When the king wanted to get rid of Thaksin in 2005-6, Thaksin called an election. The court party, the “Democrats”, refused to participate in the election (because they knew they would loose) and the king, in a famous speech, instructed the relevant judges to annul the election. Then followed the pro-Royalist military coup of 2006. The ill-advised actions of the king tore the country apart. Thaksin was prepared to go on with the traditional hypocritical grovelling, and the king should have realised that the time was long overdue for elected politicians to have some real political power.
Contrast this with the behaviour of William IV in 1834-35. He dismissed Lord Melbourne, and appointed his preferred Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, who could not command a majority in the House of Commons. Melbourne was returned in the 1835 election. The king then accepted Melbourne as Prime Minister, and no British monarch since has ever attempted to override the electorate.
The Thai electorate approved a prime minister and political the party according to their standards. They are entitled to the leader of their choice, with genuine power, whatever the reactionary Peter Cohen has to say.
Elected politicians in Thailand are traditional targets of mud-slinging (a good thing when the bad stuff is true, but a bad thing when it is not). The only exception is that unelected politician, the sacred mascot of the militarists. He is virtuous by law, and people pay their public respects to him mainly for that reason. The story is different every time there is a secret ballot, when a clear majority of the electorate put the boot into him and his cronies, by voting for the proxies of his declared enemy.
Scholars are reminded not to be thinkers yet again. PSD wishes that you’ll enjoy your public funded journey, and help the incumbent to devise new ways to wring juice from rocks.
I said as much about Aung Gyi in an earlier post. Khin Nyunt is not guilt free, I know that. I prefer Tin Oo, but he is old and not well. Yet, he is smart, capable and has seen Burma from colonial times to the present and understands the problems it faces, I believe. I just don’t believe the Tatmadaw can reform itself from within. More likely it will break down into a multitude of factions, all wanting power but lacking the skills to lead.
Eminent anthropologists on Malay culture, Emeritus Professor Clive Kessler weighs in on the Allah decision by the Court of Appeal which upheld the Government of Malaysia’s ban on the use of Allah by Christians.
What this means practically, when things are stated bluntly, is that the enjoyment of minority rights is conditional upon the continuing readiness of the most extreme members of the majority not to create conditions of general social “un-peace” and “disharmony”. Not in the face of anything that may be uncongenial to any of the majority’s most implacable members. Not even at the imagined prospect of any affront, genuine of contrived, to their sectional sensibilities.
Aung Gyi was an arch agent provocateur who remained staunchly pro-Tatmadaw and deeply loyal to his former boss Ne Win to his dying day. A civilian friend of his who was imprisoned charged with being one of his accomplices in the mid sixties said to me his so called economic nous was a myth as others did the work for him, although you are right he did disagree with the direction the economy was going at the time he fell out with Number One.
He flushed the opposition forces out for Ne Win with his open letters in 1988, split the opposition after infiltrating into the NLD leadership, and then accused ASSK of being surrounded by communists. Reds under the bed, true to type.
Khin Nyunt the ‘moderate’ started to open up the economy and was widely rumoured to be planning power sharing with ASSK at which point he got ousted. Some Western analysts still reckon he has some mileage left in him. Apparently he is going for the Nuremberg defence of “only obeying orders” for the crimes against humanity the MI/military committed under his watch. Fancy that when he was Secretary One (head of govt) as well as the spy chief. Thein Sein at least would have better justification.
You are wrong. The King did not instigate any
conflict. Where is your proof ? That is absurd. Thaksin is a corrupt hypocrite who insulted the Thai people and the King. The King remains popular in Thailand.
This is a very common occurrence. I hope more scholars will speak up and/or send in e-mails and circulars they have received. Many such e-mails went around before the Bersih rallies.
“Sufficiency” is a good word Bernd and democracies (and monarchies) of the world are in dire straits because they have forgotten the merits and true virtue of ‘sufficiency’. Greece (where democracy started) and USA (where democracy is enshrined) both totter and gasp because they have forgotten and ignored s-u-f-f-i-e-c-e-n-c-y.
