ASEAN can be different things to different people. For me it is still a viable showcase of regional self-help cooperation to bring about common benefits to all the nations in Southeast Asia, and to keep the region peaceful and prosperous.
But just like in the EU, ASEAN doesn’t replace or supersede individual national policy of each member state. Each ASEAN member state has its own national policy towards China and the South China Sea disputes.
However, it should be pointed out that at the ASEAN-China level, the ASEAN unity is quite clear: ASEAN wants to intensify engaging China in all areas of cooperation for mutual benefit. Hence, ASEAN has agreed with China to upgrade their FTA. At the same time ASEAN is urging China to speed up consultations on a code of conduct in the South China Sea (COC), which will be legally-binding.
But when we come down to specific sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea, ASEAN as a group cannot take sides, because three of its member states (Malaysia, the Philippines and Viet Nam) have overlapping claims in the southern part of the Spratlys; and their claims overlap with China’s, behind the infamous Chinese 9-dash line.
The 200-mile EEZ of coastal states in the South China Sea overlap, and this has to be settled by the UN Commission on Limits of Continental Shelve.
Coastal states in the South China Sea also disallow covert military activities in their 200-mile EEZ. The U.S. just ignores their objection. THis is yet another South China Sea issue which is beyond ASEAN’s ability as a group to settle.
Nevertheless, at least ASEAN has initiated several dialogue and cooperation processes to engage all stakeholders, such as the ASEAN+1 dialogue partnership, the ASEAN Plus Three, the ARF, the ADMM-Plus, and the Extended ASEAN Maritime Forum. If they want to discuss and find peaceful solutions to their disputes in the South China Sea, they can work with ASEAN. If they don’t want to talk, then not much ASEAN can do.
Unfortunately, the Viet Nam – China tensions are rising. More unpleasant incidents in the South China Sea (near the Paracels) may follow.
The 51st state of the US!?!? You really can’t be serious. There is a huge gap between being pro-Western and wanting to be a part of the west. Care to back up your claim with any documentation?
1) if it is a Democrat / royalist, no laws need apply. they can do what they want.
2) if it is PT/Red/UDD breaks the law, they go to jail or are dismissed from office.
3) if the PT/Red/UUD do not break the law, invent/interpret a new law so #2 applies.
Thanks for your message, Vichai. In fact, Yinglak has not been convicted of any crimes. And there is far less prima facie evidence of her criminality that of Suthep’s having repeatedly broke the law since November. What are your views on his being prosecuted in criminal court?
While I cannot follow “pearshaped” in his remarks about Lao and Thai restaurants in Dili, I have to back his argument against CAVR. It is relatively obvious that CAVR is driven by a political agenda and not as neutral as Angie and Maj present them. Please check out who sits in the CAVR’s directorate.
Vichai N – You begin your defense by citing the US system, but anyone with even a passing familiarity with the US knows that you are 100% in error. Bring your A game next time please!
I should have also noted that Chris L is exactly right, that UK/US courts cannot remove the PM or president. That is a fundamental principle of the separation of powers in a democracy. But Thailand’s Constitutional Court has perverted the concept of separation of powers by declaring it has the power to regulate the executive and judicial branches in order to preserve the separation of powers!
Vichai,
1. The U.S. Congress can and sometimes does reverse Supreme Court decisions that interpret laws in a way that Congress did not intend, or does not like.
2. In the U.S. and U.K., people in office can be prosecuted for crimes (except the president, who is immune from suit during office). But they cannot be prosecuted for “violating the constitution.” If something violates the constitution, such as a law or an improper appointment of an official (to cite two situations that are relevant to Thailand), no one is prosecuted. The unconstitutional act is simply undone.
Just because someone “breaks serious laws” (other than criminal laws) doesn’t mean it’s a criminal act or that it must be punished.
So it was enough just to undo Thawil’s transfer, and unnecessary (and improper as a grossly disproportionate penalty) to remove Yingluck from office for doing it. And no one should be punished or removed from office for voting to amend the constitution just because the court later decided the amendment was unconstitutional.
