The H.E U Khin Aung Myint asserted that two fundamental issues in Myanmar politices; (1) the issue between the Central Government and the ethnic minorities and (2) the relations between the people and various successive governments. I noted ‘ governments’ in plural terms. However. I read again and again the hand our the the Keynote address paper distributed at the Conference, I could not find t word contained ‘ Federal Union” or ‘Federal system’ of future Burma in articulating the first nominated issue with the ethnic minority. the Hon. Speaker also emphasied on three key efforts undertaken by the government. These are the Political and Economic reforms, and the peace process. I again read the entire page for further articulation of the issues. I have little information on peace process whether to be signed before the election or in post election. However, the Hon. Speaker assured that ‘to have a smooth and orderly transfer of power to the new Parliament and Government after the elections. This late note shall be watched in late November. The ANU’s Burma / Myanmar Update worked tirelessly to hold the event with increasing local, national and international interests on Burma. After 7 rounds / years of participation, I am pleased Burma is emerging to ‘remaking itself’ as Dr Nicholas Farrelly remarks on ABC radio Friday morning news. I hope, as we raised the topics at the Conference, the next Burma / Myanmar will be listed speaker / scholars who are specialist on ‘Federalism’ and ‘ Federal System’ because Australia has a lot to offer. I am pleased with the engagement between scholars and activists alike on the foyer. Regards, from Canberra
For centuries muslims lived in Europe. Does this make Europe an ensemble of muslim states? What I find surprising is that a significant percentage of those refugees trying to find a save heaven in Europe come from muslim states! Does this mean that the conditions for muslims to live a religious live are better in secular Europe then in islamic states?
Unfortunately, there are too many commentators whose knowledge of the problem is rather limited. I would like to learn more from those scholars, who know about the backround and situation.
For fellow prospectors of the elusive anomaly, the latest turnback is becoming even more interesting. We have a new smuggler called Jasmin and two Australian boats named Jasmin used for the turnback, while the skipper ‘escapes’ on a speedboat. What odds this being a coincidence? The footy ending up in Jack Watts’ hands is what I call a coincidence, whereas this one requires a leap into the stratosphere like Nic Nat. Now the welltrodden literary trope of local cop left out of the loop, hints at dark forces at play. Enter Kapolres Rote, Hidayat –
‘Perhaps there’s something going on between the Australian Navy in cooperation with Immigration Customers, sending across immigrants who are required to pay $5000.’
Hidayat elswhere – I told them that the asylum seekers really wanted to go to Australia not NZ but the AFP didn’t believe me, they said they wanted to go to NZ.
Something smells like a ripe durian.
What exactly does the current crop of Australian hacks in Jakarta do besides rewrites of the Jakpost and safari suits to Rasuna Said when they have to leave their aircon rooms? Investigative journalism? Nope nope nope.
‘The stories that Buddhist men raped Muslim women in Rakhine state are all lies.’
Tino Kuis as far as I know you may be right as they are usually depicted as rumours and no evidence has been presented, which makes a lot of what Peter has said as superfluous to the debate.
‘The enlightened monk Wirathu is doing a very good job pointing to the evil ways of the Muslims who prey exclusively on Buddhist women.’
this monk is not in the same field as some Muslim terrorists pointed out by Peter, but within the Burmese context he has the potential for committing incredible harm to the country and to Buddhism, and already has tarnished Burma’s international reputation.
The man makes a lot of sense, like some of his ilk nowadays newly mentored and schooled by the regime’s new best friends from the West, except for some outright untruths such as to practically implement economic reforms, especially in the building of basic economic infrastructure…. because of the international economic blockade, the results did not match the efforts. Read busy pursuing the wrong set of self seeking priorities and this remains unchanged. The colonial masters did a much better job at that in establishing a rather similar mainly extractive economy. Hence past generations used to talk about the good old days of internal peace, rule of law and a sound infrastructure for a burgeoning trade and commerce.
A good top down transformation is like talking about the reign of a benevolent king of which alas Burma has known but very few, certainly not Ne Win or the instigator of the current ‘reform process’.
Prof Steinberg like so many other scholars and analysts appears unable to think outside the box and unsurprisingly believes top down reforms that emanate from government must be the way ahead.
