It is impossible in fact to fully analyze and present the result because we all know by forced exclusion of some elements the whole picture cannot be seen.
It is like trying to explain to someone why an engine malfunctions but not being able to refer to the carburetor and having to pretend that little bit of detail can be overlooked.
Now try not only explaining it to find out what’s wrong but try fixing it! Impossible…
Yes all the posting within Thailand are useless as they have been self-censored. Don’t forget Andrew Macgregor Marshall’s well researched but highly explosive Thailand’s Era of Insanity.
There is quite a surprising piece of news in this morning’s Bangkok Post, regarding a radical proposal by the anti-government NSPRT student group. Apparently, one of its leaders, Nititorn Lamlua, thinks they would be able to storm the US Embassy in Bangkok, and this would somehow help their cause. In a direct quote, he said, “Listen carefully. We will storm and seize the [US] embassy.”
This shows the level of desperation the anti-government protesters are feeling after Suthep’s proposal for a military coup was rejected by the Thai military’s top generals over the weekend.
Why chose the American embassy you might ask? Because it is the biggest symbol of the international community’s support for the Yingluck government and the Feb. 2 election process.
I have copied and pasted the article in full below:
“US Embassy beefs up security”
Bangkok Post, 16 Dec 2003, midnight
“Security was beefed up at the US embassy in Bangkok on Sunday after an anti-government group voiced its intention to “seize” the embassy.”
“Anucha Ramanyanand, deputy spokesman of the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (Capo), yesterday said the Capo had worked with embassy officials on security operations in case protesters converge at the premises.”
“The move came after Nititorn Lamlua, leader of the anti-government Network of Students and People for Reform of Thailand (NSPRT) announced on Saturday night he would lead protesters to seize the US embassy.”
“‘Listen carefully. We will storm and seize the [US] embassy,’ he told the crowd who had rallied at Chamai Maruchet bridge. Mr Nititorn, however, did not set a date for the demonstration.”
“He said Washington always calls on Thais to respect democratic principles and human rights without considering that Thais are fighting an undemocratic government. The US government’s support could lend the Yingluck Shinawatra government legitimacy, he said.”
“Pol Maj Gen Anucha said that after the NSPRT leader announced the planned seizure, the Capo contacted embassy staff and confirmed that police were on standby to offer protection if needed.”
“The NSPRT stayed put at its Chamai Maruchet protest base near Government House yesterday and did not move to the embassy as planned.”
“The US government earlier last week urged Thailand to work out its political differences in a peaceful and democratic manner. ‘Prime Minister Yingluck has called for elections as a way out of political tension and demonstrations,’ it said.”
Postscript comment: I hope the CAPO group have made plans for the arrest of this firebrand for attempting to incite a riot. On the other hand, maybe they should let him and his supporters try it. It would most certainly fail, and it would show the world once again that they are little more than a gang of fascist black shirts with little respect for the law.
Not useful, as it is repeating ad nauseum “Thaksin” Thaksin”. Hardly any mention of Abhisit and his rich clans.
One of the many reason, the Democrats are unlikely to unseat the “non- democrats” is simple democracy. (have you notice that anyone with democratic in their name do not believe in it – as in Democrats, Democratic Republc of Korea etc)
Finally, someone on New Mandala is speaking sense, rather than boring us all with the usual crypto-fascist nonsense. What Thailand really needs is a cadre of hitherto-ignored artist-peacemakers who can solve the country’s intractable political problems by creating abstract paintings, huge piles of randomly assembled household objects and performance art installations that deconstruct hitherto unseen power structures that continue to suppress outsider voices and… Sorry I lost my train of thought. But yeah, more of this please.
It is highly doubtful that Burma has the capacity to process Uranium ore into reactor or weapons-grade enriched Uranium, never mind
production of Plutonium. There is no hard evidence that North Korea supplied Burma with enriched Uranium, a nuclear fuel reactor, or a plutonium reprocessing facility, despite the Tatmadaw’s ties with North Korea. I doubt, as many others have, the capability and reliability of North Korea’s nuclear program even within North Korea, let alone
technical assistance or supply of enriched Uranium and/or equipment to someone else.
It is possible, but I think China and Russia are more likely candidates (and maybe France-see below).
“Myanmar has some of the basic elements of a nuclear weapons program but, regardless of its past intentions, it is a long ways from a nuclear weapon capability. Myanmar has some expensive, precision machine tools (which could be used in both nuclear and other high-tech industries), probably opportunistically procured from Europe, China and Singapore.”
Precision machine tools and fully-functioning reactors are wide apart in terms of technology. The Russian reactor was never built, and Burma has few Uranium mines of any quality. Burma is known for gems (e.g., Rubies and Tourmaline) and not Uranium due to its highly faulted and metamorphosed geology.
If they wanted to build a reactor, it is almost a given that the Uranium would be supplied by someone else, and probably enriched by someone else. No doubt, were Burma to try and obtain materials for a nuclear reactor, they would look to China, Russia and North Korea, in that order, for supplies. I do not think Europe as a whole would be their first choice, as Europe has more stringent regulations on the export of material and equipment for nuclear reactors, let alone Uranium itself, not that an illegal underground sale is out of the question, but China, Russia, North Korea, and maybe Singapore, are indeed more likely sources for equipment, precision tools, and perhaps trans-shipped Uranium of which Russia and China have major stockpiles. North Korea probably has far fewer stockpiles than they like to let on (to scare South Korea and the West). Singapore, which I am glad you mentioned, has no Uranium but does have precision tools and equipment, and whatever it’s ‘squeaky clean’ image at home, applies no ethical standards to its trading policies or with whom it trades, which range from North Korea to the United States (who obviously have a mutual dislike for one another) and sets no ideological conditions on whom it trades with (which is why it trades with the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Malaysia, and others, all of whom have varied ideologies and political structures, and many of whom dislike at least one of the other trading partners).
I think Burma, like Indonesia which had pretensions of establishing a nuclear program, is far away from building a reactor, which almost certainly they could not alone, but would require Russian or Chinese nuclear engineers. No disrespect to Burmese nuclear engineers, but there aren’t that many, and they are not as experienced, by far, as the Russians, Chinese, and the French, who might decide to overcome their own political objections and nuclear safeguard rules in the EU, and assist the Burmese. They would gain a foothold in Burma’s nascent nuclear program, but I doubt that would get that much money from the Tatmadaw for their efforts, if that was the French motivation in the first instance. On the other hand, the French have not set particularly strict rules (like Singapore) or ideological bars on whom they give their expertise to, which has included in the past, Iran (temporarily altered under former French President Nicholas Sarkozy, and then reverted back to fine traditional French form when Sarkozy left office).
“Myanmar is in no position to consider the production and use of nuclear weapons and does not have enough economic strength to do so…Myanmar has halted its previous arrangement of nuclear research as international community may misunderstand Myanmar over the issue.”