The Burmese have been a mongrel race all along in modern times and it’s their culture mostly Therav─Бda Buddhist that binds them.
Missionary, read Western, influence has proved divisive, whilst the majority I agree have not treated the minorities fairly like Aung San had made an effort to (not sure his daughter is really like minded or more militaristic chauvinistic than he ever was).
The Kachin historically ethnic cleansed the land they call their home, converted to Christianity, and when they rose in rebellion aspired to become virtually the 51st state of the US. That strategic error has been it seems very belatedly redressed when they realised the Great White Saviour will not put their money where their mouth is, but right next door they have just what they need – trade, business, funds, potential for growth both militarily and economically, not least getting a leg up by the 17 year truce they managed with the central govt nurturing ceasefire capitalism though not enduring and meaningful peace.
To the Burmese if the Kachin has been too contrary and wayward, there’s no love lost between them and the Karen. The memory is long going back to the Anglo-Burmese wars. And the Karen still yearn for deliverance by Britain regardless of how many times their colonial masters let them down and when they too were converted by the American Baptist missionaries.
Admittedly it will be mutually beneficial to the parties concerned if
a. The Burmese can finally lay their own imperial ghost to rest (when the British also appear unable to albeit perhaps with far greater justification). The giant statues of the three empire builders at Naypyidaw attest to the ruling military elite’s inability to do so.
b. The minorities mindful of both rights and responsibilities contribute to forge a ‘union of the willing’ not the present ‘union by coercion’ imposed upon them. And last but not least,
c. Minorities within minorities (a peculiar
characteristic in the country called Burma/Myanmar) get the same fair deal from the ‘majority’ in their regions.
You well point out that is needed, but missing is an anti-aristocratic impulse from the middle classes, which means anti-monarchy, which isn’t going to happen.
I think the essay hit most bases in both a broad & precise sense. Choosing a statement from it that to me stands out as one of the most pivotal and irrefutable of points from which all sides should start and attempt to fully understand and accept is this:
‘If corruption means the abuse of power, then fighting corruption means to empower people to defend their rights and interests against the powerful and wealthy. In other words, to fight corruption, more democracy, not less, is needed.’
Are we a little too forgiving of HM? It seems unlikely that the ruthlessly sustained attack on the elected government both on the streets and in the courts would have kept up momentum if it had not been fully supported at the very highest level. To my mind the basilisk stare to which we were all subjected on Coronation Day spoke more than words. Maybe Ko Tee has a point.
The corruption discourse analysis adds an interesting layer (eg an intermediary level between actirs and structural level) to explain some puzzles like middle class rage or the awkward composition of red and yellow camps.
More such analyses should follow. Maybe an analysis of violence/ non-violence discourses , Thai identity discourses or Democracy discourses would be helpful to explain many more puzzles (eg why Bangkok progressives join the red alliance despite their fear and hatred of Thaksin).
I agree. This obsolete, oxymoronic and primitive ethnic-tribalism-gangsterism is at the root of a number of problems in Burma. As I said above, people should stop defining nationality by race. Even it Germany that didn’t work!
By the way, why do you think I am “Burman”? Perhaps I am half a Rohingya, I’m not sure. Anyway, what’s the definition of “Burman”?
I’ve often wondered how Thai democracy is going to overcome this problem of ‘corruption’. There are elements of obligation and patronage that are so fundamental to thai culture and community but which also seem to present such a problem to truly representative democracy. I’m sure part of the present difficulties stem from this. Certainly they present a fertile bed for the manipulations of greedy, power hungry individuals. Thailand as a nation is definitely not unique in that respect and, given the intensity and prolongation of the current strife, the level of restraint shown so far has to be admired.
Where to start? This is why the ethnic minorities, whether Jinghpaw, Lisu, Shan et al think the Burmans are such…well, it is why there are so many problems in Burma.
The Thai judicial system is a joke. How many of the 2008 airport protesters have been sent to prison? The laws are only to be selectively enforced on the reds, not for the royalists. They didn’t have a problem when Abhisat transferred a civil servant which is what Yingluck’s rap was.
