Once again we come across the argument that the idea of international human rights is an expression of westerners sense of superiority, and that the ‘human rights issue’ is used as a tool by the West to impose their will on others. There is even a comparison between colonialism, the West’s will to “civilize natives” and “spreading human rights”. These types of arguments are reoccurring, and they are usually made by the elite and their supporters, who have in various ways benefited from the existing unequal distribution of wealth and power. These groups try to legitimize state violence, and wish to maintain unjust social structures.
Regarding the Rohingya citizenship SWH writes that “President Thein Sein did not suggest to the UNHCR Antonio Gutteres on 12 July 2012 “handing over the Rohingya community to the UNHCR.” What he did suggest was that those who came to Myanmar illegally could not be accepted, but that those who were bought over to Burma during British rule between 1824 and 1948 were welcome to stay. “Before 1948, the British brought Bengalis to work on the farms…..According to our laws, those descended from those who came before 1948, the ‘Third Generation’, CAN BE CONSIDERED AS CITIZENS”.
Well, the United Nations clearly interpret the law differently.
“On December 29, 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on the Burmese government to amend the 1982 Citizenship Law so that it no longer discriminates against the Rohingya. Successive Burmese governments, including the current administration of Thein Sein, have used the law to deny citizenship to an estimated 800,000 to 1.3 million Rohingya by excluding them from the official list of 135 national races eligible for full citizenship.”
As much as i like many aspects of Chinese culture – i love Chinese Gong Fu Cha, for example, and practice it since almost 25 years – China’s oppressive political system is not part of what i like about China.
You are a human. You are an end product of complex interactions between genes and environment. Those little brown-skinned natives are also humans. Evolutionarily speaking, you are in no way better than anyone of them out there. But for those in the West, by believing in fairy tales called human rights, they are automatically right; their views are the best, perfect and deserving of special treatment; and their way of thinking should override those of all other peoples and cultures. In the past, we heard the same story that justified colonization “to civilize poor natives”. Now we hear that story again “to spread human rights”. Because not believing in human rights is often considered as close to being Nazi, let it be clear that I, a stout “defender” of so-called “Rohingya” rights two years ago, am in no way against betterment of all human beings.
Now the so-called “damn lies” (let’s put it “d-lies”) have about 30 “likes” and a few “shares”, but are studied by countless Western scholars and regularly featured in Western media as evidence for how racist Burmese or Thai are. These studies are textbook examples of confirmation bias and reflect more about Western tendency to highlight others’ weakness, judge with their standards and assert superiority than about the nature of Burmese or Thai in general. On the other side, there are far worse lies (let’s use a worse description: “f-lies”) which are tolerated, encouraged and shared by millions in both Islamic and Western countries (try googling “fake pictures about Rakhine conflict”), but are nonetheless, never studied and silently swept under the carpet. Similarly, when Western scholars look at Ashin Wirathu’s facebook page, they want to “feel good” by confirming how “racist” he is. But comments under his posts are some of the most offensive remarks I have ever seen. “I want to chop off the heads of Gautama and Wirathu and f*** their a***” says one Muslim. Or something like this “Cho Cho сА▒сАВсАлсАРсАЩсА▒сАЬсАмсААсА╣сАШсА╖сА▓сАЫсА╜сАнсАБсАнсАпсА╕сАРсАмсАСсАДсА╣сА▒сАФсАРсАмсВПсА╝сАмсА╕сААсАнсАпсАЬсАКсА╣сА╕сАЦсАДсА╣сААсАпсАФсАлсА╕сАРсАмсАШсА╖сА▓сААсАнсАпсА╕сАЮсАРсА╣сАСсАмсА╕сА╗сАХсАосА╕сАЮсАмсА╕сА▒сАРсА╢сАбсАЮсААсА╣сА╗сАХсАФсА╣сАЮсА╝сАДсА╣сА╕сА▒сАХсА╕сАЦсАнсАпсВФсАЬсАмсА╕сАЩсАЮсАнсАШсА░сА╕сАТсАосАРсАФсА╜сАЕсА╣сАбсАЩсА▓сАбсАЕсА╣сААсА║сАЫсАДсА╣сАбсАЩсА▓сАЮсАмсА╕сАЬсАнсАпсААсА╣сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сА╕сАРсВФсА▓сАЧсАЩсАмсА▒сАРсА╝сАбсАРсА╝сААсА╣сВПсА╝сАмсА╕сАЬсАосА╕сАФсА▓сА╢сВПсА╝сАмсА╕сА▒сАШсАмсАСсАмсА╕сА▒сАХсА╕сАСсАмсА╕сА╗сАА сАЬсА░сАШсА╖сА▓сАЩсА║сАнсА│сАЩсА║сАнсА│ сАЦсАДсА╣сАСсА▓сАСсАКсА╣сВФсАСсАКсА╣сА╖” (That’s from a Muslim woman and too vulgar that I won’t translate). No doubt, Wirathu’s daily routine includes deleting death threats and listing to vulgar calls. The level of hatred and jihadist comments is astounding given Muslims are just 4%.
