PT would win, Yingluck could take a break from shopping and money management, and we could all go back to pointing and shouting “Fascist! Royalist stooge!” at anyone and everyone who says anything negative about PT or UDD leadership.
If PT manages something relatively benign, we will say “See? Democracy is better!”
If they don’t manage much at all, we will say “Nasty Dems/Amart fouling the process. They are just so anti-democratic. Isn’t it ironic that they are called The Democrats?!”
If someone happens to get killed fighting for human rights or charged with LM for something like pointing at the ceiling in a VICE video and Yingluck comes out howling like a demon to have that poor Redshirt pilloried, we will say “See. They have no power. The Yellow Devil made them do it.”
And when they stake their whole administration on legislation to bring big bro back to town rather than on something silly like removing a treasonous general from command, struggling against police corruption, or taking radical action to remove corruption from the courts and independent bodies, we will say “Look at that! Another coup! Poor Yingluck! Poor Thaksin! Poor Thailand! O! Democracy, wherefore art thou so very fragile?”
Is that what you meant?
And just btw, my thought experiment sort of excluded the coup, which is why I wanted you to imagine TS having made the right deal with the right folks. It’s not a thought experiment otherwise.
But as Nick says, you Red farang have your own grey matter to work with.
I mean, heck, how could anything that happened more than a few months ago have any bearing on a historical process like democratization?
Emjay, on the opposite – i have all along debated and argued against the significance you see. I do not see him with the same significance as you do. I have argued – duly ignored by you – that the relationship between Thaksin/PT and the UDD is far more complex than you claim, and shown you this by the example of the 1 1/2 year deep internal conflict over the amnesty (i guess you may not even be aware of this), which, in the end, was withdrawn.
I have not, as you claim, ignored Thaksin’s authoritarian tendencies. You though do not acknowledge Thaksin’s significance in the rise of political awareness under the Thai population, which you simply dismissed as “talk talk”. What i have said, also ignored by you, that due to the evolution of the conflict, the changed relationship between the Red Shirts/UDD and Thaksin/PT, the entire game has also evolved and will continue to do so.
While you are stuck in absolutes, i have tried to explain that the conflict is more complex than a singular democracy vs. amart conflict. You ignore every dialectic this conflict presents (such as the historical importance of the Yellow Alliance in driving change in Thailand, such as that even though Thaksin’s electoral authoritarianism he has opened the political space further than any liberal has managed to do so, etc…). You work with simple stereotypes, with which you judge the opposing sides. You ignore discourses, and the evolution thereof – because you have simply made up your mind, and won’t move an inch from your position, which, i am sorry to say, is somewhat juvenile.
And i am sorry again, but attaching me with the label “Red Farang”, coined by Yon and his ilk, (after you have a few posts ago tried to call me as a Yellow Shirt) does neither you nor this debate any credit.
That is why this debate is increasingly pointless.
Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia advocates a global caliphate, not one restricted to Southeast Asia. I published an article on this subject in 2009 in the Australian Journal of International Affairs entitled “Non-violent extremists? Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia”.
If HTI is now deemed to be content to espouse just a Southeast Asian caliphate, I would like to see the evidence.
It never was alive. It never should have happened. I nominate Noor Farida Ariffin for Prime Minister, as she seems to be the only one with common sense, intelligence, tolerance, experience, and most importantly, she is not a dolt or drongo, like ALL the other (mostly male) “professional politicians”, from ALL the parties. Malaysia smells like a month-old durian, and is likely to become more odious with time. Wagner must have been a Malay(si)an in his earlier life.
There never was an opposition in Malaysia. The sordid myth that DAP, PKR and PAS had anything in common is an urban myth. Hating UMNO does not an opposition make, though Malaysians squeezing it for as much angst as possible, might be cathartic for some. The
excitement from watching Hadi Awang execute an entirely predictable Coup d’état in PAS, and watching Lim Guan Eng practically cry at the way-too-late separation of DAP and PAS, is less than that of watching paint dry. The incompetence of the Najib administration does not lift Anwar anywhere close to sainthood. He is a self-centered twit who failed to mentor a successor and his ego is equal to Mahathir’s, a man specifically born to annihilate his homeland. Malaysia is a victim of its own illusions about what a multicultural society should look like. For one, it should like a nation with four independent parties and it should not look like a nation where Shari’a Law has the same standing as civil law, as laid out in the secular Malaysian Constitution, where invariably PAS, UMNO and Malay Right Wing groups confuse “special rights” with Malay and Muslim hegemony. That’s not what the Constitution says, and it never did. Malaysia’s trajectory is spiraling downward as dogs (and their owners), journalists, artists, politicians, and now gymnasts, are all accused of one heresy or another, and those who truly abuse the nation in the name of God and fortune, go completely untouched.