” the US Supreme Court had been habitually relied upon to rule on issues pertaining to abuses by political office holders … including its President (the Nixon Watergate case immediately comes to mind).”
Pundit points out that the strictest possible interpretation of the law has been applied to all the judicial decisions that have served to create the effective political vacuum: viz. (1) cancellation of the election; (2) removal of the caretaker PM; and (3) strict limitations on the caretakers’ powers. But then, in order apparently to resolve the situation so created, we now have the Senate Speaker-elect saying “Legal experts should not try to use the laws to reject solutions”! In other words the law, having been applied rigorously in order to create an almost impossible governing situation, he argues that it should now be applied leniently and even loosely in order to resolve the problem so created (and incidentally produce a very different outcome). It will be very interesting to see how the Constitutional Court reacts when the Senate submits its choice for a new Prime Minister, as we all know that it is going to do. The likelihood is that, lacking any other feasible alternative, the Senate will attempt to use Section 7, a move which on an earlier occasion the King called “illogical”, “undemocratic” and “a mess”.
Sadly it seems Thailand is heading into crazy times. The truly ironic thing is that the King is not really much longer for this world and then it will be chaos. The rich, the super rich, the elites who want to have everything their own way and on their own terms will not pay in terms of blood that will be spilled [on a grand scale potentially now] but they just mind find that they have set the country on a path of huge destruction and change. They will lose so much too in the end. Thailand is screwed.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Myanmar’s ASEAN challenges
ASEAN can be different things to different people. For me it is still a viable showcase of regional self-help cooperation to bring about common benefits to all the nations in Southeast Asia, and to keep the region peaceful and prosperous.
But just like in the EU, ASEAN doesn’t replace or supersede individual national policy of each member state. Each ASEAN member state has its own national policy towards China and the South China Sea disputes.
However, it should be pointed out that at the ASEAN-China level, the ASEAN unity is quite clear: ASEAN wants to intensify engaging China in all areas of cooperation for mutual benefit. Hence, ASEAN has agreed with China to upgrade their FTA. At the same time ASEAN is urging China to speed up consultations on a code of conduct in the South China Sea (COC), which will be legally-binding.
But when we come down to specific sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea, ASEAN as a group cannot take sides, because three of its member states (Malaysia, the Philippines and Viet Nam) have overlapping claims in the southern part of the Spratlys; and their claims overlap with China’s, behind the infamous Chinese 9-dash line.
The 200-mile EEZ of coastal states in the South China Sea overlap, and this has to be settled by the UN Commission on Limits of Continental Shelve.
Coastal states in the South China Sea also disallow covert military activities in their 200-mile EEZ. The U.S. just ignores their objection. THis is yet another South China Sea issue which is beyond ASEAN’s ability as a group to settle.
Nevertheless, at least ASEAN has initiated several dialogue and cooperation processes to engage all stakeholders, such as the ASEAN+1 dialogue partnership, the ASEAN Plus Three, the ARF, the ADMM-Plus, and the Extended ASEAN Maritime Forum. If they want to discuss and find peaceful solutions to their disputes in the South China Sea, they can work with ASEAN. If they don’t want to talk, then not much ASEAN can do.
Unfortunately, the Viet Nam – China tensions are rising. More unpleasant incidents in the South China Sea (near the Paracels) may follow.
Review of Being and Becoming Kachin
The 51st state of the US!?!? You really can’t be serious. There is a huge gap between being pro-Western and wanting to be a part of the west. Care to back up your claim with any documentation?
Thailand’s juristocracy
Here is Thailand’s Constitutional Court playbook:
1) if it is a Democrat / royalist, no laws need apply. they can do what they want.
2) if it is PT/Red/UDD breaks the law, they go to jail or are dismissed from office.
3) if the PT/Red/UUD do not break the law, invent/interpret a new law so #2 applies.