In Thailand ‘sufficiency’ used to be 10% and anything above that was corruption and abhorrent. That was before Thaksin. Now 30% could still be i-n-s-u-f-f-i-c-i-e-e-n-c-y and who knows where ‘sufficiency corruption’ norm now stands? Do you Bernd?
Always look forward to your posts, Matt, man on the spot as Peter would say.
A very good question who benefits (ajoh shi) or profits (amyat htwet in Burmese). The military has a record as long as your arm in instigating/fuelling communal strife for their own strategic reasons mainly to wriggle out of a crisis or divert attention from pressing issues such as Letpadaung and unabated land confiscations as well as the permanent lack of peace when their rhetoric says eternal peace and tranquility (sic).
Yes, the dodgy explosions too which people believe only they have the means and the reasons for. The Burmese have experienced it repeatedly, and yet some of us directly unaffected and comfy souls are still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, some also undoubtedly based on a racist/chauvinist mindset. The more fool them.
You must have seen taxis and buses overtaking queues invading the opposite lane head on on a regular basis. I’m told they are under pressure to get the job done and then go to the next, just to make ends meet.
BTW Khin Nyunt just turned 74 (b 11 Oct 1939), and he’s hardly kept a low profile or quiet. He was making a comeback into politics, then he wasn’t, only into philanthropic work and religion! The Burmese have an expression – an angel’s words from a dog’s snout.
His tenure in power was partly symbolised by the joke popular at the time that Burmese TV had only two colours – green (the military)and yellow (pagodas where the top brass was regularly seen in uniform wearing their sidearms making large donations and putting their names on inscriptions of their meritorious deeds).
The latest on the net (in Burmese) is that he’s been in touch with a Western diplomat to say he’ll sing like a canary if his and the family’s security can be safeguarded, likewise his junior officers, including the inside track on Depayin and the multiple murders in Green Bank opposite the state guest house off University Avenue. Uncorroborated but intriguing.
How can anybody say the king of Thailand has remained a positive unifying force, when a contest between himself and Thaksin has torn the country in half? Whether he is in the right or not, it is not possible to say in 2013 that he is a unifying force. I might add that the evidence indicates that the king and his courtiers instigated the conflict, and that they have ended up holding onto the smaller half (electorally).
I find myself broadly in agreement with Peter who I’m sure is more widely travelled and experienced even if I find Cohen’s Rule – you can’t comment with any credibility unless you’ve been there – rather unfair and arrogant. Yes, we are all opinionated.
Tocharian if others are unaware is more nationalistic to the extent of chauvinistic than I, and rabidly anti-Chinese evident from his recurring rants on various sites.
The nationalism of the Burmese, farmers and generals alike, is second to none. ASSK is seen not without justification to be too reliant on foreign supporters but nowhere near enough on the masses whose uprising (led by the unknown) got her catapulted to the position she has enjoyed since. No faith whatsoever, indeed afraid of, in mass movement and mass action. On top of that a woeful lack of concrete policy and programme which perhaps is explained by her unwillingness to directly compete with and necessarily confront the generals. Remember how she dropped second Panglong like a hot potato as soon as she realised the generals were not amused? The real power today rests in the National Defence and Security Council (NDSC or karlon in Burmese), not Thein Sein and his quasi-civilian govt/parliament, ASSK’s remit and latitude for action necessarily proscribed by the very generals she hopes to replace, a forlorn hope short of a US invasion.
Peter rightly and justly puts the emphasis on the poor majority as real stakeholders in a properly developing economy. My anti-military stance is a pro-masses historical product you will notice in the average Burmese, the rank and file in the army included. There’s only a half century record of totally and utterly self centred behaviour which unashamedly and blatantly committed sacrilege against its own professed religion in brutally suppressing the Saffron Revolution which the populace witnessed in disbelief and disgust only six years ago. Like Peter said the military is inimical to progress in Burma, and anti-Buddhist (an accusation constantly hurled at its arch enemy the CPB) when it comes to the crunch.
