Shwe Byan you seem to be saying that because Bangladesh terrorizes minorities it is alright for Burmese Buddhists to terrorize Muslims (I am suggesting other than Rohingya, Banglas if you like). Thai Buddhists live happily alongside Muslims, Christians and other groups, its only the hill tribes and dark-skinned natives that get any racists backlash. The Muslim ‘problem’ in the south is strictly in 3 provinces and has really been a continuous issue since the Brits carved up the border.
Right, even I can claim to be a Bamar whether my ancestors came partly from India or partly from China. I don’t care (fortunately, I didn’t have to fill up that stupid census form or buy a fake Burmese ID). There are other things I care more about:
1. The poor and helpless people of the country losing their farmlands and getting screwed. LGBT has a different meaning in Burma: Land-Grab-Bullying-Tactics
2. The destruction of the pristine natural environment and the peaceful social fabric of the country.
3. Obscene income inequity perpetuated by corruption, coercion and control of the rich upper-class (mostly Chinese or Chinese cronies)
4. Hypocrisy and double-standards which leads to intolerance and religious fervour.
I can go on, but you get the drift!
Burma’s problems are not going to be solved by retired diplomats digging up old colonial archives or by naive NGO’s spouting buzz words and half-baked ideas they learned in some politically correct seminar room at some mediocre University (I work at one so I should know!)
It’s the Chinese, stupid!
Maybe the lack of response is because you failed to say anything of substance that would add to the argument in any way. Come on, let’s hear your rebuttal.
Actually I am grateful to Blaxland for his attempt to justify the coup, not least because it has evinced from Andrew one of the most passionate but nonetheless well-reasoned responses that anybody has yet made and which to my mind gets to the heart of just what is wrong with the current situation.
Does anyone imagine for one minute that, had the military made it clear that it would not countenance any attempt to overthrow the King’s appointed government (and remember that the army’s mantra puts defending the institution and function of monarchy at the very head of its duties!), the street protests would have maintained their momentum? Perhaps also we should assume that the King himself is now too old and too frail to perform his constitutional duty of defending “the democratic system of government with the King as Head of State”, but in the end what greater duty does he have than that defined by this Article 2 which has been written at the top of every constitution at least since 1957? Or is this just to be considered meaningless rubric?
We now have the ludicrous situation where the NACC is attempting to initiate impeachment proceedings against Yingluck and others for undermining this same Article 2, simply because they initiated and passed legislation that would have made the Senate a fully elected body. If this is supposed to have undermined “the democratic form of government with the King as Head of State”, just what do the coupists actions amount to?
Matt, what would a fair hearing entail in your view? The substantial criticism of Blaxland’s piece has come from Andrew, Pundit and Nick; just what is unfair about the points they have made?
Or are you saying that others have not come out to support his argument. In which case now is your chance.
2 dislikes only. Come on guys get me to 100 and show once and for all your bias against fair comment. Stop attacking messengers and debate the content (from the author not the expected follow up comments)
Claiming Bamar Muslim as ethnicity has been rejected from the start even if people can recognise it as an entity or group similar to Rakhine Muslim. Rakhine Kalar/Bamar Kalar on the other hand is ethnicity, as is British Asian or Chinese American but not British Muslim. The term Bosnian Muslim as an ethnic group is an anomaly.
How is pointing that the base of argument in this article consists to the most part of factual errors and simplifications of very complex matters “unjustly maligned”?!
I may be naive but I was always under the impression that the practice of ignoring, obfuscating or simply inventing facts belongs into the realm of PR but has no space in journalism or academia?
Mr Blaxland has been unjustly maligned by jaundiced eyes, arm chair Democrats.
With overall correct observations supported by traditions and historical strong man concept of all Asian Democracy, be it PM or Military, this coup is different because of the impending departure of the monarch.
Unlike previous um_teen coups the risk of temporary take over become permanent is however real. Just as Myanmar was.
Especially if this strong man can provide basic freedom that bickering elected democrats can not provide.
It’s arguable that much of today’s Thailand was colonized by Siam, the kingdom in Bangkok, before formal borders were drawn that defined the country as we now know it, more or less.