Malaysia, truly aphasia.
No, Nick, what you are refusing to debate is the significance of a pro-democracy movement supporting a man (and his organization) who has never demonstrated an interest in or commitment to democratic principles beyond reliance on elections to take power.
And what you are doing is simplifying the “Thaksin debate” into something about just “one person”: not his avowed contempt for democracy and human rights; not his undermining of constitutional checks and balances while in power; not his attempt to take charge of the RTA by nepotism rather than parliamentary assertiveness; and not the fact that he is still the acknowledged force behind the political party fronted by his sister. It’s about “one person”.
The Thaksin debate isn’t about his political leanings, his record in office, his willingness to abandon his “pro-democracy” Redshirts each and every time he thinks he can make headway without them. It’s just about “one person”.
Uh-huh. Spare me the straw man, Nick.
I don’t think of Thaksin as a bad person, actually. I tend to avoid “good and evil” as an approach to understanding just about anything. I have read everything I could lay hands on about Mao; I just turn off when people start going on about how “evil” he was. Same same with Thaksin. Your “straw” is beyond ridiculous in my case.
I do however think Thaksin is a powerful man who is backing and quarterbacking a political movement that has absolutely nothing to do with liberal democracy, which is what this conversation is about.
It’s a shame you just play the usual “red farang” game:
“Yes, I know he’s a murderous thug with no interest in democracy and no respect for human rights. And yes I know he has no time for due process, constitutional safeguards or the rule of law. And yes he is the power behind the PT would-be throne. But, hey, my sense of the Thai electorate tells me he is the best they can hope for at this time, so I will continue to attack the bad people in the Yellow camp and suppress all mention of the rather obvious fact that really he is no better, because, er, I think half a loaf is better than none and democracy is a process that takes time.”
Thaksin is not half a loaf of anything. When it comes to PT, he is the whole cheese.
For me it comes down to respect for rule of law or not, faith in liberal democratic principles or not, demonstrated willingness to accept liberal limits to state power or not.
For whatever reason, you are arguing for an approach to Thai politics that only works in democratic systems, which you have acknowledged Thailand does not have.
Compromise between “liberals” and “conservatives” in an established democracy, over an issue like state-funded health care or drilling for oil on public land is a wonderful thing.
Compromise between liberal democrats and people who absolutely oppose almost everything that that system involves is not the same thing at all, and it is just hand-waving to argue constantly as if it is.
Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia have been and continue to be the most prominent propagandists for a transnational SE Asian Caliphate. To achieve it requires the destruction of current State borders, which in turn requires violence and exposes the HT front of non violence for the fraud it always has been.
The epicentre of developments is Mindanao, where the transnational JI networks have been renewed and where the connection between Jihadis travelling to and returning from Syria is advanced and includes Indonesians.
In the companion piece, where Mr Fealy refers to Poso and POLRI, he neglects to mention that POLRI not TNI have exacerbated tensions there, and that the tensions are all too easily inflamed because there was never a proper Truth and Justice program. Kalla’s involvement was a political quickfix, under pressure from the US, which covered up the truth and allowed the key local actors, their allies in Jakarta Makassar and Manado, to escape justice at the expense of a few scapegoats. The war in Poso radicalised a new generation of victims in certain villages from whom new fighters can be recruited, motivated by lingering injustice.
Mr Fealy will no doubt remember that even prior to the Sari Club crime, Jihadis transiting between Mindanao and Sulawesi were being monitored along their lead-up points in Sanggir Talaud, where an Australian drone was lost.
I think this is a very alarmist article. One that you might expect from an excessively paranoid “security” or “intelligence” gathering corporation. Indeed it reads very much like the narratives that the Rand Corporation used to generate. I would have thought that Indonesia and its majority Muslim population are culturally unalike most of the Muslims in the Middle East. But more importantly the Indonesian population has not been subject to military invasion and all that this has resulted in, especially in Iraq, and the contagion impact this has had on other countries in the Middle East. I concede that the situation is probably more complicated than this but to ignore the impact of the US and its allies in the Middle East to explain the seemingly successful appeal of the Islamic State and its Ideology is a weak link in the author’s argument…..and 200-300 fighters from the largest Muslim country in the world….how does this compare with numbers from Britain?