“Economic determinism” as a way forward suggested by Erik is attractive to many, both inside and outside Burma, only with pervasive and insurmountable corruption every step of the way (in fact for survival and now an entrenched way of life under the military led by its own example) posing a real obstacle in the way of genuine development and progress. Foreign investors, current and potential, are experiencing that first hand, enough to expect substandard and unsafe ventures in the offing.
How can a cultural sea change happen? I couldn’t agree more with Peter. The military must go.
Alright Peter, I understand your point. We have different means to achieve the same end. I believe in political stability and state capitalism, you believe in a more liberal and open nationalism. Still, history will prove which one is right (maybe both, why not?).
Yes definitely not out of the question. The concern is with linking these bombings to Islam in general, and thus attributing blame to all Muslims. As opposed to specific extremists, which there are in any religion.
I am rather concerned about this attempt to make Malaysians more stupid by preventing students on PSD/JPA scholarships from learning how other countries operate their freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, etc.
My concern is that we are possibly creating a whole new second-class of Malaysians, in which case, I will probably have to change my nick to “A Third Class Malaysian” just to ensure I don’t compete with the new second class.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Loyalty demands ambiguity
When the king wanted to get rid of Thaksin in 2005-6, Thaksin called an election. The court party, the “Democrats”, refused to participate in the election (because they knew they would loose) and the king, in a famous speech, instructed the relevant judges to annul the election. Then followed the pro-Royalist military coup of 2006. The ill-advised actions of the king tore the country apart. Thaksin was prepared to go on with the traditional hypocritical grovelling, and the king should have realised that the time was long overdue for elected politicians to have some real political power.
Contrast this with the behaviour of William IV in 1834-35. He dismissed Lord Melbourne, and appointed his preferred Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, who could not command a majority in the House of Commons. Melbourne was returned in the 1835 election. The king then accepted Melbourne as Prime Minister, and no British monarch since has ever attempted to override the electorate.
The Thai electorate approved a prime minister and political the party according to their standards. They are entitled to the leader of their choice, with genuine power, whatever the reactionary Peter Cohen has to say.
Elected politicians in Thailand are traditional targets of mud-slinging (a good thing when the bad stuff is true, but a bad thing when it is not). The only exception is that unelected politician, the sacred mascot of the militarists. He is virtuous by law, and people pay their public respects to him mainly for that reason. The story is different every time there is a secret ballot, when a clear majority of the electorate put the boot into him and his cronies, by voting for the proxies of his declared enemy.
Far reaching implications….
when you eat salted fish, you have to suffer the thirsting effect thereafter.. an wise note from ancient China.
Gentle reminder – thou shall not think
Scholars are reminded not to be thinkers yet again. PSD wishes that you’ll enjoy your public funded journey, and help the incumbent to devise new ways to wring juice from rocks.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
I said as much about Aung Gyi in an earlier post. Khin Nyunt is not guilt free, I know that. I prefer Tin Oo, but he is old and not well. Yet, he is smart, capable and has seen Burma from colonial times to the present and understands the problems it faces, I believe. I just don’t believe the Tatmadaw can reform itself from within. More likely it will break down into a multitude of factions, all wanting power but lacking the skills to lead.
UMNO and Nazi Germany
Eminent anthropologists on Malay culture, Emeritus Professor Clive Kessler weighs in on the Allah decision by the Court of Appeal which upheld the Government of Malaysia’s ban on the use of Allah by Christians.
– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/strange-reasoning-clive-kessler#sthash.R1CUPwrs.dpuf
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Full article of Zarni in draft here.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Aung Gyi was an arch agent provocateur who remained staunchly pro-Tatmadaw and deeply loyal to his former boss Ne Win to his dying day. A civilian friend of his who was imprisoned charged with being one of his accomplices in the mid sixties said to me his so called economic nous was a myth as others did the work for him, although you are right he did disagree with the direction the economy was going at the time he fell out with Number One.