Those holding up the UK as a beacon of democracy,I fear have been expatriated a few years too many.(That’s Steve & Pundit)Although I agree that Thailand’s elite & military have final say in anything that is likely to remove them from the top axis of power,the same might be said of western governments & it’s elites.Many laws in UK are subject to EU oversight for one,& on many issues,unelected bodies like the world bank,IMF control fiscal policies & boundries to a large degree.These are all run in the interest of bankers,their chosen representatives in government and the neo-liberal structure we now all aware of (minus Pundit & Steve).We have a secret service who act with impunity & no real public oversight,controlled by a very priviledged few,one being Sir Malcolm Rifkind & in a similar vein Sir Jeremy Howard is the UK version of Prem,pulling the strings & acting as go between,business,military,judicial ect,while serving all the main 3 elitist backed parties.(Yes Labour are elites these days)Yes yes, I know you know all this,but it is always good to remember how power can be used to twist democracy
For one thing, Peking endorses Prayuth and China doesn’t want to be seen supporting military dictatorships (the way they supported the Burmese military junta). Even the phrases “road-map” and “reform” are part of Peking’s vocabulary.
At the end of the day, Thailand is still a feudal oligarchy ruled by a predominantly Chinese upper-class (with bank accounts in Singapore?) based on medieval concepts of patronage, nepotism, “appanage”, coercion, corruption, etc. (by the way, what I notice is that even if the Thai-Chinese behave very much like “Thais” when they are in Thailand, they normally shift back towards their true “Chinese ethnicity” when they move to Western countries, go figure!)
Anyway, I think perception, especially not losing face, are typical “Asian values” and so Prayuth will make sure that the present upper-class (including Yingluck) does not get sort-changed too much and at the same time pretend to fight corruption. It’s all smoke and mirrors, just like in Peking or Naypyidaw. Thais won’t go for a true French Revolution of sorts (power to the people kinda thing). It’s against their Theravada and/or Confucian traditions, they would say, so Prayuth and his supporters, from Peking and elsewhere (including Burma!) are pretty safe for at least a decade or so!
Plan B has got an excellent point here. Paradoxically, it is in agreement with tocharian. toch has said, surely more times than he could remember, that the Chinese have long demonstrated it does not need one to be one of the family or has citizenship or this or that crap niceties to easily and prolifically (sometimes literally) screw the Bamar and their Bamar Land.
Again, the military screws everyone anyway.
So the historic and persecution and all those arguments become more and more hollow. Especially with growing industry feeding many staffers.
It does appear that line of argument is having devastating effect on poor people on the ground while the action of oppressors are unconscionable.
Andrew, Whilst I agree with you that Thailand was a kind of semi-colony I think just stating the “past is the past” as though contemporary interpretations of what went before are outside of their own contexts of power is full of potential pitfalls.
“Histories” are constructed narratives and certainly one potential interpretation of Thailand’s semi-colonial status – which, as you correctly point out, arguably went up to the end of the Cold War – is that it helped preserve the power and dominance of the Military-Royalist Complex. So maybe, in a sense that Blaxland didn’t intend, he has a point. The Thai elites were never “semi-colonized” but used a compact with the British/USA etc to their own benefit and to broaden their own power.
There’s also the issue of internal Thai colonialism – whereby parts of Lao, the South and the Northern principalities were subsumed, via force, into a 20th Century version of “Thainess” – a process that still seems to be playing itself out.
“Semi-colony” may be a bit of a stretch but is nonetheless convenient shorthand and not without a large element of truth. Particularly after the Bowring Treaty (1855) British influence in Siam was paramount. As the major trading power in the region – well, in the world actually – the terms enabled Britain to open up Siam, by controlling the level of import/export duties. That included a zero duty on Siam’s import of opium. Most of the re-modelling of Siamese society that followed was based on British institutions, particularly the legal system – even driving on the left – and restructuring the army. As elsewhere after WW2 this influence was supplanted by the US. But yes, Britain has a great deal to answer for!
There are 8 official ethnic groups. Ifa Tayoke or Kalar can claim to be a Shan or Yakhine what is your grope.
Especially the claimants do not insist on some special group that require special recognition because, some self serving NGO says so?