As much as I hardly believe anything the Tatmadaw regime says, I think the statement that you quote from the Burmese Delegation to the IAEA is probably true. I do not think they have the economic strength or the will to engender a workable nuclear power program, let alone a nuclear weapons program.
Your statement about that Syria has a larger and more sophisticated chemical (and biological) weapons arsenal is almost a given, and you can include China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and some other nations, all of whom have chemical and biological stockpiles, US-Russian treaties notwithstanding because Russia and Kazakhstan
and Ukraine still have all the left over chemical and biological reagents, microbial cultures, chemical and biological equipment, and fermentation vats, that were prohibited
for the production of level 3 pathogens and toxins by treaty with the US. I don’t think these will find their way to Burma, however, and I think reports of chemical weapons use
by the Burmese Military is unsubstantiated,
though I do think the likelihood, if Burma really wanted it, of obtaining Mustard Gas is much greater than obtaining, hard to culture and process, Level 3 pathogens.
Burma is enigmatic in many ways and your statement:
“Rightly or wrongly, the international community tends to be much more concerned about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issues than other humanitarian and internal human rights issues. North Korea and, more recently, Syria provide excellent examples of this phenomenon.”
I think is true for Burma, which should focus
more on humanitarian and human rights issues.
Given the United States continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Obama’s ideological outlook, pressuring Syria and North Korea at the UN and other forums is the limited extent to which this American administration is prepared to deal with Bashar al-Assad’s slaughter of his own people
(and Obama has explicitly stated that he has ruled out any American military involvement in Syria, for better or for worse) and Kim Jong Un’s bizarre Juche philosophy of autocratic Stalinism mixed with god-like worship of the Kim family, who apparently descended from wild bears on a holy mountain somewhere in North Korea.
When you deal with something like that, logic and normal means of diplomacy do not apply.
You’re quite right, it is a problem that I have to rely so much on anonymous sources, it’s not how I would like to do journalism in an ideal world. But reporting on palace circles in Thailand there is really no choice for now. One thing I don’t do is just repeat rumours. Everybody has heard all kinds of rumours about elite circles in Thailand. The challenge is establishing which rumours are true, and that is what I do.
You (and Giles) are also right that the succession conflict involves a tiny minority of Thais. But the fact is, the Thai establishment is obsessed with succession and this has been the dominant factor determining their actions and strategy since 2005. Their behaviour makes no sense unless viewed in that context.
I fully agree that their fixation on succession is ridiculous in the 21st century. By repeatedly seeking to overturn the electoral choices of the increasingly assertive and informed rural and urban poor, just so they can keep Vajiralongkorn off the throne, they have unwittingly dragged the country to the brink of revolution. If the Yingluck government is brought down, that might be the last hurrah of the old feudal elite. I’m staggered that they are crazy enough to pursue such a suicidal course of action, but they clearly are.
I agree with Giles on the weakness and increasing irrelevance of the monarchy, but that doesn’t change the fact the feudal elite are obsessed with succession and desperate to keep Vajiralongkorn off the throne.
“As she does NOT well-articulate portions of the book or portions of Lee himself that she finds informative (if not entirely acceptable) and those portions that she does not (both book and person).”
In conclusion, because I do feel I did not
adequately elaborate on why I stated that “Ms. Ong’s analysis of the Balfour Declaration is incorrect and she makes a false inference that “Homeland” and “State” are different” (or “National Homeland” and “State” are different) mandates a broader analysis and clarification which may have been missed, but is stated explicitly below:
In addition, I further address Mr. Montesano’s comments and one self-assigned statement.
===========================================
Finally, one may ask why Mr. Montesano posits, as criticism, a synonymy that I never stated, one can only assume in regard to my earlier comment on emotion and its manifestations in Chinese people and culture, which (while not scientific proof) was agreed upon with unanimity by 12 ethnic Chinese people, of different backgrounds (4 of whom were Singaporean), I asked this weekend, during a meeting I led.
Mr. Montesano posits a synonymy that was putatively stated by me (and was not), also in the process stating something that is not correct in the comparative sense, yet true scientifically, and, as stated, is within an insufficient context (because his statement is already a given and he says no more) anyway for scientifically-based study of the impact of nature (and genetics) on human, cultural and ethnic evolution because nature is regarded as a scientific variable within a different hierarchical category (as is genetics and DNA analysis) than culture, and ethnicity and human psychology (and emotions); which is why nature impacts, but it is not synonymous with, culture, and thus Mr. Monetsano’s ‘red herring’ or ‘straw man’
comment. The literal statement that Mr. Montesano reproduces, ironically and of quite interest to me, is the similarity between Mr. Montesano’s out-of-context statement and Ms. Ong’s out-of-context differentiation between ‘National Homeland’ and ‘State.’ I found both statements, while on different topics, quite similar in implied intent, and in terms of possible motivations of producing such statements vis-a-vis their both lacking scientific and historical context in any possible comments, respectively. Ms. Ong’s general suggestion that those interested in the Middle-East seek out “other sources,” given the importance she attaches to two different words, is both too general, not really helpful, and she could have just as well added a few additional sentences about what took place after the Balfour Declaration but does not (and I say more below) and would require little effort for one who knows the history of the region well.
========================================
Thus, Mr. Montesano’s statement while literally true, lacks any context, and thus is merely a comparative statement that can’t be refuted (because it is consistent with known science), but is not applied completely or appropriately by Mr. Montesano to the context of my commentary on LKY, Chinese culture and manifestations of emotion. Put it another way, it is a factually correct equation (Culture = Nature is false) but applied, incompletely and inaccurately, to the stated analytical or mathematical problem (to put it in mathematical terms).
Equally, Ms. Ong’s statement that “National Homeland” does not equal “State” is literally correct, out of any context, and only by dictionary terms of definition and what the Balfour Declaration states, which can neither be studied in isolation of all other subsequent events, and without the complete history of the region, yet like Mr. Montesano’s posited statement (as supposedly arising from me), which is taken out of context as well, Ms. Ong’s statement is incomplete, cannot stand alone in an historical vacuum, and is incompletely applied in any historical context, because she mentions none. One simple sentence about any event that took place after the declaration whereby the British Foreign Office drew up explicit maps with two different States would somewhat validate her original statement and her implied correction of what LKY stated. It may not validate her
reasons for bringing up this particular issue, in which she attempts to correct LKY, which to me suggests, in the absence of any context to her statement, her desire or attempt to correct or her criticism of Lee (however you call it) takes precedence over the word difference itself. Which is interesting in light of her commentary at the end that “One Man’s View of the World will certainly provide a rich source of information for future generations of scholars interested in analysing his leadership.” So, one might ask is she suggesting that the “rich source of information” which one presumes means she
validates its authenticity, only applies
to what LKY has done for Singapore, or does
it also apply to his views and foreign policies with other countries ? Particularly
his views and Singapore’s ties with Israel which I am quite confident based on Ms. Ong’s focus on word usage by Lee and in school, she
would have a well-defined and emphatic opinion on that subject, which might very well inform and impact her focus on the Balfour Declaration in the first place. Rather than being disingenuous, she should state such personal view about the Middle-East simply and explicitly with a caveat that they are her opinions or views.