One positive outcome is the fraternisation between the public and the army rank and file. This has happened with the police too to some extent notably at Letpadan before things got very ugly. We’ll see its potential as a driving force for real change.
While ISIS is clearly a threat to both Indonesia and Australia, it should be pointed out that almost every single Jihadist in Australia, that either committed domestic acts of terrorism, or went to Syria and Iraq, have NOT been Australians of Indonesian or Malay origin, but ethnic Arabs, South Asians, and occasional Bosnians, Iranians and Afghans, Australians of Arab or South Asian origin comprising most of the ‘Freelance Jihadists’. This is not to suggest that Southeast Asian Muslim radical don’t exist in Australia, but in fact, most are students, and in the case of the large Malaysian exile community, which does include Malays, most are trying to get away from Malaysia, for fairly obvious political, social and religious reasons. Finally, while I have some confidence in Indonesian security services, having established some credibility in capturing local Jema’ah Islamiyah (JI) terrorists and (later) ISIS radicals, from PERSONAL experience, the analogous services in Malaysia are entirely untrustworthy, given to grandiose claims, lack transparency, and in fact can be legitimately questioned, with respect to their loyalties (Malaysia or Ketuanan Melayu). Whatever doubts (if present) one may have about Indonesian diligence, those doubts are exponentially multiplied, when it comes to Malaysia. I reiterate, however, that is a separate issue from the known demographic composition of Australian Jihadists, where Malays and Indonesians are a currently known small component.
There may be some truth to the claim that gold is being horded by the King and Queen. A few years back, the media reported that the Queen wanted to donate gold to help build a Buddhist pagoda in India. But, the president of India at the time had declined the offer due to political reasons. The Thai media had also reported that the government with the monarchy’s support had planned to build a Buddhist monument, which certainly will gold in its construction. The monument is to be built on a mountain in honor of the Queen.
It was widely reported in the Thai social media that those tons and tons of gold bars belonged to the late Shal of Iran. Don’t know if this is factual or not.
This is a rhetorical almost disrespectful question not to mention “beat around the bush” to see what will come out.
Very little is said and understood about the 400k uniformed mostly Bamar, battle hardened citizenry.
The question should be what is a true role for Tamadaw in the short and long term defining the short term as precisely as possible.
As for those looking for real information a talk with a “surviving” captain rank officer trained in the various Institutes starting with Pinoolwin/Maymyo will leave you in no illusion how serious and dedicated is the whole Tamadaw if not the officer core.
The 2nd important question is how do the dedication is maintained in spite of lesser equipped often maligned yet thanklessly sacrificing with very meager pay.
Suggest the 2nd query will bring to light the understanding of present mentality of the power that be and the supporters.
I am not going to engage in the Thaksin debate, simplifying this whole transformation conflict into just one person. It is pointless. Especially when you refuse to respond to a single point i make or any question i ask.
What you described is not a strategy, but wishful thinking – if people would find financial backers to found a party, if Thammasat profs would suddenly transform themselves into good MP’s…
As long as you follow the “good” people (some elusive liberal democrats from the middle classes) create democracy vs. “bad” people (eg. Thaksin) do not, you are still stuck in exactly the same discourse the Yellow Alliance has lost itself.
And no, i am nearly 50 years old – i do not need the PT or the UDD to inspire me to use that grey matter between my ears. Thank you, but i can think for myself.
Yes, the function of the military (and the police!) is to provide security to the citizen. The military showed that it can do so. However, why did they not fulfil their function earlier and kick out Suthep?
What power did Thaksin really have? His limits were made very clear by the coup! Thus, the thought experiment, as nice as it may sound, is based on completly wrong assumptions. Make another such experiment: How would the current government act, if they would have to face a free press and elections.
Had facebook been around in the 60s, millions of Alabamans would have “liked” Sheriff Jim Clark, Germans in the 30s would have “loved” Hitler. Not sure how far you can take ASSK’s “likes”. Could be that she’s appreciated for her reticence to “like” the Rohingyans or the KIO. We should be careful about automatically “liking” media darlings. The guerrillas are very good about manipulating suckers.