Fair enough nothing can be achieved without political power but he dismisses the obvious alternative revolution by the assertion that the apparent control of the military over all avenues of social mobility….could be erased not by elimination but by amelioration of military power over the legislature through the development of diverse opportunities for them. Zero chance of that when the CIC has sworn to defend the tailor made constitution pledging zero tolerance to any substantive reform.
Chipping away sounds like a good idea but perhaps in another country. It makes you wonder if these experts are always taken aback in the ‘unlikely event’ of a revolution, perhaps acceptable nowadays only in terms of technological innovation.
The Kalama sutta certainly sets Buddhist philosophy apart from all other religions so that if you define religion as a faith it does not quite fit in. So what is all the fuss about defending religion? Defending against religion makes better sense.
Whilst Asiatic regional players have all been allies and business partners of the military elite, Aung San Suu Kyi with her Western supporters and their sanctions must deserve the credit for bringing about the current turn around. The jury however is still out if it is for better or for worse. The Farmland Law, in practice a licence to drive farmers out of their ancestral land, is a case in point where ‘rule of law’ from habit morphs into a travesty of justice.
Like the Lady our experts appear to regard popular struggle as an annoying distraction at best and a serious obstruction to the ‘reform process’ at worst. And peace? That’ll be the day.
Back to topic the nominally civilian regime obviously believes it can manage both the “polls” and the “peace process”,and you can be certain they ain’t gonna wing it.
So long as they don’t give an inch from the tailor made constitution which the CIC has sworn to defend, no empty threat and so much for constitutional reform. And so long as they can make the ongoing negotiations with the armed minorities “look” even more promising than the Middle East peace process if as long drawn out like forever where they are milking international assistance.
Will it be mutually harmful and disappointing for whom, and some unexpected positive consequences for whom? Never mind the regime and the “loyal opposition” as the protagonists. The peoples of Burma that’s who’s going to react to the outcome.
Couldn’t agree more that a perfect storm is brewing.
Someone, one of those completely clueless Westerners, even suggested dual citizenship, Burmese and Bangladeshi, for the Rohingya.
What one can see happening is resettlement in a third country, in practice further Islamisation of the Western liberal democracies bar “nope, nope, nope” Australia so they can continue to seize the moral high ground to the chagrin of their own citizens.
And why is it that these boatpeople are overwhelmingly men in their prime? Perhaps the plan is to get the family over later and procreate further. There was a family from Pyay who regularly travelled to the Thai border to get aid as Rohingya. Perhaps they still do.
When this great patriotic “religious chauvinist” government has been happily and relentlessly driving Bamar Buddhist farmers out of their ancestral land for their foreign business partners as well as their cronies, one can also see northern Rakhine earmarked for “disaster capitalism” post-Nargis style, a more likely scenario than a more plodding re-Burmanisation or re-Rakhinisation programme.
With the best will in the world how likely is that happy families scenario? When the Kokang are getting short shrift actually portrayed as a “Chinese invasion” in the east like those over two centuries ago and the Tatmadaw enjoying rare praise as the defenders of the realm, the “Islamic invasion” in the west is deemed a greater scourge where an armed Mujahid rebellion would be welcomed by the government so that the same kind of Sri Lankan solution could be implemented.
The hypocrites in the “international community” who are having to deal with their own Islamic invasion which does not even take the form of territorial and prior historic settlement claims are really in no postion to indulge in lecturing the militarist chauvinist government of Burma whom they are now happily in bed with.
I am somewhat appalled by the level of debate on posts concerning Myanmar. Seen from afar we are confronted with a number of issues
a. Bamar ethno-religious chauvinism ( a kind of ‘Han hegemony’ ├а a birmane ) which, historically has always regarded all others (including Rakhine Buddhists) with disdain. ASSK is a victim of this. The fear of ‘bamarsisation’ is common to all minority groups in Myanmar.
b. The problem, after decolonisation, of the countries of continental Southeast Asia to “imagine themselves” (in Ben Anderson’s happy terms) as mutlicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies). Despite serious lacuna the countries of maritime Southeast Asia (Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia, and, yes even Singapore) have succeeded far better. Of course this is related to the independence struggle (except for Thailand) when at a watershed moment multi-ethnic coalitions were formed. Myanmar’s tortured independence of betrayals and opportunism was never going to be very promising.