Given her mixture of criticism (as I see it)
and some positive commentary at the end regarding his book and its value in informing those interested in Singapore and LKY’s role in shaping Singapore, I believe Ms. Ong’s view of LKY, to which she has both a right to express and a right put in writing, informs the tenor of her commentary, and thus her
basis for even bringing up the Balfour Declaration in the first place, which I am quite sure, even if the whole history is taught fully and accurately, most Singaporean students will soon forget. The overstated importance she assigns the words in the Balfour Declaration which, if she understood
Middle-East history, would realize was a work in progress and a proposal and not a binding document for the British, Jews or Arabs. Thus, the subsequent binding documents, maps, promises that followed leading to the partition. I am sure Ms. Ong quite capable of finding other ‘discrepancies’ in Lee’s words or statements in print, I simply find it very hard to believe her choice of the Balfour Declaration as her example of a ‘discrepancy’ between what Lee stated and what Ms. Ong states is actually taught (and she mentions nothing about what is taught regarding what occurred after the Balfour Declaration which would clarify both history and perhaps her intent and maybe even her own personal views), is coincidental. I believe it not to be coincidental at all. Were she to include one sentence about something historical that occurred after the Balfour Declaration, then one might reasonably re-evaluate the thesis that her intent was critical and ideological from the outset.
The importance that Ms. Ong assigns to what Lee stated and what is taught, as stated by Ms. Ong, (and perhaps agreed upon by Mr. Montesano) has little value, out of context, particularly if the rest of the history IS taught (when the word “State” would be soon introduced to students) or, if not fully taught, curricula can be changed such that all that followed the Balfour Declaration, both semantically and historically validated, be implemented in schools and subsequently taught to all students, if it isn’t already.
And if it is, then I see no rationale for Ms. Ong not including that the whole history is taught, from beginning to end, and that the Balfour Declaration was a preliminary statement of purpose by the British, unbinding, but to set out a proposal to give
Jews a ‘National Homeland’ of some sort, which was subsequently followed by a more concrete plan (as promised to Chaim Weizmann
and others) to give Jews a State on part
of Mandated Palestine. Not including this, or a portion of this, leads one to question why
Ms. Ong even brings up the Balfour Declaration, given her choice of many other things with which clearly disagrees with Lee,
and her lack of follow-up with a qualifying or clarifying statement leaves her with a mere criticism of a technical word that Lee stated that does not 100 % reconcile with the Balfour Declaration terminology and may not reconcile with what is taught which I have already said can be easily fixed, and if the full history is taught then students will understand the context of what happened because they are taught the correct history. My answer is: “So what, and what is your real point ?” It seems to me the real point is that Ms. Ong is attempting to indicate that:
“I follow closely on the Internet news on Singapore, the region, China, Japan, Korea, America, India and Europe. The Middle East – occasionally, Latin America – almost zero, because it is not relevant to us. Too far away.” Readers invested in the growing trade links between Latin America and Singapore need not be alarmed, however, because Lee is no longer in charge of the government. He is very much a retired political leader speaking from his past experiences.”
I find it also interesting as Ms. Ong questions both Lee’s global knowledge and interest and his relevance to Singapore, on which she is explicit, she has no problem stating at the same time:
“One Man’s View of the World will certainly provide a rich source of information for future generations of scholars interested in analysing his leadership.”
I think her (and Mr. Montesano as well) incapable of reconciling Ms. Ong’s views of LKY and her varied comments which are contradictory.
She sees LKY as an archaic former Leader of Singapore who she indicates seems not to have an interest in Singapore-Latin American trade links (which is debatable as she references one quote) and Singaporeans shouldn’t “be alarmed” which is a clear disingenuous put-down of Lee, the implication being his putative ignorance of Singaporean relations with Latin America and other geographical regions might somehow negatively impact
Singapore, which itself is contradicted by her implication that he has no influence anyway and thus the reference “be alarmed”
is both superfluous and pejorative as there would not be any alarm to begin with emanating from someone who has no impact on the nation at present.
I do not see a book being a rich source of information of a man’s leadership and how it impacted a nation he led, if a reviewer of that book warns Singaporeans not to be “alarmed” by what the reviewer thinks (and states) is a lack of interest or ignorance on the part of the no longer relevant former Leader who has written a book with a rich source of information about leadership and the nation he led.
I don’t buy it; it doesn’t work; and it is,
at best, very poorly analyzed, and at worst, disingenuous. And I will not buy any riposte that tries to defend this contradiction by stating something like, “Well, Ms. Ong meant
Lee was relevant some time in the past, but became irrelevant and ignorant and disinterested and possible of inducing “alarm,” but not while he was relevant and only those portions of the book that deal with the time he was the Leader of Singapore are relevant and not after, because after he retired he became disinterested, a source of possible “alarm,” confuses the Balfour Declaration, and other things, but his book still remains a rich source of information for scholars, despite all Lee’s disinterestedness and possible ignorance of global affairs, which [we are not clear about this] may have happened during his leadership or after he retired.”
Ms. Ong’s analysis of Lee Kuan Yew is circuitous and disingenuous.
I do not think (my opinion) Ms. Ong’s primary concern is that Singaporean students be taught accurate and validated history, particularly as she focuses on semantics in her commentary and merely states that students “should refer to other sources to supplement their knowledge.” It is patently obvious that had she done so herself, her inordinate focus on what Lee said would, if she understood the other sources in the first place, take on less importance than she gives it. As there are experts on the history of the Middle-East of widely-accepted credibility and knowledge, mostly outside Singapore, in the US, UK, Europe, Australia and elsewhere, I urge her to try and obtain
another viewpoint with regard to her commentary vis-a-vis “National Homeland” and “State” and as there is no impediment to her doing do so (I feel confident that she will not for reasons already stated), Sir Martin Gilbert of Oxford University, an objective and unbiased authority on a host of subjects, also including historical semantics and interpretations of Middle-Eastern history, is a good place to start.
I do think some scholars may fine Lee’s book informative (and some may not, clearly), what is clear is that Ms. Ong has not provided a well-reasoned analysis and argument as to the merits, or lack thereof, of Lee Kuan Yew’s book, as she does well-articulate portions of the book or portions of Lee himself that she finds informative (if not acceptable) and those portions that she does not (both book and person).