Thailand’s juristocracy
Thanks for your message, Vichai. In fact, Yinglak has not been convicted of any crimes. And there is far less prima facie evidence of her criminality that of Suthep’s having repeatedly broke the law since November. What are your views on his being prosecuted in criminal court?
Timor’s silence
While I cannot follow “pearshaped” in his remarks about Lao and Thai restaurants in Dili, I have to back his argument against CAVR. It is relatively obvious that CAVR is driven by a political agenda and not as neutral as Angie and Maj present them. Please check out who sits in the CAVR’s directorate.
Thailand’s juristocracy
Vichai N – You begin your defense by citing the US system, but anyone with even a passing familiarity with the US knows that you are 100% in error. Bring your A game next time please!
Thailand’s juristocracy
I should have also noted that Chris L is exactly right, that UK/US courts cannot remove the PM or president. That is a fundamental principle of the separation of powers in a democracy. But Thailand’s Constitutional Court has perverted the concept of separation of powers by declaring it has the power to regulate the executive and judicial branches in order to preserve the separation of powers!
Thailand’s juristocracy
Vichai,
1. The U.S. Congress can and sometimes does reverse Supreme Court decisions that interpret laws in a way that Congress did not intend, or does not like.
2. In the U.S. and U.K., people in office can be prosecuted for crimes (except the president, who is immune from suit during office). But they cannot be prosecuted for “violating the constitution.” If something violates the constitution, such as a law or an improper appointment of an official (to cite two situations that are relevant to Thailand), no one is prosecuted. The unconstitutional act is simply undone.
Just because someone “breaks serious laws” (other than criminal laws) doesn’t mean it’s a criminal act or that it must be punished.
So it was enough just to undo Thawil’s transfer, and unnecessary (and improper as a grossly disproportionate penalty) to remove Yingluck from office for doing it. And no one should be punished or removed from office for voting to amend the constitution just because the court later decided the amendment was unconstitutional.
Review of Being and Becoming Kachin
The Burmese have been a mongrel race all along in modern times and it’s their culture mostly Therav─Бda Buddhist that binds them.
Missionary, read Western, influence has proved divisive, whilst the majority I agree have not treated the minorities fairly like Aung San had made an effort to (not sure his daughter is really like minded or more militaristic chauvinistic than he ever was).
The Kachin historically ethnic cleansed the land they call their home, converted to Christianity, and when they rose in rebellion aspired to become virtually the 51st state of the US. That strategic error has been it seems very belatedly redressed when they realised the Great White Saviour will not put their money where their mouth is, but right next door they have just what they need – trade, business, funds, potential for growth both militarily and economically, not least getting a leg up by the 17 year truce they managed with the central govt nurturing ceasefire capitalism though not enduring and meaningful peace.
To the Burmese if the Kachin has been too contrary and wayward, there’s no love lost between them and the Karen. The memory is long going back to the Anglo-Burmese wars. And the Karen still yearn for deliverance by Britain regardless of how many times their colonial masters let them down and when they too were converted by the American Baptist missionaries.
Admittedly it will be mutually beneficial to the parties concerned if
a. The Burmese can finally lay their own imperial ghost to rest (when the British also appear unable to albeit perhaps with far greater justification). The giant statues of the three empire builders at Naypyidaw attest to the ruling military elite’s inability to do so.
b. The minorities mindful of both rights and responsibilities contribute to forge a ‘union of the willing’ not the present ‘union by coercion’ imposed upon them. And last but not least,
c. Minorities within minorities (a peculiar
characteristic in the country called Burma/Myanmar) get the same fair deal from the ‘majority’ in their regions.
A democratic anti-corruption discourse for Thailand
You well point out that is needed, but missing is an anti-aristocratic impulse from the middle classes, which means anti-monarchy, which isn’t going to happen.
Thailand’s juristocracy
Courts don’t have the power to remove an elected PM/president in Europe/US. It can only be done through impeachment in parliament.
A democratic anti-corruption discourse for Thailand
I think the essay hit most bases in both a broad & precise sense. Choosing a statement from it that to me stands out as one of the most pivotal and irrefutable of points from which all sides should start and attempt to fully understand and accept is this:
‘If corruption means the abuse of power, then fighting corruption means to empower people to defend their rights and interests against the powerful and wealthy. In other words, to fight corruption, more democracy, not less, is needed.’