c. While ethno-centric religious chauvinism can ‘fly’ in Thailand or Vietnam where ‘minorities’ are a very small percentage of the population, in Myanmar where the Bamar make up less than two thirds of the population it is problematical. Various military regimes, by excluding the Rohingya from citizenship have deprived them of the possibility of joining with other territorially based minority ethnic groups to define their rights in what should be ideally be the Switzerland of Asia.
d. The great con job is that the Buddhists of Rakhine – who are seen, at best, as country bumpkins, by the Bamar of Yangon, and whose state has systematicaly been cut off from the rest of the country- are now being portrayed as the defenders of Burmese Buddhism against some fantasized Islamic invasion.
e. This being said, unless Rakhine Buddhists can benefit form Myanmar’s economic transformation (the evidence is, so far, they are losing out) they have no reason to stop persecuting the lesser than themselves.
The lesson to be drawn from above is that any significant aid program (including from the OIC, the civilianized junta was right on this point) must better the living standards of all legitimate inhabitants in Rakhine State. This involves two actions. Strengthening border controls to allay fears, somewhat justified, of illegal Bengali migrants. Secondly to ensure that employment generated by the port projects in Sittwe benefits the local population: at the mement they are being disposed of their land
From what I can gather a proposal before the parliament of Burma will have Rakhine State receiving 15% of revenues from the Chinese pipeline, etc. projects. This was about the figure that Aceh in Indonesia received from oil revenues prior to Reformasi and decentralisation in Indonesia. Today the figure is close to 80%. Lessons here?
It is about time to stop sterile, and totally self-serving debates, about the term ‘Rohingya’ and confront the reality of a people many of whom have generational, if not centuries old roots in the Burmese territory. At what point in time can one declare a place ‘home’?
I am somewhat appalled by the level of many of the above commentaries. As someone who admires Thailand and the Thai people, a discussion of this great kingdom’s future deserves far better than the exchange of insults disguised as intellectual debate.
I fear that with the inevitable death of King Bhumibol Thailand will enter into a period of great instability even civil conflict. For decades the military and the Thai establishment have justified their actions as defending the monarchy. The ‘Achilles heel’ in all this strategy is that the ‘monarchy’ has become very personalized and linked to King Bhumibol himself, the only real embodiment of all the attributes of a dhammaraja. Without going into details the Crown Prince is not perceived as having these attributes.The veracity of such a perception is a moot point.
To be frank; by using the expression”a cult of democracy” Carney and Donald do themselves a great disservice. For they raise a real question, one that is appropriate not only for Thailand, but universally.
Given that representative government is considered a ‘good thing’ what is the model that best takes into account the legacy of history, a country’s political culture (sure a very vague expression), its economic standing and the need for social cohesion in societies that range from the homogeneous to the very heterogenous?
If there is one criticism to be addressed at the process of constitutional change at the present it is that, unlike the process in 1997-1998 that led to the People’s Constitution, this process is not designed to address these fundamental questions. Just because there was not total success at that time does not mean pursuing this objective is worthwhile.
Rather the present process seems designed to entrench the power of the military leaders and their compradors and provide the context for a kind of social ‘mega-valium’ in order to allow the inevitable succession to proceed (temporarily) unnoticed.
On the other side of the duo of a ‘constitutional monarchy is the constitution. When constitutions are changed like nappies (we are at the 20th or 21st since 1932) what value does this document have? The latest manufacturer’s instruction manual to be superseded with the arrival of the new model ?
I am somewhat appalled by the level of debate following on this article. Seen from afar we are confronted with a number of issues
a. Bamar ethno-religious chauvinism ( a kind of ‘Han hegemony’ ├а a birmane ) which, historically has always regarded all others (including Rakhine Buddhists) with disdain. ASSK is a victim of this. The fear of ‘bamarsisation’ is common to all minority groups in Myanmar.
b. The problem, after decolonisation, of the countries of continental Southeast Asia to “imagine themselves” (in Ben Anderson’s happy terms) as mutlicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies). Despite serious lacuna the countries of maritime Southeast Asia (Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia, and, yes even Singapore) have succeeded far better. Of course this is related to the independence struggle (except for Thailand) when at a watershed moment multi-ethnic coalitions were formed. Myanmar’s tortured independence of betrayals and opportunism was never going to be very promising.