Finally, I question her use of a pseudonym,
as I strongly doubt that LKY knows her, cares what she says, or would take action against
her. I believe Ms. Ong (and by extension Mr. Montesano) takes on a much greater importance than is justified. To the extent that LKY is concerned by critical commnetary, of whatever extent, I am quite confident that he does not spend his days reading New Mandala, and that
to the extent he (or his son, who runs the country) have any concerns they would be directed at Chiam See Tong (even if he left the SPD [Singapore Democratic Party] and fell out with Chee), Chee Soon Juan, Ling How Doong and Cheo Chai Chen, and what they might have to say about him, because they have already said things about LKY, largely critical, and I would add they said those things without using any pseudonym, which
is courageous.
So, for those (one in particular) who think me a ‘fan’ of LKY, my mere mentioning of opposition members and stating that they have courage, not to mention all my other comments on Lee and Singapore which have included some criticisms leads to another false equation which was stated by someone I need not mention, but seems to happen often on New Mandala where people tend to see things in Black and White.
Criticism of other’s who criticize Lee, and some positive comments about Lee or defense of Lee on some issues, in light of criticisms I have made about the loss of traditional cultural habits in Singapore and the emphasis on modernization at the expense of traditions, and some other things, does not in any way, shape or form, equate with me being a ‘fan’ or being enamoured of Lee Kuan Yew. My opinion is mixed and I have varied opinions about different aspects of Lee’s leadership of Singapore and the nation itself that he helped form.
I believe Ms. Ong is motivated in her commentary by a non-concurrence with the outcome in the Middle-East which she, for several reasons, is disinclined to state explicitly. Her ideology, and Mr. Montesano’s defense of her commentary (and possibly her ideology which I am not sure of), informs her motivations for her criticisms, as well as her confused analysis of the current usefulness of LKY and LKY’s book, including the issue of “National Homeland” versus “State” which all together informs her muddled commentary.
Regardless of my (many) detractors, I have presented my viewpoint and have made arguments or points that I find deficient in her commentary, but I do not know Ms. Ong, and likely will not, and I hold no personal negative feelings towards her (as I don’t know her), I do however criticize her commentary and wonder about her intent.
I leave to my detractors, who in tone and words have ranged from semi-polite to the other end of the spectrum, to judge for themselves the relevant merits or not, of which I have already experienced fairly strong, if not always cohesive or particularly complete, responses.
I think Vichai N has a point. If this guy was arrested and held in custody as a suspect in the shootings, we should have had some news of it in the mainstream press. I haven’t seen any and I would like to see what happened to him.
This interview is fascinating. I am currently writing a thesis on the legacy of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia on the country today after having travelled there last year. I have found much of David Chandler’s work very valuable. Cambodia is a country with a rich and complex history, which I believe, has been dramatically shaped by its most recent history and as Youk Channg (a Khmer Rouge survivor said; “The legacies of their successes in this insanity remain with us all today.”
I wonder if Cambodia will ever fully recover from its genocide. Although its economy is growing at a remarkable pace, with an increase in GDP of 7% this year, the country still has serious issues which remain unresolved. For example; corruption within the government and business is increasing as shown by the protests against the CPP in the 2013 elections.
Is there a possibility that I could get in contact with David Chandler to discuss these issues or anyone else who is willing to give their viewpoint??
A fundamental question that no electoral system allows us to answer is if any of the candidates standing for election is worthy of our vote as our vote is either limited to choose between candidates standing or effectively ignored.
This could be resolved by a ‘none of the above’ option on all ballots, which if came first, would force a new election with new candidates.
This option backed by a clear and well organised process by which new elections were scheduled would effectively shift the power from political parties to the electorate.
While political power is concentrated within parties they are easy to dominate and manipulate, once power devolves to the electorate it is thoroughly dispersed and impervious to this type of manipulation.
It is real democracy, where the will of the electorate has been manifested.
Somewhat off-subject but nonetheless something I often think about is the “artists, outsiders and other creative thinkers”.
In Europe or the USA there is a tendency of these people to be critical of the status quo, seek more justice and freedom for individuals, expose wrongdoing etceteras. Not all of course, as many sell out once they attain enough wealth. Paintings today are often hung on walls to gain value rather than as something to be shared and appreciated.
In Thailand though these “artists, outsiders and other creative thinkers” tend to either stem from the middle class and up or, once climbing up the social ladder will turn their backs on their origins of those be from the lower strata of society. We might exclude “outsiders” as in Thailand, there are none. Or they can be counted on one hand. Unless that is we refer to street people; the “Lumpenproletariat” with little revolutionary potential.
Art for example is forced to follow strict rules imposed on it by censors who, if they deem any creation too critical of the stays quo can, will deny it to appear at all unless altered to fit in with the norm.
Going to art exhibitions of any kind will almost always mean “art” dedicated to religion, military and other historic figures as promoted by the status quo or, the royal family.
If an artist does not fit into the mould in the first place chances are he or she will never be able to “succeed” or even make a decent living with their art.
It is almost as of going back a couple of centuries where all art was forced to be in the service of those in power. Of course we could argue at that time art as we know it today did not exist.
Creativity has been so harnessed it is stifled.
So in order to rely on “artists, outsiders and other creative thinkers” we need first to make it even possible for them to exercise their art, thoughts as expression and ‘outsiderness’ without fear of repercussions.
A good article to read to let off some of the steam. In fat I have often thought this last month or so has again united the red shirts, even those angry and disappointed with the PTP.
Personally I distrust the PTP and believe they have turned their backs on their voters several times. including the exclusion of those charged and/or jailed for LM from the amnesty.
The amnesty bill itself is horrid, letting murderers off the hook AGAIN.
And so the last month has shown me the difference between the misnomered “democrat” party and PTP is after all broader than the width of just one hair. At least, I’d say, a tuft of hair.
After 2010 PTP had a chance to take the tiger by the tail but instead tucked its own tail between its legs. If the elections occur and they, PTP win again (how could anything else happen?) it is to be hoped PTP will finally be grateful for the support it received and transform itself into something politically more meaningful.
The article was more a call to search for resources outside the box, rather than picking sides. In a situation that no one, and no side, has an answer to, it calls attention the the very attitude of cynicsm that is blind to creative solutions. No one person has a solution, including me, of course, but if people actually want to work together and hear varied voices of the people in this country, it would be wise to welcome creative thinkers among the academics instead of bullying them.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Review of One Man’s View of the World
Frankly, Peter, you should have left out a lot more words than that
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
It is impossible in fact to fully analyze and present the result because we all know by forced exclusion of some elements the whole picture cannot be seen.
It is like trying to explain to someone why an engine malfunctions but not being able to refer to the carburetor and having to pretend that little bit of detail can be overlooked.
Now try not only explaining it to find out what’s wrong but try fixing it! Impossible…
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Yes all the posting within Thailand are useless as they have been self-censored. Don’t forget Andrew Macgregor Marshall’s well researched but highly explosive Thailand’s Era of Insanity.