Yet the worst lies of all are “killer lies” eagerly spread by Western media. Some old people in Mawlamyine remember that in 8888 when BBC Burmese was airing “military gunships shooting everyone in Mawlamyine”, the truth was that some radical students were **beheading** dozens of innocent people accused of being government spies, after BBC aired “government inserted spies into protests”. How many killer lies are replicated in this article? Many but a good start is “Myanmar government’s version of the story labels the Rohingya as illegal migrants from Bangladesh.” Official position of Myanmar government is, according to Derek Tonkin and official document itself, President Thein Sein did not suggest to the UNHCR Antonio Gutteres on 12 July 2012 “handing over the Rohingya community to the UNHCR.” What he did suggest was that those who came to Myanmar illegally could not be accepted, but that those who were bought over to Burma during British rule between 1824 and 1948 were welcome to stay. “Before 1948, the British brought Bengalis to work on the farms…..According to our laws, those descended from those who came before 1948, the ‘Third Generation’, CAN BE CONSIDERED AS CITIZENS”. So? Don’t be surprised if you see a Western journalist interviewing dozens of Muslims until he gets his “desired” version of the conflict.
One thing that is very clear is that these “lies” will not set anyone free. They will entrench status quo just like all Burmese have suffered from 1988 to 2011. The West is good at letting people die to make a point. Go on West. In countries where anti-depressant are widely popular, good vs evil narratives must be consumed as much as Prozac and other reuptake inhibitors.
I am not a “Rohingya apologist”.
King Marayu was the founder of the mythical Dhanyawadi Dynasty of Arakan in BC 3525, a long time before Buddha was born (so there were no Buddhists or Musilms yet in those days!).
Myanmar can benefit by having as little to do with China as possible. Already a vassal state of China, DASSK was very foolish to go to Beijing and kowtow to the reigning Fascist, Xi Jinping. China has always interfered in Burma/Myanmar (as it does in Cambodia, fully). No, China has and will continue to try and control Myanmar’s sovereignty. This must be resisted at all cost.
This post #6.1 is wrong at so many level that the label “Rohingyas Apologists’ does not do justice.
1)Using 500 years of Aussie history as comparison to massacring Yakhine villagers. Ludicrous at best ridiculous at the worst. The Aussie has atoned many time over albeit not enough. WHere is the offocial apology of the Kakar?
2) Lebensraum, a word that remind one of reckless, ruthless akin to the Mongol expansion in the recent time, as a matter of factly.
3) All for moving on but with stipulations to strengthen ROL, including NOT brushing past atrocities as well as atoning by all the parties involved to include the west and its NGO as well as Bangladesh and OAS.
Nick there is certainly a lot of wishful thinking out there, in the past, and even now about China. From the nature of your work and thoughtful commentary over the years it’s very clear you don’t indulge in this type of thing.
I, and I’m sure many other people with a long and abiding interest in Thailand, greatly appreciate your efforts to shine a light on generally opaque and un, or under, reported aspects of contemporary Thai politics and society. As you know better than most such endeavours are not for the faint-hearted. All the best
Scot, a slight misunderstanding – with ‘lets wait and see…’ i meant to say that i do not really believe yet in China’s development being sustainable, or any sort of model for other countries, but a lot of wishful thinking involved there.