Due to the legacy issues and decades long continual conflicts, the Rohingya crisis is more complicated. In northern part of Rakhine, the Rohingyas are not minority anymore, 1.3 million Rohyngya against only a few thousands ethnic Rakhines, Rohingyas are considered majority. The ethnic Rakhines has moved to southern part and approximitely 2 millions of Rakhine staying in sourthen Rakhine state. Previously, in northern part rakhine locals are majority until about 30000 rakhines get killed by Rohingyas then they occupied.
In 2012 a violence broke out triggered by a rape and murder case, however, there were some accumulated reasons add together. After investigation found that Rohingyas were holding about 100 guns with them. They did killed some rakhines as well.
End up rakhines refuse to be co-exist with them since they feel like living with the snakes causing threat of their life.
So things are more difficult to find out the solution. May be there is a way out to solve the problem by swapping the Buddhist in
Bangladesh and Rohingyas. The Jumma Buddhist minority in Banglash are suffering suppression for a few decades. Bangladesh’s effort to wipe out these 900,000 Buddhist Jummas staying in Chittagong Hill tracks. They got attack by Bangladesh settlers but the attacker usually never get punished whether rape murder or burning the village. There buddhist temple get destroyed and Jumma Buddhist monks are also get tortured. Some news can find in this link, http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/.
The problem could be because, the Buddhist minority are treated as infidels, and the infidels supposed to be killed. By grouping the people with same faith and same attitude together, the problem could be solved permanently. Otherwise, there is an inherent problem similar to putting fuel and fire put together. By exchange of two group will solve both Jumma tribe repression problem and Rohingya problem. One stone hits two birds and it does tackle the root cause of the problem.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
ANU Thai Studies conference keynote address
Hi Marc
The video has now been uploaded to YouTube, so you should be able to view it.
You can also see it at ANU channel on YouTube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqsGr2w_9N8
Enjoy,
James
Democracy worship in Thailand
Let me guess….
PT would win, Yingluck could take a break from shopping and money management, and we could all go back to pointing and shouting “Fascist! Royalist stooge!” at anyone and everyone who says anything negative about PT or UDD leadership.
If PT manages something relatively benign, we will say “See? Democracy is better!”
If they don’t manage much at all, we will say “Nasty Dems/Amart fouling the process. They are just so anti-democratic. Isn’t it ironic that they are called The Democrats?!”
If someone happens to get killed fighting for human rights or charged with LM for something like pointing at the ceiling in a VICE video and Yingluck comes out howling like a demon to have that poor Redshirt pilloried, we will say “See. They have no power. The Yellow Devil made them do it.”
And when they stake their whole administration on legislation to bring big bro back to town rather than on something silly like removing a treasonous general from command, struggling against police corruption, or taking radical action to remove corruption from the courts and independent bodies, we will say “Look at that! Another coup! Poor Yingluck! Poor Thaksin! Poor Thailand! O! Democracy, wherefore art thou so very fragile?”
Is that what you meant?
And just btw, my thought experiment sort of excluded the coup, which is why I wanted you to imagine TS having made the right deal with the right folks. It’s not a thought experiment otherwise.
But as Nick says, you Red farang have your own grey matter to work with.
I mean, heck, how could anything that happened more than a few months ago have any bearing on a historical process like democratization?
Democracy worship in Thailand
Emjay, on the opposite – i have all along debated and argued against the significance you see. I do not see him with the same significance as you do. I have argued – duly ignored by you – that the relationship between Thaksin/PT and the UDD is far more complex than you claim, and shown you this by the example of the 1 1/2 year deep internal conflict over the amnesty (i guess you may not even be aware of this), which, in the end, was withdrawn.
I have not, as you claim, ignored Thaksin’s authoritarian tendencies. You though do not acknowledge Thaksin’s significance in the rise of political awareness under the Thai population, which you simply dismissed as “talk talk”. What i have said, also ignored by you, that due to the evolution of the conflict, the changed relationship between the Red Shirts/UDD and Thaksin/PT, the entire game has also evolved and will continue to do so.
While you are stuck in absolutes, i have tried to explain that the conflict is more complex than a singular democracy vs. amart conflict. You ignore every dialectic this conflict presents (such as the historical importance of the Yellow Alliance in driving change in Thailand, such as that even though Thaksin’s electoral authoritarianism he has opened the political space further than any liberal has managed to do so, etc…). You work with simple stereotypes, with which you judge the opposing sides. You ignore discourses, and the evolution thereof – because you have simply made up your mind, and won’t move an inch from your position, which, i am sorry to say, is somewhat juvenile.
