kita kuasai?
It may be that that ‘what you see is what you get, a plain man without guile’. What I, like most observers, didn’t see was how this plain man would cultivate TNI army officers, active and retired, to such an extent that now the Coordinating Minister, Defence Minister and TNI Commander are all army officers. This, and Jokowi’s indifference to human rights abuses the army has perpetrated, threaten to reverse the process of the army’s withdrawal from political life.
For example,the Defence Minister, General Ryamizard Ryacudu of ‘60,000 foreign spies’ fame, is currently pushing a scheme, presumably with Jokowi’s approval, to recruit up to 100 million volunteers to defend the state (Bela Negara) against threats to its sovereignty. The program will reportedly include instruction in Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution, Unity in Diversity and the Unitary State.
There’s certainly no guile at work here. This reeks of nothing more than a rehash of Soeharto’s P4 indoctrination program, which was one of the most effective means yet found of dumbing down Indonesian society.
When Turnbull came to town
‘..navy paying boats to return to Indonesia (not denied by the Australian government)’
Deny deny deny. Unfortunately they didn’t take their own advice but tried to wheel out weasel cover stories to selected journos. The prosecution in Rote has been unable to present any ‘bribe’ money as evidence because ‘It’s gone missing.’ Hidayat, the boss plod, had originally said he’d sent the money to the crew’s villages. Then they mysteriously found some again, not all, to show selected cameras. Now they’ve changed their story yet again, saying they gave it back to the crew to send home. And if they did, weren’t they facilitating bribery and people smuggling? So who’s the moron who thought paying crew with Greenbacks didn’t require the usual risk assessment, mitigation and management? Ok Dutton and moron are cognates. But there must be some uber morons lurking in the magic forest of Canberra to believe the plods and/or LANAL wouldn’t get their sweaty mits on it. Because, well, they always do. The only possible place crew could exchange it without being noticed is the surfing resort of Nemberala. And the plods moonlight there too.
When Turnbull came to town
Ross: I’ve been looking for photos of Pres Jokowi with other leaders/official visitors on blusukan. Can you help?
When Turnbull came to town
Rosstapsell2015!
Taking new paths
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2015/11/13/taking-new-paths/ […]