I meant not that i see any sort of democratic development in China.
While ‘Melanesian provinces’ is certainly exaggeration, it remains true that there are significant numbers of Papuan language-speaking populations in Indonesia outside the Papuan provinces.
The issue here is with the term ‘Melanesian’, which is less linguistic than ‘ethnic’ – in the sense of an assertion of distinctive identity and culture that has political implications, clearly, when linked to narratives of difference and commonality with respect to nation-states.
Do speakers of Papuan languages in Halmahera, Timor or Alor for example, see themselves as ‘Melanesian’ in any sense? Or as possessing shared interests with others who do? I suspect not, but Jokowi’s phrase does highlight the vexed character of the issue of Melanesian as somehow representing a unified identity with common features and broadly shared interests.
Interestingly enough in the case of MSG, one should recall that indigenous Fijians speak an Austronesian language rather than a Papuan one.
Neither related languages nor that other vexed idea of related ‘culture’ (let alone folk categories of ‘race’) necessarily lead to shared interest — just look at the Bougainville area. Here is a region of PNG that has populations speaking both Austronesian and Papuan languages, but with Papuan-speakers as it turns out predominating on the island itself – the centre of resistance of course to the Papuan military (with PNG people referred to in pejorative racial terms).
What this should serve to remind us is that the question of the future of the Papuan provinces in Indonesia is neither an ethnic or a cultural question, for all that supporters of independence wish to emphasize these factors. It is quite properly a political one. And in that sense there is every reason to welcome the recent elevation of Indonesia to observer status by the MSG.
The long troubled situation of Aceh is being resolved politically in Indonesia, as is PNG’s Bougainville ‘problem’. There is no reason why a similar solution cannot or should not emerge in relation to the Papuan provinces of Indonesia.
Nick, in referring to the development of democracy in China (The People’s Republic), you say ‘let’s wait and see’. Under the leadership of Xi Jinping that will be a very long wait. I talk to my brother Geremie, one of the world’s leading Sinologists – based at the ANU – frequently, and he tells me Xi, sometimes referred to as the CEO of everything, is the most repressive, authoritarian and assertive Chinese leader since the Maoist era. Democracy with ‘Chinese characteristics’, as some like to call it, would be totally unrecognisable to anyone with even the most modest of democratic sympathies.
The post argues that the USA is no longer a democracy. The post then jumps to state “why foist democracy on Thailand”. Where is the connection? What does this mean?
And then the post states: “Democracy has never helped a country develop. In fact, it’s been a terrible hindrance, as we see in India.” Thus the post takes India as a fully functioning democracy, but the USA is not.
The post appears to accept that the USA was once a democracy and the USA is highly developed. This contradicts the statement on democracy hindering development as does the existence of the G-7.
Or, if democracy is no good and hinders development, then the fact that the USA is no longer a democracy means the USA will now develop at an even greater rate. Image if the USA was a superpower under democracy, as a non-democracy it will become a super-duper power!
Singling out democracy as the sole factor in development or non-development is untenable. And what is the theory of political ‘evolution’ that is evoked in the post?
Well, it is Thais themselves who want democracy, and not just since the last coup, but since decades. I would suggest to read up on Thai history, and the bloody history of the struggle of the democracy movement in Thailand since 1932.
Truth is that a minority of traditional elites try to foist a system on Thais that a majority of Thais reject. A proof of that is constantly high rates of participation in elections, and from what i can see higher than in the US, for example.
As to the claim that Democracy has not helped countries to develop – i would suggest to have a look to Europe. In particular you should look at Germany. Look at Japan as well. These countries are two of the largest economic powers in the world, who in 1945 were utterly destroyed countries whose dictatorships have pulled the world into war.
India has constant rates of growth, and while it still has many problems, it is doing far better than Pakistan – another country mired by coups and intermittent periods of semi-democracy always on the brink of anarchy – since the partition. As to China – lets wait and see…
I think you will find that Rose has been openly critical of both Yingluck and Thaksin in the past. So yes, she must be paid. Typical regime propaganda.