And i am sorry again, but attaching me with the label “Red Farang”, coined by Yon and his ilk, (after you have a few posts ago tried to call me as a Yellow Shirt) does neither you nor this debate any credit.
That is why this debate is increasingly pointless.
Return to jihad in Indonesia
Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia advocates a global caliphate, not one restricted to Southeast Asia. I published an article on this subject in 2009 in the Australian Journal of International Affairs entitled “Non-violent extremists? Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia”.
If HTI is now deemed to be content to espouse just a Southeast Asian caliphate, I would like to see the evidence.
Malaysia’s opposition coalition is dead
It never was alive. It never should have happened. I nominate Noor Farida Ariffin for Prime Minister, as she seems to be the only one with common sense, intelligence, tolerance, experience, and most importantly, she is not a dolt or drongo, like ALL the other (mostly male) “professional politicians”, from ALL the parties. Malaysia smells like a month-old durian, and is likely to become more odious with time. Wagner must have been a Malay(si)an in his earlier life.
More bad news for Malaysia’s democracy
There never was an opposition in Malaysia. The sordid myth that DAP, PKR and PAS had anything in common is an urban myth. Hating UMNO does not an opposition make, though Malaysians squeezing it for as much angst as possible, might be cathartic for some. The
excitement from watching Hadi Awang execute an entirely predictable Coup d’état in PAS, and watching Lim Guan Eng practically cry at the way-too-late separation of DAP and PAS, is less than that of watching paint dry. The incompetence of the Najib administration does not lift Anwar anywhere close to sainthood. He is a self-centered twit who failed to mentor a successor and his ego is equal to Mahathir’s, a man specifically born to annihilate his homeland. Malaysia is a victim of its own illusions about what a multicultural society should look like. For one, it should like a nation with four independent parties and it should not look like a nation where Shari’a Law has the same standing as civil law, as laid out in the secular Malaysian Constitution, where invariably PAS, UMNO and Malay Right Wing groups confuse “special rights” with Malay and Muslim hegemony. That’s not what the Constitution says, and it never did. Malaysia’s trajectory is spiraling downward as dogs (and their owners), journalists, artists, politicians, and now gymnasts, are all accused of one heresy or another, and those who truly abuse the nation in the name of God and fortune, go completely untouched.
Malaysia, truly aphasia.
Democracy worship in Thailand
No, Nick, what you are refusing to debate is the significance of a pro-democracy movement supporting a man (and his organization) who has never demonstrated an interest in or commitment to democratic principles beyond reliance on elections to take power.
And what you are doing is simplifying the “Thaksin debate” into something about just “one person”: not his avowed contempt for democracy and human rights; not his undermining of constitutional checks and balances while in power; not his attempt to take charge of the RTA by nepotism rather than parliamentary assertiveness; and not the fact that he is still the acknowledged force behind the political party fronted by his sister. It’s about “one person”.
The Thaksin debate isn’t about his political leanings, his record in office, his willingness to abandon his “pro-democracy” Redshirts each and every time he thinks he can make headway without them. It’s just about “one person”.
Uh-huh. Spare me the straw man, Nick.
I don’t think of Thaksin as a bad person, actually. I tend to avoid “good and evil” as an approach to understanding just about anything. I have read everything I could lay hands on about Mao; I just turn off when people start going on about how “evil” he was. Same same with Thaksin. Your “straw” is beyond ridiculous in my case.
I do however think Thaksin is a powerful man who is backing and quarterbacking a political movement that has absolutely nothing to do with liberal democracy, which is what this conversation is about.
It’s a shame you just play the usual “red farang” game:
“Yes, I know he’s a murderous thug with no interest in democracy and no respect for human rights. And yes I know he has no time for due process, constitutional safeguards or the rule of law. And yes he is the power behind the PT would-be throne. But, hey, my sense of the Thai electorate tells me he is the best they can hope for at this time, so I will continue to attack the bad people in the Yellow camp and suppress all mention of the rather obvious fact that really he is no better, because, er, I think half a loaf is better than none and democracy is a process that takes time.”
Thaksin is not half a loaf of anything. When it comes to PT, he is the whole cheese.
For me it comes down to respect for rule of law or not, faith in liberal democratic principles or not, demonstrated willingness to accept liberal limits to state power or not.
For whatever reason, you are arguing for an approach to Thai politics that only works in democratic systems, which you have acknowledged Thailand does not have.