Thailand’s stark choice
There is quite a surprising piece of news in this morning’s Bangkok Post, regarding a radical proposal by the anti-government NSPRT student group. Apparently, one of its leaders, Nititorn Lamlua, thinks they would be able to storm the US Embassy in Bangkok, and this would somehow help their cause. In a direct quote, he said, “Listen carefully. We will storm and seize the [US] embassy.”
This shows the level of desperation the anti-government protesters are feeling after Suthep’s proposal for a military coup was rejected by the Thai military’s top generals over the weekend.
Why chose the American embassy you might ask? Because it is the biggest symbol of the international community’s support for the Yingluck government and the Feb. 2 election process.
I have copied and pasted the article in full below:
“US Embassy beefs up security”
Bangkok Post, 16 Dec 2003, midnight
“Security was beefed up at the US embassy in Bangkok on Sunday after an anti-government group voiced its intention to “seize” the embassy.”
“Anucha Ramanyanand, deputy spokesman of the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (Capo), yesterday said the Capo had worked with embassy officials on security operations in case protesters converge at the premises.”
“The move came after Nititorn Lamlua, leader of the anti-government Network of Students and People for Reform of Thailand (NSPRT) announced on Saturday night he would lead protesters to seize the US embassy.”
“‘Listen carefully. We will storm and seize the [US] embassy,’ he told the crowd who had rallied at Chamai Maruchet bridge. Mr Nititorn, however, did not set a date for the demonstration.”
“He said Washington always calls on Thais to respect democratic principles and human rights without considering that Thais are fighting an undemocratic government. The US government’s support could lend the Yingluck Shinawatra government legitimacy, he said.”
“Pol Maj Gen Anucha said that after the NSPRT leader announced the planned seizure, the Capo contacted embassy staff and confirmed that police were on standby to offer protection if needed.”
“The NSPRT stayed put at its Chamai Maruchet protest base near Government House yesterday and did not move to the embassy as planned.”
“The US government earlier last week urged Thailand to work out its political differences in a peaceful and democratic manner. ‘Prime Minister Yingluck has called for elections as a way out of political tension and demonstrations,’ it said.”
Please credit and share this article with others using this link: http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/384989/us-embassy-beefs-up-security.
Postscript comment: I hope the CAPO group have made plans for the arrest of this firebrand for attempting to incite a riot. On the other hand, maybe they should let him and his supporters try it. It would most certainly fail, and it would show the world once again that they are little more than a gang of fascist black shirts with little respect for the law.
Thailand’s oligarchs are fighting
Not useful, as it is repeating ad nauseum “Thaksin” Thaksin”. Hardly any mention of Abhisit and his rich clans.
One of the many reason, the Democrats are unlikely to unseat the “non- democrats” is simple democracy. (have you notice that anyone with democratic in their name do not believe in it – as in Democrats, Democratic Republc of Korea etc)
Private: More creativity needed in defence of democracy
Finally, someone on New Mandala is speaking sense, rather than boring us all with the usual crypto-fascist nonsense. What Thailand really needs is a cadre of hitherto-ignored artist-peacemakers who can solve the country’s intractable political problems by creating abstract paintings, huge piles of randomly assembled household objects and performance art installations that deconstruct hitherto unseen power structures that continue to suppress outsider voices and… Sorry I lost my train of thought. But yeah, more of this please.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
There are some good books by Duncan McCargo and other Thai and western writers that hold no punches.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
In these difficult times, I wonder to whom I might look for answers to these questions? To Alice, The Hatter, the Cheshire Cat or the Queen of Hearts?
Nuclear inspectors, welcome to the jungle?
It is highly doubtful that Burma has the capacity to process Uranium ore into reactor or weapons-grade enriched Uranium, never mind
production of Plutonium. There is no hard evidence that North Korea supplied Burma with enriched Uranium, a nuclear fuel reactor, or a plutonium reprocessing facility, despite the Tatmadaw’s ties with North Korea. I doubt, as many others have, the capability and reliability of North Korea’s nuclear program even within North Korea, let alone
technical assistance or supply of enriched Uranium and/or equipment to someone else.
It is possible, but I think China and Russia are more likely candidates (and maybe France-see below).
“Myanmar has some of the basic elements of a nuclear weapons program but, regardless of its past intentions, it is a long ways from a nuclear weapon capability. Myanmar has some expensive, precision machine tools (which could be used in both nuclear and other high-tech industries), probably opportunistically procured from Europe, China and Singapore.”
Precision machine tools and fully-functioning reactors are wide apart in terms of technology. The Russian reactor was never built, and Burma has few Uranium mines of any quality. Burma is known for gems (e.g., Rubies and Tourmaline) and not Uranium due to its highly faulted and metamorphosed geology.
If they wanted to build a reactor, it is almost a given that the Uranium would be supplied by someone else, and probably enriched by someone else. No doubt, were Burma to try and obtain materials for a nuclear reactor, they would look to China, Russia and North Korea, in that order, for supplies. I do not think Europe as a whole would be their first choice, as Europe has more stringent regulations on the export of material and equipment for nuclear reactors, let alone Uranium itself, not that an illegal underground sale is out of the question, but China, Russia, North Korea, and maybe Singapore, are indeed more likely sources for equipment, precision tools, and perhaps trans-shipped Uranium of which Russia and China have major stockpiles. North Korea probably has far fewer stockpiles than they like to let on (to scare South Korea and the West). Singapore, which I am glad you mentioned, has no Uranium but does have precision tools and equipment, and whatever it’s ‘squeaky clean’ image at home, applies no ethical standards to its trading policies or with whom it trades, which range from North Korea to the United States (who obviously have a mutual dislike for one another) and sets no ideological conditions on whom it trades with (which is why it trades with the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Malaysia, and others, all of whom have varied ideologies and political structures, and many of whom dislike at least one of the other trading partners).
I think Burma, like Indonesia which had pretensions of establishing a nuclear program, is far away from building a reactor, which almost certainly they could not alone, but would require Russian or Chinese nuclear engineers. No disrespect to Burmese nuclear engineers, but there aren’t that many, and they are not as experienced, by far, as the Russians, Chinese, and the French, who might decide to overcome their own political objections and nuclear safeguard rules in the EU, and assist the Burmese. They would gain a foothold in Burma’s nascent nuclear program, but I doubt that would get that much money from the Tatmadaw for their efforts, if that was the French motivation in the first instance. On the other hand, the French have not set particularly strict rules (like Singapore) or ideological bars on whom they give their expertise to, which has included in the past, Iran (temporarily altered under former French President Nicholas Sarkozy, and then reverted back to fine traditional French form when Sarkozy left office).
“Myanmar is in no position to consider the production and use of nuclear weapons and does not have enough economic strength to do so…Myanmar has halted its previous arrangement of nuclear research as international community may misunderstand Myanmar over the issue.”