c. While ethno-centric religious chauvinism can ‘fly’ in Thailand or Vietnam where ‘minorities’ are a very small percentage of the population, in Myanmar where the Bamar make up less than two thirds of the population it is problematical. Various military regimes, by excluding the Rohingya from citizenship have deprived them of the possibility of joining with other territorially based minority ethnic groups to define their rights in what should be ideally be the Switzerland of Asia.
d. The great con job is that the Buddhists of Rakhine – who are seen, at best, as country bumpkins, by the Bamar of Yangon, and whose state has systematicaly been cut off from the rest of the country- are now being portrayed as the defenders of Burmese Buddhism against some fantasized Islamic invasion.
e. This being said, unless Rakhine Buddhists can benefit form Myanmar’s economic transformation (the evidence is, so far, they are losing out) they have no reason to stop persecuting the lesser than themselves.
The lesson to be drawn from above is that any significant aid program (including from the OIC, the civilianized junta was right on this point) must better the living standards of all legitimate inhabitants in Rakhine State. This involves two actions. Strengthening border controls to allay fears, somewhat justified, of illegal Bengali migrants. Secondly to ensure that employment generated by the port projects in Sittwe benefits the local population: at the mement they are being disposed of their land
From what I can gather a proposal before the parliament of Burma will have Rakhine State receiving 15% of revenues from the Chinese pipeline, etc. projects. This was about the figure that Aceh in Indonesia received from oil revenues prior to Reformasi and decentralisation in Indonesia. Today the figure is close to 80%. Lessons here?
It is about time to stop sterile, and totally self-serving debates, about the term ‘Rohingya’ and confront the reality of a people many of whom have generational, if not centuries old roots in the Burmese territory. At what point in time can one declare a place ‘home’?
PS Allow me to become a little ‘trash’ and put myself at the level of some of the comments in the above debate. If commentators like Peter Cohen were consistent with themselves I would suggest they buy a ticket to Heathrow… Oh, sorry, unless you have two passports, like myself, your demand for political asylum would undoubtedly be rejected: yet another economic refugee for Earls Court.
I thank you for the real on the ground on common sentiment of the Yakhine Citizenry.
New Mandala is as you might see the only western media that will let both side express their views.
That being said, the Kalar in Yakhine status can not be sustained without negative consequences in the future.
The issue is residency status, not the legitimacy issue. Since there must be a new law or statue that must be created and passed by the law maker expect the west to put more pressure on the Myanmar government.
Hopefully the useless careless west past actions against the citizenry well beings will not repeat itself.
Kalar supporter from their argument OBVIOUSLY expect a western based HR solution that is not even afforded or affordable to the rest of the citizenry.
Mat C, I think you have something there using “religious terminology” (or falling back on sociology of religion ) to analyze what is going on.
I know it surprised me, when Jit Phumisak, the intellectual one would assume least likely to be worshiped given the message in his writings, had a shrine built in his honor together with ceremonies to honor him, an overt move towards worship or making him a sacred thing.
The shrine was not unlike the shrine to Naresuan on Doi Wao in Maesai, for example, where Naresuan is worshipped. A criminal defamation lawsuit protecting the dignity of Jit Phumisak’s words and life, like the lawsuit against Silak Sivaraksa for allegedly defaming Naresuan, might even be conceivable.
It reminds one of ideas found in Emile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things [including sometimes people, teachers], i.e., things set apart and forbidden [critical intellectual engagement with the sacred] — beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them,” with sacred things defined as: “simply collective ideals that have fixed themselves on material objects… they are only collective forces hypostasized, that is to say, moral forces; they are made up of the ideas and sentiments awakened in us by the spectacle of society, and not of sensations coming from the physical world.”
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The Thai junta’s doublespeak
How does Dharmic politics-it’s posited virtue , square with violence? Enforced harmony and happiness?