This census offer a unique opportunities to be Bamar_XXXX. There are NO pure blooded Bamar or any other ethnicity except may be Muslim that insist they are pure blooded.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Shwe Byan you seem to be saying that because Bangladesh terrorizes minorities it is alright for Burmese Buddhists to terrorize Muslims (I am suggesting other than Rohingya, Banglas if you like). Thai Buddhists live happily alongside Muslims, Christians and other groups, its only the hill tribes and dark-skinned natives that get any racists backlash. The Muslim ‘problem’ in the south is strictly in 3 provinces and has really been a continuous issue since the Brits carved up the border.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Right, even I can claim to be a Bamar whether my ancestors came partly from India or partly from China. I don’t care (fortunately, I didn’t have to fill up that stupid census form or buy a fake Burmese ID). There are other things I care more about:
1. The poor and helpless people of the country losing their farmlands and getting screwed. LGBT has a different meaning in Burma: Land-Grab-Bullying-Tactics
2. The destruction of the pristine natural environment and the peaceful social fabric of the country.
3. Obscene income inequity perpetuated by corruption, coercion and control of the rich upper-class (mostly Chinese or Chinese cronies)
4. Hypocrisy and double-standards which leads to intolerance and religious fervour.
I can go on, but you get the drift!
Burma’s problems are not going to be solved by retired diplomats digging up old colonial archives or by naive NGO’s spouting buzz words and half-baked ideas they learned in some politically correct seminar room at some mediocre University (I work at one so I should know!)
It’s the Chinese, stupid!
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Saying “Blaxland was never going to get a fair hearing” is attacking the messengers, not the message.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Maybe the lack of response is because you failed to say anything of substance that would add to the argument in any way. Come on, let’s hear your rebuttal.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Actually I am grateful to Blaxland for his attempt to justify the coup, not least because it has evinced from Andrew one of the most passionate but nonetheless well-reasoned responses that anybody has yet made and which to my mind gets to the heart of just what is wrong with the current situation.
Does anyone imagine for one minute that, had the military made it clear that it would not countenance any attempt to overthrow the King’s appointed government (and remember that the army’s mantra puts defending the institution and function of monarchy at the very head of its duties!), the street protests would have maintained their momentum? Perhaps also we should assume that the King himself is now too old and too frail to perform his constitutional duty of defending “the democratic system of government with the King as Head of State”, but in the end what greater duty does he have than that defined by this Article 2 which has been written at the top of every constitution at least since 1957? Or is this just to be considered meaningless rubric?
We now have the ludicrous situation where the NACC is attempting to initiate impeachment proceedings against Yingluck and others for undermining this same Article 2, simply because they initiated and passed legislation that would have made the Senate a fully elected body. If this is supposed to have undermined “the democratic form of government with the King as Head of State”, just what do the coupists actions amount to?
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Matt, what would a fair hearing entail in your view? The substantial criticism of Blaxland’s piece has come from Andrew, Pundit and Nick; just what is unfair about the points they have made?
Or are you saying that others have not come out to support his argument. In which case now is your chance.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
2 dislikes only. Come on guys get me to 100 and show once and for all your bias against fair comment. Stop attacking messengers and debate the content (from the author not the expected follow up comments)
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Blaxland was never going to get a fair hearing
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Because he is no longer in the army. He’s a civilian
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Claiming Bamar Muslim as ethnicity has been rejected from the start even if people can recognise it as an entity or group similar to Rakhine Muslim. Rakhine Kalar/Bamar Kalar on the other hand is ethnicity, as is British Asian or Chinese American but not British Muslim. The term Bosnian Muslim as an ethnic group is an anomaly.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
How is pointing that the base of argument in this article consists to the most part of factual errors and simplifications of very complex matters “unjustly maligned”?!
I may be naive but I was always under the impression that the practice of ignoring, obfuscating or simply inventing facts belongs into the realm of PR but has no space in journalism or academia?
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Mr Blaxland has been unjustly maligned by jaundiced eyes, arm chair Democrats.
With overall correct observations supported by traditions and historical strong man concept of all Asian Democracy, be it PM or Military, this coup is different because of the impending departure of the monarch.
Unlike previous um_teen coups the risk of temporary take over become permanent is however real. Just as Myanmar was.