As much as I hardly believe anything the Tatmadaw regime says, I think the statement that you quote from the Burmese Delegation to the IAEA is probably true. I do not think they have the economic strength or the will to engender a workable nuclear power program, let alone a nuclear weapons program.
Your statement about that Syria has a larger and more sophisticated chemical (and biological) weapons arsenal is almost a given, and you can include China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and some other nations, all of whom have chemical and biological stockpiles, US-Russian treaties notwithstanding because Russia and Kazakhstan
and Ukraine still have all the left over chemical and biological reagents, microbial cultures, chemical and biological equipment, and fermentation vats, that were prohibited
for the production of level 3 pathogens and toxins by treaty with the US. I don’t think these will find their way to Burma, however, and I think reports of chemical weapons use
by the Burmese Military is unsubstantiated,
though I do think the likelihood, if Burma really wanted it, of obtaining Mustard Gas is much greater than obtaining, hard to culture and process, Level 3 pathogens.
Burma is enigmatic in many ways and your statement:
“Rightly or wrongly, the international community tends to be much more concerned about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issues than other humanitarian and internal human rights issues. North Korea and, more recently, Syria provide excellent examples of this phenomenon.”
I think is true for Burma, which should focus
more on humanitarian and human rights issues.
Given the United States continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Obama’s ideological outlook, pressuring Syria and North Korea at the UN and other forums is the limited extent to which this American administration is prepared to deal with Bashar al-Assad’s slaughter of his own people
(and Obama has explicitly stated that he has ruled out any American military involvement in Syria, for better or for worse) and Kim Jong Un’s bizarre Juche philosophy of autocratic Stalinism mixed with god-like worship of the Kim family, who apparently descended from wild bears on a holy mountain somewhere in North Korea.
When you deal with something like that, logic and normal means of diplomacy do not apply.
Reflections on the king’s speech
You’re quite right, it is a problem that I have to rely so much on anonymous sources, it’s not how I would like to do journalism in an ideal world. But reporting on palace circles in Thailand there is really no choice for now. One thing I don’t do is just repeat rumours. Everybody has heard all kinds of rumours about elite circles in Thailand. The challenge is establishing which rumours are true, and that is what I do.
You (and Giles) are also right that the succession conflict involves a tiny minority of Thais. But the fact is, the Thai establishment is obsessed with succession and this has been the dominant factor determining their actions and strategy since 2005. Their behaviour makes no sense unless viewed in that context.
I fully agree that their fixation on succession is ridiculous in the 21st century. By repeatedly seeking to overturn the electoral choices of the increasingly assertive and informed rural and urban poor, just so they can keep Vajiralongkorn off the throne, they have unwittingly dragged the country to the brink of revolution. If the Yingluck government is brought down, that might be the last hurrah of the old feudal elite. I’m staggered that they are crazy enough to pursue such a suicidal course of action, but they clearly are.
I agree with Giles on the weakness and increasing irrelevance of the monarchy, but that doesn’t change the fact the feudal elite are obsessed with succession and desperate to keep Vajiralongkorn off the throne.
Review of One Man’s View of the World
I left out a word……
Should read:
“As she does NOT well-articulate portions of the book or portions of Lee himself that she finds informative (if not entirely acceptable) and those portions that she does not (both book and person).”
Review of One Man’s View of the World
In conclusion, because I do feel I did not
adequately elaborate on why I stated that “Ms. Ong’s analysis of the Balfour Declaration is incorrect and she makes a false inference that “Homeland” and “State” are different” (or “National Homeland” and “State” are different) mandates a broader analysis and clarification which may have been missed, but is stated explicitly below:
In addition, I further address Mr. Montesano’s comments and one self-assigned statement.
===========================================
Finally, one may ask why Mr. Montesano posits, as criticism, a synonymy that I never stated, one can only assume in regard to my earlier comment on emotion and its manifestations in Chinese people and culture, which (while not scientific proof) was agreed upon with unanimity by 12 ethnic Chinese people, of different backgrounds (4 of whom were Singaporean), I asked this weekend, during a meeting I led.
Mr. Montesano posits a synonymy that was putatively stated by me (and was not), also in the process stating something that is not correct in the comparative sense, yet true scientifically, and, as stated, is within an insufficient context (because his statement is already a given and he says no more) anyway for scientifically-based study of the impact of nature (and genetics) on human, cultural and ethnic evolution because nature is regarded as a scientific variable within a different hierarchical category (as is genetics and DNA analysis) than culture, and ethnicity and human psychology (and emotions); which is why nature impacts, but it is not synonymous with, culture, and thus Mr. Monetsano’s ‘red herring’ or ‘straw man’
comment. The literal statement that Mr. Montesano reproduces, ironically and of quite interest to me, is the similarity between Mr. Montesano’s out-of-context statement and Ms. Ong’s out-of-context differentiation between ‘National Homeland’ and ‘State.’ I found both statements, while on different topics, quite similar in implied intent, and in terms of possible motivations of producing such statements vis-a-vis their both lacking scientific and historical context in any possible comments, respectively. Ms. Ong’s general suggestion that those interested in the Middle-East seek out “other sources,” given the importance she attaches to two different words, is both too general, not really helpful, and she could have just as well added a few additional sentences about what took place after the Balfour Declaration but does not (and I say more below) and would require little effort for one who knows the history of the region well.
========================================
Thus, Mr. Montesano’s statement while literally true, lacks any context, and thus is merely a comparative statement that can’t be refuted (because it is consistent with known science), but is not applied completely or appropriately by Mr. Montesano to the context of my commentary on LKY, Chinese culture and manifestations of emotion. Put it another way, it is a factually correct equation (Culture = Nature is false) but applied, incompletely and inaccurately, to the stated analytical or mathematical problem (to put it in mathematical terms).
Equally, Ms. Ong’s statement that “National Homeland” does not equal “State” is literally correct, out of any context, and only by dictionary terms of definition and what the Balfour Declaration states, which can neither be studied in isolation of all other subsequent events, and without the complete history of the region, yet like Mr. Montesano’s posited statement (as supposedly arising from me), which is taken out of context as well, Ms. Ong’s statement is incomplete, cannot stand alone in an historical vacuum, and is incompletely applied in any historical context, because she mentions none. One simple sentence about any event that took place after the declaration whereby the British Foreign Office drew up explicit maps with two different States would somewhat validate her original statement and her implied correction of what LKY stated. It may not validate her
reasons for bringing up this particular issue, in which she attempts to correct LKY, which to me suggests, in the absence of any context to her statement, her desire or attempt to correct or her criticism of Lee (however you call it) takes precedence over the word difference itself. Which is interesting in light of her commentary at the end that “One Man’s View of the World will certainly provide a rich source of information for future generations of scholars interested in analysing his leadership.” So, one might ask is she suggesting that the “rich source of information” which one presumes means she
validates its authenticity, only applies
to what LKY has done for Singapore, or does
it also apply to his views and foreign policies with other countries ? Particularly
his views and Singapore’s ties with Israel which I am quite confident based on Ms. Ong’s focus on word usage by Lee and in school, she
would have a well-defined and emphatic opinion on that subject, which might very well inform and impact her focus on the Balfour Declaration in the first place. Rather than being disingenuous, she should state such personal view about the Middle-East simply and explicitly with a caveat that they are her opinions or views.