Hats off to multimillionaire Nick Nostitz and his legion of un-Thainess followers who enjoy bankrolls Switzerland would be jealous of. However, my point was:
Those who make pleasant talk about the laws being necessary to obey have sided with the blind principle group who do not care what the roots and purposes of wrongful laws are. When a central authority, especially a dictatorship, has power to create, break, abide by and twist any law it wants in its own interest and then demand that the good people, Thai or foreign, blindly obey those laws, it is cockroach mentality – er…sorry. An error in judgment. The Computer Crime Act did not exist before 2007 (year after the coup, remember?) but has since then made perfectly legitimate expressions of opinion totally criminal. Is it laws such as this that we as government people ought to be subject to? No, it is not. Men with guns and past record of using them against unarmed civilians is a fact here in Thailand. Men with guns throw out one government after another. Men with guns demand and demand and demand, and are now asking the dubious to give way to all irrationality. It is not going to happen. If you wish to sympathize with people who do not know what they are doing but insist that they do, and others choose not to, honor their choice.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
Once again we come across the argument that the idea of international human rights is an expression of westerners sense of superiority, and that the ‘human rights issue’ is used as a tool by the West to impose their will on others. There is even a comparison between colonialism, the West’s will to “civilize natives” and “spreading human rights”. These types of arguments are reoccurring, and they are usually made by the elite and their supporters, who have in various ways benefited from the existing unequal distribution of wealth and power. These groups try to legitimize state violence, and wish to maintain unjust social structures.
Regarding the Rohingya citizenship SWH writes that “President Thein Sein did not suggest to the UNHCR Antonio Gutteres on 12 July 2012 “handing over the Rohingya community to the UNHCR.” What he did suggest was that those who came to Myanmar illegally could not be accepted, but that those who were bought over to Burma during British rule between 1824 and 1948 were welcome to stay. “Before 1948, the British brought Bengalis to work on the farms…..According to our laws, those descended from those who came before 1948, the ‘Third Generation’, CAN BE CONSIDERED AS CITIZENS”.
Well, the United Nations clearly interpret the law differently.
“On December 29, 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on the Burmese government to amend the 1982 Citizenship Law so that it no longer discriminates against the Rohingya. Successive Burmese governments, including the current administration of Thein Sein, have used the law to deny citizenship to an estimated 800,000 to 1.3 million Rohingya by excluding them from the official list of 135 national races eligible for full citizenship.”
The end of symbolic protest in Thailand
Thank you 🙂
As much as i like many aspects of Chinese culture – i love Chinese Gong Fu Cha, for example, and practice it since almost 25 years – China’s oppressive political system is not part of what i like about China.
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
You are a human. You are an end product of complex interactions between genes and environment. Those little brown-skinned natives are also humans. Evolutionarily speaking, you are in no way better than anyone of them out there. But for those in the West, by believing in fairy tales called human rights, they are automatically right; their views are the best, perfect and deserving of special treatment; and their way of thinking should override those of all other peoples and cultures. In the past, we heard the same story that justified colonization “to civilize poor natives”. Now we hear that story again “to spread human rights”. Because not believing in human rights is often considered as close to being Nazi, let it be clear that I, a stout “defender” of so-called “Rohingya” rights two years ago, am in no way against betterment of all human beings.