Future lies in reconciling the present with the past
The H.E U Khin Aung Myint asserted that two fundamental issues in Myanmar politices; (1) the issue between the Central Government and the ethnic minorities and (2) the relations between the people and various successive governments. I noted ‘ governments’ in plural terms. However. I read again and again the hand our the the Keynote address paper distributed at the Conference, I could not find t word contained ‘ Federal Union” or ‘Federal system’ of future Burma in articulating the first nominated issue with the ethnic minority. the Hon. Speaker also emphasied on three key efforts undertaken by the government. These are the Political and Economic reforms, and the peace process. I again read the entire page for further articulation of the issues. I have little information on peace process whether to be signed before the election or in post election. However, the Hon. Speaker assured that ‘to have a smooth and orderly transfer of power to the new Parliament and Government after the elections. This late note shall be watched in late November. The ANU’s Burma / Myanmar Update worked tirelessly to hold the event with increasing local, national and international interests on Burma. After 7 rounds / years of participation, I am pleased Burma is emerging to ‘remaking itself’ as Dr Nicholas Farrelly remarks on ABC radio Friday morning news. I hope, as we raised the topics at the Conference, the next Burma / Myanmar will be listed speaker / scholars who are specialist on ‘Federalism’ and ‘ Federal System’ because Australia has a lot to offer. I am pleased with the engagement between scholars and activists alike on the foyer. Regards, from Canberra
Democracy worship in Thailand
Sometimes it is nice to be remineded of political science theories from the 50th(last lillenium.
Islam and the state in Myanmar
For centuries muslims lived in Europe. Does this make Europe an ensemble of muslim states? What I find surprising is that a significant percentage of those refugees trying to find a save heaven in Europe come from muslim states! Does this mean that the conditions for muslims to live a religious live are better in secular Europe then in islamic states?
Action needed in the Buddhist-Muslim zone
Unfortunately, there are too many commentators whose knowledge of the problem is rather limited. I would like to learn more from those scholars, who know about the backround and situation.
Rohingya stalemate tests Myanmar
Can I reply to myself? I’ll try anyway.
For fellow prospectors of the elusive anomaly, the latest turnback is becoming even more interesting. We have a new smuggler called Jasmin and two Australian boats named Jasmin used for the turnback, while the skipper ‘escapes’ on a speedboat. What odds this being a coincidence? The footy ending up in Jack Watts’ hands is what I call a coincidence, whereas this one requires a leap into the stratosphere like Nic Nat. Now the welltrodden literary trope of local cop left out of the loop, hints at dark forces at play. Enter Kapolres Rote, Hidayat –
‘Perhaps there’s something going on between the Australian Navy in cooperation with Immigration Customers, sending across immigrants who are required to pay $5000.’
Hidayat elswhere – I told them that the asylum seekers really wanted to go to Australia not NZ but the AFP didn’t believe me, they said they wanted to go to NZ.
Something smells like a ripe durian.
What exactly does the current crop of Australian hacks in Jakarta do besides rewrites of the Jakpost and safari suits to Rasuna Said when they have to leave their aircon rooms? Investigative journalism? Nope nope nope.
http://www.zonalinenews.com/2015/06/65-imigran-asal-srilanka-dan-bangladesh-tiba-di-kupang/
Action needed in the Buddhist-Muslim zone
‘The stories that Buddhist men raped Muslim women in Rakhine state are all lies.’
Tino Kuis as far as I know you may be right as they are usually depicted as rumours and no evidence has been presented, which makes a lot of what Peter has said as superfluous to the debate.
‘The enlightened monk Wirathu is doing a very good job pointing to the evil ways of the Muslims who prey exclusively on Buddhist women.’
this monk is not in the same field as some Muslim terrorists pointed out by Peter, but within the Burmese context he has the potential for committing incredible harm to the country and to Buddhism, and already has tarnished Burma’s international reputation.
Future lies in reconciling the present with the past
The man makes a lot of sense, like some of his ilk nowadays newly mentored and schooled by the regime’s new best friends from the West, except for some outright untruths such as to practically implement economic reforms, especially in the building of basic economic infrastructure…. because of the international economic blockade, the results did not match the efforts. Read busy pursuing the wrong set of self seeking priorities and this remains unchanged. The colonial masters did a much better job at that in establishing a rather similar mainly extractive economy. Hence past generations used to talk about the good old days of internal peace, rule of law and a sound infrastructure for a burgeoning trade and commerce.
A good top down transformation is like talking about the reign of a benevolent king of which alas Burma has known but very few, certainly not Ne Win or the instigator of the current ‘reform process’.
Review of Myanmar: The Dynamics of an Evolving Polity
Prof Steinberg like so many other scholars and analysts appears unable to think outside the box and unsurprisingly believes top down reforms that emanate from government must be the way ahead.
Fair enough nothing can be achieved without political power but he dismisses the obvious alternative revolution by the assertion that
the apparent control of the military over all avenues of social mobility….could be erased not by elimination but by amelioration of military power over the legislature through the development of diverse opportunities for them. Zero chance of that when the CIC has sworn to defend the tailor made constitution pledging zero tolerance to any substantive reform.