Thailand’s juristocracy
Are we a little too forgiving of HM? It seems unlikely that the ruthlessly sustained attack on the elected government both on the streets and in the courts would have kept up momentum if it had not been fully supported at the very highest level. To my mind the basilisk stare to which we were all subjected on Coronation Day spoke more than words. Maybe Ko Tee has a point.
A democratic anti-corruption discourse for Thailand
The corruption discourse analysis adds an interesting layer (eg an intermediary level between actirs and structural level) to explain some puzzles like middle class rage or the awkward composition of red and yellow camps.
More such analyses should follow. Maybe an analysis of violence/ non-violence discourses , Thai identity discourses or Democracy discourses would be helpful to explain many more puzzles (eg why Bangkok progressives join the red alliance despite their fear and hatred of Thaksin).
Review of Being and Becoming Kachin
I agree. This obsolete, oxymoronic and primitive ethnic-tribalism-gangsterism is at the root of a number of problems in Burma. As I said above, people should stop defining nationality by race. Even it Germany that didn’t work!
By the way, why do you think I am “Burman”? Perhaps I am half a Rohingya, I’m not sure. Anyway, what’s the definition of “Burman”?
A democratic anti-corruption discourse for Thailand
I’ve often wondered how Thai democracy is going to overcome this problem of ‘corruption’. There are elements of obligation and patronage that are so fundamental to thai culture and community but which also seem to present such a problem to truly representative democracy. I’m sure part of the present difficulties stem from this. Certainly they present a fertile bed for the manipulations of greedy, power hungry individuals. Thailand as a nation is definitely not unique in that respect and, given the intensity and prolongation of the current strife, the level of restraint shown so far has to be admired.
Review of Being and Becoming Kachin
Where to start? This is why the ethnic minorities, whether Jinghpaw, Lisu, Shan et al think the Burmans are such…well, it is why there are so many problems in Burma.
Thailand’s juristocracy
The Thai judicial system is a joke. How many of the 2008 airport protesters have been sent to prison? The laws are only to be selectively enforced on the reds, not for the royalists. They didn’t have a problem when Abhisat transferred a civil servant which is what Yingluck’s rap was.
” the US Supreme Court had been habitually relied upon to rule on issues pertaining to abuses by political office holders … including its President (the Nixon Watergate case immediately comes to mind).”
Please give a specific example.
Thailand’s juristocracy
As so often Bangkok Pundit has put the current issue in a nutshell: http://asiancorrespondent.com/122809/legal-problems-of-appointed-pm.
Pundit points out that the strictest possible interpretation of the law has been applied to all the judicial decisions that have served to create the effective political vacuum: viz. (1) cancellation of the election; (2) removal of the caretaker PM; and (3) strict limitations on the caretakers’ powers. But then, in order apparently to resolve the situation so created, we now have the Senate Speaker-elect saying “Legal experts should not try to use the laws to reject solutions”! In other words the law, having been applied rigorously in order to create an almost impossible governing situation, he argues that it should now be applied leniently and even loosely in order to resolve the problem so created (and incidentally produce a very different outcome). It will be very interesting to see how the Constitutional Court reacts when the Senate submits its choice for a new Prime Minister, as we all know that it is going to do. The likelihood is that, lacking any other feasible alternative, the Senate will attempt to use Section 7, a move which on an earlier occasion the King called “illogical”, “undemocratic” and “a mess”.
Thailand’s juristocracy
Very insightful and informative piece of writing.
Sadly it seems Thailand is heading into crazy times. The truly ironic thing is that the King is not really much longer for this world and then it will be chaos. The rich, the super rich, the elites who want to have everything their own way and on their own terms will not pay in terms of blood that will be spilled [on a grand scale potentially now] but they just mind find that they have set the country on a path of huge destruction and change. They will lose so much too in the end. Thailand is screwed.