Especially if this strong man can provide basic freedom that bickering elected democrats can not provide.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
It’s arguable that much of today’s Thailand was colonized by Siam, the kingdom in Bangkok, before formal borders were drawn that defined the country as we now know it, more or less.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Those holding up the UK as a beacon of democracy,I fear have been expatriated a few years too many.(That’s Steve & Pundit)Although I agree that Thailand’s elite & military have final say in anything that is likely to remove them from the top axis of power,the same might be said of western governments & it’s elites.Many laws in UK are subject to EU oversight for one,& on many issues,unelected bodies like the world bank,IMF control fiscal policies & boundries to a large degree.These are all run in the interest of bankers,their chosen representatives in government and the neo-liberal structure we now all aware of (minus Pundit & Steve).We have a secret service who act with impunity & no real public oversight,controlled by a very priviledged few,one being Sir Malcolm Rifkind & in a similar vein Sir Jeremy Howard is the UK version of Prem,pulling the strings & acting as go between,business,military,judicial ect,while serving all the main 3 elitist backed parties.(Yes Labour are elites these days)Yes yes, I know you know all this,but it is always good to remember how power can be used to twist democracy
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
For one thing, Peking endorses Prayuth and China doesn’t want to be seen supporting military dictatorships (the way they supported the Burmese military junta). Even the phrases “road-map” and “reform” are part of Peking’s vocabulary.
At the end of the day, Thailand is still a feudal oligarchy ruled by a predominantly Chinese upper-class (with bank accounts in Singapore?) based on medieval concepts of patronage, nepotism, “appanage”, coercion, corruption, etc. (by the way, what I notice is that even if the Thai-Chinese behave very much like “Thais” when they are in Thailand, they normally shift back towards their true “Chinese ethnicity” when they move to Western countries, go figure!)
Anyway, I think perception, especially not losing face, are typical “Asian values” and so Prayuth will make sure that the present upper-class (including Yingluck) does not get sort-changed too much and at the same time pretend to fight corruption. It’s all smoke and mirrors, just like in Peking or Naypyidaw. Thais won’t go for a true French Revolution of sorts (power to the people kinda thing). It’s against their Theravada and/or Confucian traditions, they would say, so Prayuth and his supporters, from Peking and elsewhere (including Burma!) are pretty safe for at least a decade or so!
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Fair points, and I agree with you. My previous reply was a rather flippant response to what seemed to me a rather ignorant question…
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Plan B has got an excellent point here. Paradoxically, it is in agreement with tocharian. toch has said, surely more times than he could remember, that the Chinese have long demonstrated it does not need one to be one of the family or has citizenship or this or that crap niceties to easily and prolifically (sometimes literally) screw the Bamar and their Bamar Land.
Again, the military screws everyone anyway.
So the historic and persecution and all those arguments become more and more hollow. Especially with growing industry feeding many staffers.
It does appear that line of argument is having devastating effect on poor people on the ground while the action of oppressors are unconscionable.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Andrew, Whilst I agree with you that Thailand was a kind of semi-colony I think just stating the “past is the past” as though contemporary interpretations of what went before are outside of their own contexts of power is full of potential pitfalls.
“Histories” are constructed narratives and certainly one potential interpretation of Thailand’s semi-colonial status – which, as you correctly point out, arguably went up to the end of the Cold War – is that it helped preserve the power and dominance of the Military-Royalist Complex. So maybe, in a sense that Blaxland didn’t intend, he has a point. The Thai elites were never “semi-colonized” but used a compact with the British/USA etc to their own benefit and to broaden their own power.
There’s also the issue of internal Thai colonialism – whereby parts of Lao, the South and the Northern principalities were subsumed, via force, into a 20th Century version of “Thainess” – a process that still seems to be playing itself out.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
“Semi-colony” may be a bit of a stretch but is nonetheless convenient shorthand and not without a large element of truth. Particularly after the Bowring Treaty (1855) British influence in Siam was paramount. As the major trading power in the region – well, in the world actually – the terms enabled Britain to open up Siam, by controlling the level of import/export duties. That included a zero duty on Siam’s import of opium. Most of the re-modelling of Siamese society that followed was based on British institutions, particularly the legal system – even driving on the left – and restructuring the army. As elsewhere after WW2 this influence was supplanted by the US. But yes, Britain has a great deal to answer for!
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
There are 8 official ethnic groups. Ifa Tayoke or Kalar can claim to be a Shan or Yakhine what is your grope.
Especially the claimants do not insist on some special group that require special recognition because, some self serving NGO says so?
This census offer a unique opportunities to be Bamar_XXXX. There are NO pure blooded Bamar or any other ethnicity except may be Muslim that insist they are pure blooded.