Chipping away sounds like a good idea but perhaps in another country. It makes you wonder if these experts are always taken aback in the ‘unlikely event’ of a revolution, perhaps acceptable nowadays only in terms of technological innovation.
The Kalama sutta certainly sets Buddhist philosophy apart from all other religions so that if you define religion as a faith it does not quite fit in. So what is all the fuss about defending religion? Defending against religion makes better sense.
Whilst Asiatic regional players have all been allies and business partners of the military elite, Aung San Suu Kyi with her Western supporters and their sanctions must deserve the credit for bringing about the current turn around. The jury however is still out if it is for better or for worse. The Farmland Law, in practice a licence to drive farmers out of their ancestral land, is a case in point where ‘rule of law’ from habit morphs into a travesty of justice.
Like the Lady our experts appear to regard popular struggle as an annoying distraction at best and a serious obstruction to the ‘reform process’ at worst. And peace? That’ll be the day.
Islam and the state in Myanmar
Being “appalled” and making self-righteous convoluted and emotional declarations without citation, does not a “debate” make, sir 🙂
‘The perfect storm’
Burma is a country lacking in both moral and territorial integrity.
‘The perfect storm’
Back to topic the nominally civilian regime obviously believes it can manage both the “polls” and the “peace process”,and you can be certain they ain’t gonna wing it.
So long as they don’t give an inch from the tailor made constitution which the CIC has sworn to defend, no empty threat and so much for constitutional reform. And so long as they can make the ongoing negotiations with the armed minorities “look” even more promising than the Middle East peace process if as long drawn out like forever where they are milking international assistance.
Will it be mutually harmful and disappointing for whom, and some unexpected positive consequences for whom? Never mind the regime and the “loyal opposition” as the protagonists. The peoples of Burma that’s who’s going to react to the outcome.
Couldn’t agree more that a perfect storm is brewing.
Islam and the state in Myanmar
Someone, one of those completely clueless Westerners, even suggested dual citizenship, Burmese and Bangladeshi, for the Rohingya.
What one can see happening is resettlement in a third country, in practice further Islamisation of the Western liberal democracies bar “nope, nope, nope” Australia so they can continue to seize the moral high ground to the chagrin of their own citizens.
And why is it that these boatpeople are overwhelmingly men in their prime? Perhaps the plan is to get the family over later and procreate further. There was a family from Pyay who regularly travelled to the Thai border to get aid as Rohingya. Perhaps they still do.
When this great patriotic “religious chauvinist” government has been happily and relentlessly driving Bamar Buddhist farmers out of their ancestral land for their foreign business partners as well as their cronies, one can also see northern Rakhine earmarked for “disaster capitalism” post-Nargis style, a more likely scenario than a more plodding re-Burmanisation or re-Rakhinisation programme.
So I wouldn’t hold my breath.
‘The perfect storm’
With the best will in the world how likely is that happy families scenario? When the Kokang are getting short shrift actually portrayed as a “Chinese invasion” in the east like those over two centuries ago and the Tatmadaw enjoying rare praise as the defenders of the realm, the “Islamic invasion” in the west is deemed a greater scourge where an armed Mujahid rebellion would be welcomed by the government so that the same kind of Sri Lankan solution could be implemented.
The hypocrites in the “international community” who are having to deal with their own Islamic invasion which does not even take the form of territorial and prior historic settlement claims are really in no postion to indulge in lecturing the militarist chauvinist government of Burma whom they are now happily in bed with.
‘The perfect storm’
I am somewhat appalled by the level of debate on posts concerning Myanmar. Seen from afar we are confronted with a number of issues
a. Bamar ethno-religious chauvinism ( a kind of ‘Han hegemony’ ├а a birmane ) which, historically has always regarded all others (including Rakhine Buddhists) with disdain. ASSK is a victim of this. The fear of ‘bamarsisation’ is common to all minority groups in Myanmar.
b. The problem, after decolonisation, of the countries of continental Southeast Asia to “imagine themselves” (in Ben Anderson’s happy terms) as mutlicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies). Despite serious lacuna the countries of maritime Southeast Asia (Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia, and, yes even Singapore) have succeeded far better. Of course this is related to the independence struggle (except for Thailand) when at a watershed moment multi-ethnic coalitions were formed. Myanmar’s tortured independence of betrayals and opportunism was never going to be very promising.