Given her mixture of criticism (as I see it)
and some positive commentary at the end regarding his book and its value in informing those interested in Singapore and LKY’s role in shaping Singapore, I believe Ms. Ong’s view of LKY, to which she has both a right to express and a right put in writing, informs the tenor of her commentary, and thus her
basis for even bringing up the Balfour Declaration in the first place, which I am quite sure, even if the whole history is taught fully and accurately, most Singaporean students will soon forget. The overstated importance she assigns the words in the Balfour Declaration which, if she understood
Middle-East history, would realize was a work in progress and a proposal and not a binding document for the British, Jews or Arabs. Thus, the subsequent binding documents, maps, promises that followed leading to the partition. I am sure Ms. Ong quite capable of finding other ‘discrepancies’ in Lee’s words or statements in print, I simply find it very hard to believe her choice of the Balfour Declaration as her example of a ‘discrepancy’ between what Lee stated and what Ms. Ong states is actually taught (and she mentions nothing about what is taught regarding what occurred after the Balfour Declaration which would clarify both history and perhaps her intent and maybe even her own personal views), is coincidental. I believe it not to be coincidental at all. Were she to include one sentence about something historical that occurred after the Balfour Declaration, then one might reasonably re-evaluate the thesis that her intent was critical and ideological from the outset.
The importance that Ms. Ong assigns to what Lee stated and what is taught, as stated by Ms. Ong, (and perhaps agreed upon by Mr. Montesano) has little value, out of context, particularly if the rest of the history IS taught (when the word “State” would be soon introduced to students) or, if not fully taught, curricula can be changed such that all that followed the Balfour Declaration, both semantically and historically validated, be implemented in schools and subsequently taught to all students, if it isn’t already.
And if it is, then I see no rationale for Ms. Ong not including that the whole history is taught, from beginning to end, and that the Balfour Declaration was a preliminary statement of purpose by the British, unbinding, but to set out a proposal to give
Jews a ‘National Homeland’ of some sort, which was subsequently followed by a more concrete plan (as promised to Chaim Weizmann
and others) to give Jews a State on part
of Mandated Palestine. Not including this, or a portion of this, leads one to question why
Ms. Ong even brings up the Balfour Declaration, given her choice of many other things with which clearly disagrees with Lee,
and her lack of follow-up with a qualifying or clarifying statement leaves her with a mere criticism of a technical word that Lee stated that does not 100 % reconcile with the Balfour Declaration terminology and may not reconcile with what is taught which I have already said can be easily fixed, and if the full history is taught then students will understand the context of what happened because they are taught the correct history. My answer is: “So what, and what is your real point ?” It seems to me the real point is that Ms. Ong is attempting to indicate that:
“I follow closely on the Internet news on Singapore, the region, China, Japan, Korea, America, India and Europe. The Middle East – occasionally, Latin America – almost zero, because it is not relevant to us. Too far away.” Readers invested in the growing trade links between Latin America and Singapore need not be alarmed, however, because Lee is no longer in charge of the government. He is very much a retired political leader speaking from his past experiences.”
I find it also interesting as Ms. Ong questions both Lee’s global knowledge and interest and his relevance to Singapore, on which she is explicit, she has no problem stating at the same time:
“One Man’s View of the World will certainly provide a rich source of information for future generations of scholars interested in analysing his leadership.”
I think her (and Mr. Montesano as well) incapable of reconciling Ms. Ong’s views of LKY and her varied comments which are contradictory.
She sees LKY as an archaic former Leader of Singapore who she indicates seems not to have an interest in Singapore-Latin American trade links (which is debatable as she references one quote) and Singaporeans shouldn’t “be alarmed” which is a clear disingenuous put-down of Lee, the implication being his putative ignorance of Singaporean relations with Latin America and other geographical regions might somehow negatively impact
Singapore, which itself is contradicted by her implication that he has no influence anyway and thus the reference “be alarmed”
is both superfluous and pejorative as there would not be any alarm to begin with emanating from someone who has no impact on the nation at present.
I do not see a book being a rich source of information of a man’s leadership and how it impacted a nation he led, if a reviewer of that book warns Singaporeans not to be “alarmed” by what the reviewer thinks (and states) is a lack of interest or ignorance on the part of the no longer relevant former Leader who has written a book with a rich source of information about leadership and the nation he led.
I don’t buy it; it doesn’t work; and it is,
at best, very poorly analyzed, and at worst, disingenuous. And I will not buy any riposte that tries to defend this contradiction by stating something like, “Well, Ms. Ong meant
Lee was relevant some time in the past, but became irrelevant and ignorant and disinterested and possible of inducing “alarm,” but not while he was relevant and only those portions of the book that deal with the time he was the Leader of Singapore are relevant and not after, because after he retired he became disinterested, a source of possible “alarm,” confuses the Balfour Declaration, and other things, but his book still remains a rich source of information for scholars, despite all Lee’s disinterestedness and possible ignorance of global affairs, which [we are not clear about this] may have happened during his leadership or after he retired.”
Ms. Ong’s analysis of Lee Kuan Yew is circuitous and disingenuous.
I do not think (my opinion) Ms. Ong’s primary concern is that Singaporean students be taught accurate and validated history, particularly as she focuses on semantics in her commentary and merely states that students “should refer to other sources to supplement their knowledge.” It is patently obvious that had she done so herself, her inordinate focus on what Lee said would, if she understood the other sources in the first place, take on less importance than she gives it. As there are experts on the history of the Middle-East of widely-accepted credibility and knowledge, mostly outside Singapore, in the US, UK, Europe, Australia and elsewhere, I urge her to try and obtain
another viewpoint with regard to her commentary vis-a-vis “National Homeland” and “State” and as there is no impediment to her doing do so (I feel confident that she will not for reasons already stated), Sir Martin Gilbert of Oxford University, an objective and unbiased authority on a host of subjects, also including historical semantics and interpretations of Middle-Eastern history, is a good place to start.
I do think some scholars may fine Lee’s book informative (and some may not, clearly), what is clear is that Ms. Ong has not provided a well-reasoned analysis and argument as to the merits, or lack thereof, of Lee Kuan Yew’s book, as she does well-articulate portions of the book or portions of Lee himself that she finds informative (if not acceptable) and those portions that she does not (both book and person).