Compromise between “liberals” and “conservatives” in an established democracy, over an issue like state-funded health care or drilling for oil on public land is a wonderful thing.
Compromise between liberal democrats and people who absolutely oppose almost everything that that system involves is not the same thing at all, and it is just hand-waving to argue constantly as if it is.
Return to jihad in Indonesia
Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia have been and continue to be the most prominent propagandists for a transnational SE Asian Caliphate. To achieve it requires the destruction of current State borders, which in turn requires violence and exposes the HT front of non violence for the fraud it always has been.
The epicentre of developments is Mindanao, where the transnational JI networks have been renewed and where the connection between Jihadis travelling to and returning from Syria is advanced and includes Indonesians.
In the companion piece, where Mr Fealy refers to Poso and POLRI, he neglects to mention that POLRI not TNI have exacerbated tensions there, and that the tensions are all too easily inflamed because there was never a proper Truth and Justice program. Kalla’s involvement was a political quickfix, under pressure from the US, which covered up the truth and allowed the key local actors, their allies in Jakarta Makassar and Manado, to escape justice at the expense of a few scapegoats. The war in Poso radicalised a new generation of victims in certain villages from whom new fighters can be recruited, motivated by lingering injustice.
Mr Fealy will no doubt remember that even prior to the Sari Club crime, Jihadis transiting between Mindanao and Sulawesi were being monitored along their lead-up points in Sanggir Talaud, where an Australian drone was lost.
Return to jihad in Indonesia
I think this is a very alarmist article. One that you might expect from an excessively paranoid “security” or “intelligence” gathering corporation. Indeed it reads very much like the narratives that the Rand Corporation used to generate. I would have thought that Indonesia and its majority Muslim population are culturally unalike most of the Muslims in the Middle East. But more importantly the Indonesian population has not been subject to military invasion and all that this has resulted in, especially in Iraq, and the contagion impact this has had on other countries in the Middle East. I concede that the situation is probably more complicated than this but to ignore the impact of the US and its allies in the Middle East to explain the seemingly successful appeal of the Islamic State and its Ideology is a weak link in the author’s argument…..and 200-300 fighters from the largest Muslim country in the world….how does this compare with numbers from Britain?
Do you ‘like’ the Tatmadaw?
Bereavements and hospitalisations too are ‘liked’ for that matter.
The equally feared and loathed Tatmadaw managed to pull off a rare propaganda coup by portraying the renewed Kokang conflict as a Chinese invasion. It’s also worth noting that in the Burmese language every armed force, ethnic or govt, calls itself a tatmadaw – a generic term.
One positive outcome is the fraternisation between the public and the army rank and file. This has happened with the police too to some extent notably at Letpadan before things got very ugly. We’ll see its potential as a driving force for real change.
The ties of terror that bind
While ISIS is clearly a threat to both Indonesia and Australia, it should be pointed out that almost every single Jihadist in Australia, that either committed domestic acts of terrorism, or went to Syria and Iraq, have NOT been Australians of Indonesian or Malay origin, but ethnic Arabs, South Asians, and occasional Bosnians, Iranians and Afghans, Australians of Arab or South Asian origin comprising most of the ‘Freelance Jihadists’. This is not to suggest that Southeast Asian Muslim radical don’t exist in Australia, but in fact, most are students, and in the case of the large Malaysian exile community, which does include Malays, most are trying to get away from Malaysia, for fairly obvious political, social and religious reasons. Finally, while I have some confidence in Indonesian security services, having established some credibility in capturing local Jema’ah Islamiyah (JI) terrorists and (later) ISIS radicals, from PERSONAL experience, the analogous services in Malaysia are entirely untrustworthy, given to grandiose claims, lack transparency, and in fact can be legitimately questioned, with respect to their loyalties (Malaysia or Ketuanan Melayu). Whatever doubts (if present) one may have about Indonesian diligence, those doubts are exponentially multiplied, when it comes to Malaysia. I reiterate, however, that is a separate issue from the known demographic composition of Australian Jihadists, where Malays and Indonesians are a currently known small component.
Royal resilience and Thai dictatorship
Hi Kathleen,
Please see: https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com
Royal resilience and Thai dictatorship
There may be some truth to the claim that gold is being horded by the King and Queen. A few years back, the media reported that the Queen wanted to donate gold to help build a Buddhist pagoda in India. But, the president of India at the time had declined the offer due to political reasons. The Thai media had also reported that the government with the monarchy’s support had planned to build a Buddhist monument, which certainly will gold in its construction. The monument is to be built on a mountain in honor of the Queen.