c. While ethno-centric religious chauvinism can ‘fly’ in Thailand or Vietnam where ‘minorities’ are a very small percentage of the population, in Myanmar where the Bamar make up less than two thirds of the population it is problematical. Various military regimes, by excluding the Rohingya from citizenship have deprived them of the possibility of joining with other territorially based minority ethnic groups to define their rights in what should be ideally be the Switzerland of Asia.
d. The great con job is that the Buddhists of Rakhine – who are seen, at best, as country bumpkins, by the Bamar of Yangon, and whose state has systematicaly been cut off from the rest of the country- are now being portrayed as the defenders of Burmese Buddhism against some fantasized Islamic invasion.
e. This being said, unless Rakhine Buddhists can benefit form Myanmar’s economic transformation (the evidence is, so far, they are losing out) they have no reason to stop persecuting the lesser than themselves.
The lesson to be drawn from above is that any significant aid program (including from the OIC, the civilianized junta was right on this point) must better the living standards of all legitimate inhabitants in Rakhine State. This involves two actions. Strengthening border controls to allay fears, somewhat justified, of illegal Bengali migrants. Secondly to ensure that employment generated by the port projects in Sittwe benefits the local population: at the mement they are being disposed of their land
From what I can gather a proposal before the parliament of Burma will have Rakhine State receiving 15% of revenues from the Chinese pipeline, etc. projects. This was about the figure that Aceh in Indonesia received from oil revenues prior to Reformasi and decentralisation in Indonesia. Today the figure is close to 80%. Lessons here?
It is about time to stop sterile, and totally self-serving debates, about the term ‘Rohingya’ and confront the reality of a people many of whom have generational, if not centuries old roots in the Burmese territory. At what point in time can one declare a place ‘home’?
Future lies in reconciling the present with the past
Well, according to a recent article in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/world/asia/profits-from-illicit-drug-trade-at-root-of-myanmars-boom.html?_r=0
Burma’s past, present and future lie in the hands of opium drug war-lords like Khun Sa, Lo Hsinghan, Lo Steven, …
Democracy worship in Thailand
I am somewhat appalled by the level of many of the above commentaries. As someone who admires Thailand and the Thai people, a discussion of this great kingdom’s future deserves far better than the exchange of insults disguised as intellectual debate.
I fear that with the inevitable death of King Bhumibol Thailand will enter into a period of great instability even civil conflict. For decades the military and the Thai establishment have justified their actions as defending the monarchy. The ‘Achilles heel’ in all this strategy is that the ‘monarchy’ has become very personalized and linked to King Bhumibol himself, the only real embodiment of all the attributes of a dhammaraja. Without going into details the Crown Prince is not perceived as having these attributes.The veracity of such a perception is a moot point.
To be frank; by using the expression”a cult of democracy” Carney and Donald do themselves a great disservice. For they raise a real question, one that is appropriate not only for Thailand, but universally.
Given that representative government is considered a ‘good thing’ what is the model that best takes into account the legacy of history, a country’s political culture (sure a very vague expression), its economic standing and the need for social cohesion in societies that range from the homogeneous to the very heterogenous?
If there is one criticism to be addressed at the process of constitutional change at the present it is that, unlike the process in 1997-1998 that led to the People’s Constitution, this process is not designed to address these fundamental questions. Just because there was not total success at that time does not mean pursuing this objective is worthwhile.
Rather the present process seems designed to entrench the power of the military leaders and their compradors and provide the context for a kind of social ‘mega-valium’ in order to allow the inevitable succession to proceed (temporarily) unnoticed.
On the other side of the duo of a ‘constitutional monarchy is the constitution. When constitutions are changed like nappies (we are at the 20th or 21st since 1932) what value does this document have? The latest manufacturer’s instruction manual to be superseded with the arrival of the new model ?