Now the so-called “damn lies” (let’s put it “d-lies”) have about 30 “likes” and a few “shares”, but are studied by countless Western scholars and regularly featured in Western media as evidence for how racist Burmese or Thai are. These studies are textbook examples of confirmation bias and reflect more about Western tendency to highlight others’ weakness, judge with their standards and assert superiority than about the nature of Burmese or Thai in general. On the other side, there are far worse lies (let’s use a worse description: “f-lies”) which are tolerated, encouraged and shared by millions in both Islamic and Western countries (try googling “fake pictures about Rakhine conflict”), but are nonetheless, never studied and silently swept under the carpet. Similarly, when Western scholars look at Ashin Wirathu’s facebook page, they want to “feel good” by confirming how “racist” he is. But comments under his posts are some of the most offensive remarks I have ever seen. “I want to chop off the heads of Gautama and Wirathu and f*** their a***” says one Muslim. Or something like this “Cho Cho сА▒сАВсАлсАРсАЩсА▒сАЬсАмсААсА╣сАШсА╖сА▓сАЫсА╜сАнсАБсАнсАпсА╕сАРсАмсАСсАДсА╣сА▒сАФсАРсАмсВПсА╝сАмсА╕сААсАнсАпсАЬсАКсА╣сА╕сАЦсАДсА╣сААсАпсАФсАлсА╕сАРсАмсАШсА╖сА▓сААсАнсАпсА╕сАЮсАРсА╣сАСсАмсА╕сА╗сАХсАосА╕сАЮсАмсА╕сА▒сАРсА╢сАбсАЮсААсА╣сА╗сАХсАФсА╣сАЮсА╝сАДсА╣сА╕сА▒сАХсА╕сАЦсАнсАпсВФсАЬсАмсА╕сАЩсАЮсАнсАШсА░сА╕сАТсАосАРсАФсА╜сАЕсА╣сАбсАЩсА▓сАбсАЕсА╣сААсА║сАЫсАДсА╣сАбсАЩсА▓сАЮсАмсА╕сАЬсАнсАпсААсА╣сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сА╕сАРсВФсА▓сАЧсАЩсАмсА▒сАРсА╝сАбсАРсА╝сААсА╣сВПсА╝сАмсА╕сАЬсАосА╕сАФсА▓сА╢сВПсА╝сАмсА╕сА▒сАШсАмсАСсАмсА╕сА▒сАХсА╕сАСсАмсА╕сА╗сАА сАЬсА░сАШсА╖сА▓сАЩсА║сАнсА│сАЩсА║сАнсА│ сАЦсАДсА╣сАСсА▓сАСсАКсА╣сВФсАСсАКсА╣сА╖” (That’s from a Muslim woman and too vulgar that I won’t translate). No doubt, Wirathu’s daily routine includes deleting death threats and listing to vulgar calls. The level of hatred and jihadist comments is astounding given Muslims are just 4%.
Yet the worst lies of all are “killer lies” eagerly spread by Western media. Some old people in Mawlamyine remember that in 8888 when BBC Burmese was airing “military gunships shooting everyone in Mawlamyine”, the truth was that some radical students were **beheading** dozens of innocent people accused of being government spies, after BBC aired “government inserted spies into protests”. How many killer lies are replicated in this article? Many but a good start is “Myanmar government’s version of the story labels the Rohingya as illegal migrants from Bangladesh.” Official position of Myanmar government is, according to Derek Tonkin and official document itself, President Thein Sein did not suggest to the UNHCR Antonio Gutteres on 12 July 2012 “handing over the Rohingya community to the UNHCR.” What he did suggest was that those who came to Myanmar illegally could not be accepted, but that those who were bought over to Burma during British rule between 1824 and 1948 were welcome to stay. “Before 1948, the British brought Bengalis to work on the farms…..According to our laws, those descended from those who came before 1948, the ‘Third Generation’, CAN BE CONSIDERED AS CITIZENS”. So? Don’t be surprised if you see a Western journalist interviewing dozens of Muslims until he gets his “desired” version of the conflict.
One thing that is very clear is that these “lies” will not set anyone free. They will entrench status quo just like all Burmese have suffered from 1988 to 2011. The West is good at letting people die to make a point. Go on West. In countries where anti-depressant are widely popular, good vs evil narratives must be consumed as much as Prozac and other reuptake inhibitors.
Good to read before you rant…
1. General Ne Win: A Political Biography by Robert H. Taylor
http://mizzima.com/news-opinion/%E2%80%98-issue-ethnicity-myanmar-politics-now-not-being-resolved-rather-encouraged%E2%80%99
2. Rohingya: The name, the movement and the quest for identity by Jacques Leider
3. Analysis and countless other original sources by Derek Tonkin from Network Myanmar
http://www.networkmyanmar.org/index.php/rohingyamuslim-issues/events-during-2015
4. The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion by Jonathan Haidt
The law in Malaysia is an ass
Excellent article! I wholeheartedly recommend Manjit’s writings!