Royal resilience and Thai dictatorship
It was widely reported in the Thai social media that those tons and tons of gold bars belonged to the late Shal of Iran. Don’t know if this is factual or not.
Do you ‘like’ the Tatmadaw?
This is a rhetorical almost disrespectful question not to mention “beat around the bush” to see what will come out.
Very little is said and understood about the 400k uniformed mostly Bamar, battle hardened citizenry.
The question should be what is a true role for Tamadaw in the short and long term defining the short term as precisely as possible.
As for those looking for real information a talk with a “surviving” captain rank officer trained in the various Institutes starting with Pinoolwin/Maymyo will leave you in no illusion how serious and dedicated is the whole Tamadaw if not the officer core.
The 2nd important question is how do the dedication is maintained in spite of lesser equipped often maligned yet thanklessly sacrificing with very meager pay.
Suggest the 2nd query will bring to light the understanding of present mentality of the power that be and the supporters.
Democracy worship in Thailand
I am not going to engage in the Thaksin debate, simplifying this whole transformation conflict into just one person. It is pointless. Especially when you refuse to respond to a single point i make or any question i ask.
What you described is not a strategy, but wishful thinking – if people would find financial backers to found a party, if Thammasat profs would suddenly transform themselves into good MP’s…
As long as you follow the “good” people (some elusive liberal democrats from the middle classes) create democracy vs. “bad” people (eg. Thaksin) do not, you are still stuck in exactly the same discourse the Yellow Alliance has lost itself.
And no, i am nearly 50 years old – i do not need the PT or the UDD to inspire me to use that grey matter between my ears. Thank you, but i can think for myself.
The Thai junta’s doublespeak
Yes, the function of the military (and the police!) is to provide security to the citizen. The military showed that it can do so. However, why did they not fulfil their function earlier and kick out Suthep?
Democracy worship in Thailand
What power did Thaksin really have? His limits were made very clear by the coup! Thus, the thought experiment, as nice as it may sound, is based on completly wrong assumptions. Make another such experiment: How would the current government act, if they would have to face a free press and elections.
Do you ‘like’ the Tatmadaw?
Had facebook been around in the 60s, millions of Alabamans would have “liked” Sheriff Jim Clark, Germans in the 30s would have “loved” Hitler. Not sure how far you can take ASSK’s “likes”. Could be that she’s appreciated for her reticence to “like” the Rohingyans or the KIO. We should be careful about automatically “liking” media darlings. The guerrillas are very good about manipulating suckers.
Rohingya crisis: cause for optimism
Due to the legacy issues and decades long continual conflicts, the Rohingya crisis is more complicated. In northern part of Rakhine, the Rohingyas are not minority anymore, 1.3 million Rohyngya against only a few thousands ethnic Rakhines, Rohingyas are considered majority. The ethnic Rakhines has moved to southern part and approximitely 2 millions of Rakhine staying in sourthen Rakhine state. Previously, in northern part rakhine locals are majority until about 30000 rakhines get killed by Rohingyas then they occupied.
In 2012 a violence broke out triggered by a rape and murder case, however, there were some accumulated reasons add together. After investigation found that Rohingyas were holding about 100 guns with them. They did killed some rakhines as well.
End up rakhines refuse to be co-exist with them since they feel like living with the snakes causing threat of their life.
So things are more difficult to find out the solution. May be there is a way out to solve the problem by swapping the Buddhist in
Bangladesh and Rohingyas. The Jumma Buddhist minority in Banglash are suffering suppression for a few decades. Bangladesh’s effort to wipe out these 900,000 Buddhist Jummas staying in Chittagong Hill tracks. They got attack by Bangladesh settlers but the attacker usually never get punished whether rape murder or burning the village. There buddhist temple get destroyed and Jumma Buddhist monks are also get tortured. Some news can find in this link, http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/.
The problem could be because, the Buddhist minority are treated as infidels, and the infidels supposed to be killed. By grouping the people with same faith and same attitude together, the problem could be solved permanently. Otherwise, there is an inherent problem similar to putting fuel and fire put together. By exchange of two group will solve both Jumma tribe repression problem and Rohingya problem. One stone hits two birds and it does tackle the root cause of the problem.