Islam and the state in Myanmar
I am somewhat appalled by the level of debate following on this article. Seen from afar we are confronted with a number of issues
a. Bamar ethno-religious chauvinism ( a kind of ‘Han hegemony’ ├а a birmane ) which, historically has always regarded all others (including Rakhine Buddhists) with disdain. ASSK is a victim of this. The fear of ‘bamarsisation’ is common to all minority groups in Myanmar.
b. The problem, after decolonisation, of the countries of continental Southeast Asia to “imagine themselves” (in Ben Anderson’s happy terms) as mutlicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies). Despite serious lacuna the countries of maritime Southeast Asia (Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia, and, yes even Singapore) have succeeded far better. Of course this is related to the independence struggle (except for Thailand) when at a watershed moment multi-ethnic coalitions were formed. Myanmar’s tortured independence of betrayals and opportunism was never going to be very promising.
c. While ethno-centric religious chauvinism can ‘fly’ in Thailand or Vietnam where ‘minorities’ are a very small percentage of the population, in Myanmar where the Bamar make up less than two thirds of the population it is problematical. Various military regimes, by excluding the Rohingya from citizenship have deprived them of the possibility of joining with other territorially based minority ethnic groups to define their rights in what should be ideally be the Switzerland of Asia.
d. The great con job is that the Buddhists of Rakhine – who are seen, at best, as country bumpkins, by the Bamar of Yangon, and whose state has systematicaly been cut off from the rest of the country- are now being portrayed as the defenders of Burmese Buddhism against some fantasized Islamic invasion.
e. This being said, unless Rakhine Buddhists can benefit form Myanmar’s economic transformation (the evidence is, so far, they are losing out) they have no reason to stop persecuting the lesser than themselves.
The lesson to be drawn from above is that any significant aid program (including from the OIC, the civilianized junta was right on this point) must better the living standards of all legitimate inhabitants in Rakhine State. This involves two actions. Strengthening border controls to allay fears, somewhat justified, of illegal Bengali migrants. Secondly to ensure that employment generated by the port projects in Sittwe benefits the local population: at the mement they are being disposed of their land
From what I can gather a proposal before the parliament of Burma will have Rakhine State receiving 15% of revenues from the Chinese pipeline, etc. projects. This was about the figure that Aceh in Indonesia received from oil revenues prior to Reformasi and decentralisation in Indonesia. Today the figure is close to 80%. Lessons here?
It is about time to stop sterile, and totally self-serving debates, about the term ‘Rohingya’ and confront the reality of a people many of whom have generational, if not centuries old roots in the Burmese territory. At what point in time can one declare a place ‘home’?
PS Allow me to become a little ‘trash’ and put myself at the level of some of the comments in the above debate. If commentators like Peter Cohen were consistent with themselves I would suggest they buy a ticket to Heathrow… Oh, sorry, unless you have two passports, like myself, your demand for political asylum would undoubtedly be rejected: yet another economic refugee for Earls Court.
Islam and the state in Myanmar
Ko Soe Win Han
I thank you for the real on the ground on common sentiment of the Yakhine Citizenry.
New Mandala is as you might see the only western media that will let both side express their views.
That being said, the Kalar in Yakhine status can not be sustained without negative consequences in the future.
The issue is residency status, not the legitimacy issue. Since there must be a new law or statue that must be created and passed by the law maker expect the west to put more pressure on the Myanmar government.
Hopefully the useless careless west past actions against the citizenry well beings will not repeat itself.
Kalar supporter from their argument OBVIOUSLY expect a western based HR solution that is not even afforded or affordable to the rest of the citizenry.
This above is the undeniable on the ground truth.
Democracy worship in Thailand
Mat C, I think you have something there using “religious terminology” (or falling back on sociology of religion ) to analyze what is going on.
I know it surprised me, when Jit Phumisak, the intellectual one would assume least likely to be worshiped given the message in his writings, had a shrine built in his honor together with ceremonies to honor him, an overt move towards worship or making him a sacred thing.
The shrine was not unlike the shrine to Naresuan on Doi Wao in Maesai, for example, where Naresuan is worshipped. A criminal defamation lawsuit protecting the dignity of Jit Phumisak’s words and life, like the lawsuit against Silak Sivaraksa for allegedly defaming Naresuan, might even be conceivable.
It reminds one of ideas found in Emile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things [including sometimes people, teachers], i.e., things set apart and forbidden [critical intellectual engagement with the sacred] — beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them,” with sacred things defined as: “simply collective ideals that have fixed themselves on material objects… they are only collective forces hypostasized, that is to say, moral forces; they are made up of the ideas and sentiments awakened in us by the spectacle of society, and not of sensations coming from the physical world.”