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
I am not a “Rohingya apologist”.
King Marayu was the founder of the mythical Dhanyawadi Dynasty of Arakan in BC 3525, a long time before Buddha was born (so there were no Buddhists or Musilms yet in those days!).
Can Myanmar benefit from China plan?
There are a lot more Chinese than Rohingyas in Mian-Dian. China needs “Lebensraum”.
“Zhong-Guo Zhong-Guo ├╝ber Alles und ├╝berall”
Can Myanmar benefit from China plan?
Where will these “robust Myanmar institutions” come from?
Can Myanmar benefit from China plan?
Myanmar can benefit by having as little to do with China as possible. Already a vassal state of China, DASSK was very foolish to go to Beijing and kowtow to the reigning Fascist, Xi Jinping. China has always interfered in Burma/Myanmar (as it does in Cambodia, fully). No, China has and will continue to try and control Myanmar’s sovereignty. This must be resisted at all cost.
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
This post #6.1 is wrong at so many level that the label “Rohingyas Apologists’ does not do justice.
1)Using 500 years of Aussie history as comparison to massacring Yakhine villagers. Ludicrous at best ridiculous at the worst. The Aussie has atoned many time over albeit not enough. WHere is the offocial apology of the Kakar?
2) Lebensraum, a word that remind one of reckless, ruthless akin to the Mongol expansion in the recent time, as a matter of factly.
3) All for moving on but with stipulations to strengthen ROL, including NOT brushing past atrocities as well as atoning by all the parties involved to include the west and its NGO as well as Bangladesh and OAS.
The end of symbolic protest in Thailand
Nick there is certainly a lot of wishful thinking out there, in the past, and even now about China. From the nature of your work and thoughtful commentary over the years it’s very clear you don’t indulge in this type of thing.
I, and I’m sure many other people with a long and abiding interest in Thailand, greatly appreciate your efforts to shine a light on generally opaque and un, or under, reported aspects of contemporary Thai politics and society. As you know better than most such endeavours are not for the faint-hearted. All the best
The end of symbolic protest in Thailand
Scot, a slight misunderstanding – with ‘lets wait and see…’ i meant to say that i do not really believe yet in China’s development being sustainable, or any sort of model for other countries, but a lot of wishful thinking involved there.
I meant not that i see any sort of democratic development in China.
The president and the Papua powder keg
While ‘Melanesian provinces’ is certainly exaggeration, it remains true that there are significant numbers of Papuan language-speaking populations in Indonesia outside the Papuan provinces.
The issue here is with the term ‘Melanesian’, which is less linguistic than ‘ethnic’ – in the sense of an assertion of distinctive identity and culture that has political implications, clearly, when linked to narratives of difference and commonality with respect to nation-states.
Do speakers of Papuan languages in Halmahera, Timor or Alor for example, see themselves as ‘Melanesian’ in any sense? Or as possessing shared interests with others who do? I suspect not, but Jokowi’s phrase does highlight the vexed character of the issue of Melanesian as somehow representing a unified identity with common features and broadly shared interests.
Interestingly enough in the case of MSG, one should recall that indigenous Fijians speak an Austronesian language rather than a Papuan one.
Neither related languages nor that other vexed idea of related ‘culture’ (let alone folk categories of ‘race’) necessarily lead to shared interest — just look at the Bougainville area. Here is a region of PNG that has populations speaking both Austronesian and Papuan languages, but with Papuan-speakers as it turns out predominating on the island itself – the centre of resistance of course to the Papuan military (with PNG people referred to in pejorative racial terms).
What this should serve to remind us is that the question of the future of the Papuan provinces in Indonesia is neither an ethnic or a cultural question, for all that supporters of independence wish to emphasize these factors. It is quite properly a political one. And in that sense there is every reason to welcome the recent elevation of Indonesia to observer status by the MSG.
The long troubled situation of Aceh is being resolved politically in Indonesia, as is PNG’s Bougainville ‘problem’. There is no reason why a similar solution cannot or should not emerge in relation to the Papuan provinces of Indonesia.