Finally, I question her use of a pseudonym,
as I strongly doubt that LKY knows her, cares what she says, or would take action against
her. I believe Ms. Ong (and by extension Mr. Montesano) takes on a much greater importance than is justified. To the extent that LKY is concerned by critical commnetary, of whatever extent, I am quite confident that he does not spend his days reading New Mandala, and that
to the extent he (or his son, who runs the country) have any concerns they would be directed at Chiam See Tong (even if he left the SPD [Singapore Democratic Party] and fell out with Chee), Chee Soon Juan, Ling How Doong and Cheo Chai Chen, and what they might have to say about him, because they have already said things about LKY, largely critical, and I would add they said those things without using any pseudonym, which
is courageous.
So, for those (one in particular) who think me a ‘fan’ of LKY, my mere mentioning of opposition members and stating that they have courage, not to mention all my other comments on Lee and Singapore which have included some criticisms leads to another false equation which was stated by someone I need not mention, but seems to happen often on New Mandala where people tend to see things in Black and White.
Criticism of other’s who criticize Lee, and some positive comments about Lee or defense of Lee on some issues, in light of criticisms I have made about the loss of traditional cultural habits in Singapore and the emphasis on modernization at the expense of traditions, and some other things, does not in any way, shape or form, equate with me being a ‘fan’ or being enamoured of Lee Kuan Yew. My opinion is mixed and I have varied opinions about different aspects of Lee’s leadership of Singapore and the nation itself that he helped form.
I believe Ms. Ong is motivated in her commentary by a non-concurrence with the outcome in the Middle-East which she, for several reasons, is disinclined to state explicitly. Her ideology, and Mr. Montesano’s defense of her commentary (and possibly her ideology which I am not sure of), informs her motivations for her criticisms, as well as her confused analysis of the current usefulness of LKY and LKY’s book, including the issue of “National Homeland” versus “State” which all together informs her muddled commentary.
Regardless of my (many) detractors, I have presented my viewpoint and have made arguments or points that I find deficient in her commentary, but I do not know Ms. Ong, and likely will not, and I hold no personal negative feelings towards her (as I don’t know her), I do however criticize her commentary and wonder about her intent.
I leave to my detractors, who in tone and words have ranged from semi-polite to the other end of the spectrum, to judge for themselves the relevant merits or not, of which I have already experienced fairly strong, if not always cohesive or particularly complete, responses.
Ramkhamhaeng: A view from inside the stadium
I think Vichai N has a point. If this guy was arrested and held in custody as a suspect in the shootings, we should have had some news of it in the mainstream press. I haven’t seen any and I would like to see what happened to him.
Interview with Professor David Chandler
This interview is fascinating. I am currently writing a thesis on the legacy of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia on the country today after having travelled there last year. I have found much of David Chandler’s work very valuable. Cambodia is a country with a rich and complex history, which I believe, has been dramatically shaped by its most recent history and as Youk Channg (a Khmer Rouge survivor said; “The legacies of their successes in this insanity remain with us all today.”
I wonder if Cambodia will ever fully recover from its genocide. Although its economy is growing at a remarkable pace, with an increase in GDP of 7% this year, the country still has serious issues which remain unresolved. For example; corruption within the government and business is increasing as shown by the protests against the CPP in the 2013 elections.
Is there a possibility that I could get in contact with David Chandler to discuss these issues or anyone else who is willing to give their viewpoint??
My email is: [email protected]
Thanks
Rhiannon
Private: More creativity needed in defence of democracy
A fundamental question that no electoral system allows us to answer is if any of the candidates standing for election is worthy of our vote as our vote is either limited to choose between candidates standing or effectively ignored.
This could be resolved by a ‘none of the above’ option on all ballots, which if came first, would force a new election with new candidates.
This option backed by a clear and well organised process by which new elections were scheduled would effectively shift the power from political parties to the electorate.
While political power is concentrated within parties they are easy to dominate and manipulate, once power devolves to the electorate it is thoroughly dispersed and impervious to this type of manipulation.
It is real democracy, where the will of the electorate has been manifested.
Private: More creativity needed in defence of democracy
Somewhat off-subject but nonetheless something I often think about is the “artists, outsiders and other creative thinkers”.
In Europe or the USA there is a tendency of these people to be critical of the status quo, seek more justice and freedom for individuals, expose wrongdoing etceteras. Not all of course, as many sell out once they attain enough wealth. Paintings today are often hung on walls to gain value rather than as something to be shared and appreciated.
In Thailand though these “artists, outsiders and other creative thinkers” tend to either stem from the middle class and up or, once climbing up the social ladder will turn their backs on their origins of those be from the lower strata of society. We might exclude “outsiders” as in Thailand, there are none. Or they can be counted on one hand. Unless that is we refer to street people; the “Lumpenproletariat” with little revolutionary potential.
Art for example is forced to follow strict rules imposed on it by censors who, if they deem any creation too critical of the stays quo can, will deny it to appear at all unless altered to fit in with the norm.
Going to art exhibitions of any kind will almost always mean “art” dedicated to religion, military and other historic figures as promoted by the status quo or, the royal family.
If an artist does not fit into the mould in the first place chances are he or she will never be able to “succeed” or even make a decent living with their art.
It is almost as of going back a couple of centuries where all art was forced to be in the service of those in power. Of course we could argue at that time art as we know it today did not exist.
Creativity has been so harnessed it is stifled.
So in order to rely on “artists, outsiders and other creative thinkers” we need first to make it even possible for them to exercise their art, thoughts as expression and ‘outsiderness’ without fear of repercussions.
Exclusive: Suthep is Thaksin’s proxy
A good article to read to let off some of the steam. In fat I have often thought this last month or so has again united the red shirts, even those angry and disappointed with the PTP.
Personally I distrust the PTP and believe they have turned their backs on their voters several times. including the exclusion of those charged and/or jailed for LM from the amnesty.
The amnesty bill itself is horrid, letting murderers off the hook AGAIN.
And so the last month has shown me the difference between the misnomered “democrat” party and PTP is after all broader than the width of just one hair. At least, I’d say, a tuft of hair.
After 2010 PTP had a chance to take the tiger by the tail but instead tucked its own tail between its legs. If the elections occur and they, PTP win again (how could anything else happen?) it is to be hoped PTP will finally be grateful for the support it received and transform itself into something politically more meaningful.
Private: More creativity needed in defence of democracy
The article was more a call to search for resources outside the box, rather than picking sides. In a situation that no one, and no side, has an answer to, it calls attention the the very attitude of cynicsm that is blind to creative solutions. No one person has a solution, including me, of course, but if people actually want to work together and hear varied voices of the people in this country, it would be wise to welcome creative thinkers among the academics instead of bullying them.
Thailand’s stark choice
Maybe he woke up and discovered that he’s in the 21st instead of the 17th century!
Private: More creativity needed in defence of democracy
Talk about giving dancers a bad name!