The end of symbolic protest in Thailand
Nick, in referring to the development of democracy in China (The People’s Republic), you say ‘let’s wait and see’. Under the leadership of Xi Jinping that will be a very long wait. I talk to my brother Geremie, one of the world’s leading Sinologists – based at the ANU – frequently, and he tells me Xi, sometimes referred to as the CEO of everything, is the most repressive, authoritarian and assertive Chinese leader since the Maoist era. Democracy with ‘Chinese characteristics’, as some like to call it, would be totally unrecognisable to anyone with even the most modest of democratic sympathies.
Social media, Rohingya and damn lies
Better we don’t fuel so international communities are.
Sometimes, blowing the air could creat more flame while they have enough heat.
Recent cases are more or less on due to international fueling.
Appreciate if not mention about this Rohingya’s problem again as it can become fuel.
With Regards,
The end of symbolic protest in Thailand
Gantal: This post is incoherent.
The post argues that the USA is no longer a democracy. The post then jumps to state “why foist democracy on Thailand”. Where is the connection? What does this mean?
And then the post states: “Democracy has never helped a country develop. In fact, it’s been a terrible hindrance, as we see in India.” Thus the post takes India as a fully functioning democracy, but the USA is not.
The post appears to accept that the USA was once a democracy and the USA is highly developed. This contradicts the statement on democracy hindering development as does the existence of the G-7.
Or, if democracy is no good and hinders development, then the fact that the USA is no longer a democracy means the USA will now develop at an even greater rate. Image if the USA was a superpower under democracy, as a non-democracy it will become a super-duper power!
Singling out democracy as the sole factor in development or non-development is untenable. And what is the theory of political ‘evolution’ that is evoked in the post?
The end of symbolic protest in Thailand
“Foist” democracy on Thailand…?!
Well, it is Thais themselves who want democracy, and not just since the last coup, but since decades. I would suggest to read up on Thai history, and the bloody history of the struggle of the democracy movement in Thailand since 1932.
Truth is that a minority of traditional elites try to foist a system on Thais that a majority of Thais reject. A proof of that is constantly high rates of participation in elections, and from what i can see higher than in the US, for example.
As to the claim that Democracy has not helped countries to develop – i would suggest to have a look to Europe. In particular you should look at Germany. Look at Japan as well. These countries are two of the largest economic powers in the world, who in 1945 were utterly destroyed countries whose dictatorships have pulled the world into war.
India has constant rates of growth, and while it still has many problems, it is doing far better than Pakistan – another country mired by coups and intermittent periods of semi-democracy always on the brink of anarchy – since the partition. As to China – lets wait and see…
Thailand’s thieves in uniform
I think you will find that Rose has been openly critical of both Yingluck and Thaksin in the past. So yes, she must be paid. Typical regime propaganda.
Solidarity with imprisoned Thai students
Father or F├╝hrer? Same but different.
Solidarity with imprisoned Thai students
Hats off to multimillionaire Nick Nostitz and his legion of un-Thainess followers who enjoy bankrolls Switzerland would be jealous of. However, my point was:
Those who make pleasant talk about the laws being necessary to obey have sided with the blind principle group who do not care what the roots and purposes of wrongful laws are. When a central authority, especially a dictatorship, has power to create, break, abide by and twist any law it wants in its own interest and then demand that the good people, Thai or foreign, blindly obey those laws, it is cockroach mentality – er…sorry. An error in judgment. The Computer Crime Act did not exist before 2007 (year after the coup, remember?) but has since then made perfectly legitimate expressions of opinion totally criminal. Is it laws such as this that we as government people ought to be subject to? No, it is not. Men with guns and past record of using them against unarmed civilians is a fact here in Thailand. Men with guns throw out one government after another. Men with guns demand and demand and demand, and are now asking the dubious to give way to all irrationality. It is not going to happen. If you wish to sympathize with people who do not know what they are doing but insist that they do, and others choose not to, honor their choice.
The end of symbolic protest in Thailand
What exactly do you mean when you mention Thailand’s culture? Thailand has many cultures and not just the Bangkok based military culture.