He flushed the opposition forces out for Ne Win with his open letters in 1988, split the opposition after infiltrating into the NLD leadership, and then accused ASSK of being surrounded by communists. Reds under the bed, true to type.
Khin Nyunt the ‘moderate’ started to open up the economy and was widely rumoured to be planning power sharing with ASSK at which point he got ousted. Some Western analysts still reckon he has some mileage left in him. Apparently he is going for the Nuremberg defence of “only obeying orders” for the crimes against humanity the MI/military committed under his watch. Fancy that when he was Secretary One (head of govt) as well as the spy chief. Thein Sein at least would have better justification.
After the bombings: 15 October in Yangon
Very interesting post.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Speaking of China and ethnic insurgents, check this out:
http://www.janes.com/article/12159/china-sends-armed-helicopters-to-myanmar-separatists
and this is only the tip of the iceberg!
In contrast, I don’t think Burma sends arms to the Tibetan and Uyghur separatists
Loyalty demands ambiguity
RN England,
You are wrong. The King did not instigate any
conflict. Where is your proof ? That is absurd. Thaksin is a corrupt hypocrite who insulted the Thai people and the King. The King remains popular in Thailand.
Have you been to Thailand ?
Gentle reminder – thou shall not think
This is a very common occurrence. I hope more scholars will speak up and/or send in e-mails and circulars they have received. Many such e-mails went around before the Bersih rallies.
Thai politics, 14 October and all that
“Sufficiency” is a good word Bernd and democracies (and monarchies) of the world are in dire straits because they have forgotten the merits and true virtue of ‘sufficiency’. Greece (where democracy started) and USA (where democracy is enshrined) both totter and gasp because they have forgotten and ignored s-u-f-f-i-e-c-e-n-c-y.
In Thailand ‘sufficiency’ used to be 10% and anything above that was corruption and abhorrent. That was before Thaksin. Now 30% could still be i-n-s-u-f-f-i-c-i-e-e-n-c-y and who knows where ‘sufficiency corruption’ norm now stands? Do you Bernd?
After the bombings: 15 October in Yangon
Always look forward to your posts, Matt, man on the spot as Peter would say.
A very good question who benefits (ajoh shi) or profits (amyat htwet in Burmese). The military has a record as long as your arm in instigating/fuelling communal strife for their own strategic reasons mainly to wriggle out of a crisis or divert attention from pressing issues such as Letpadaung and unabated land confiscations as well as the permanent lack of peace when their rhetoric says eternal peace and tranquility (sic).
Yes, the dodgy explosions too which people believe only they have the means and the reasons for. The Burmese have experienced it repeatedly, and yet some of us directly unaffected and comfy souls are still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, some also undoubtedly based on a racist/chauvinist mindset. The more fool them.
You must have seen taxis and buses overtaking queues invading the opposite lane head on on a regular basis. I’m told they are under pressure to get the job done and then go to the next, just to make ends meet.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Maung Zarni’s first of three articles in Asia Times Online titled Myanmar’s Black Hole: Evolution of a Mafia state in Myanmar puts the military in perspective.
BTW Khin Nyunt just turned 74 (b 11 Oct 1939), and he’s hardly kept a low profile or quiet. He was making a comeback into politics, then he wasn’t, only into philanthropic work and religion! The Burmese have an expression – an angel’s words from a dog’s snout.
His tenure in power was partly symbolised by the joke popular at the time that Burmese TV had only two colours – green (the military)and yellow (pagodas where the top brass was regularly seen in uniform wearing their sidearms making large donations and putting their names on inscriptions of their meritorious deeds).
The latest on the net (in Burmese) is that he’s been in touch with a Western diplomat to say he’ll sing like a canary if his and the family’s security can be safeguarded, likewise his junior officers, including the inside track on Depayin and the multiple murders in Green Bank opposite the state guest house off University Avenue. Uncorroborated but intriguing.
Loyalty demands ambiguity
How can anybody say the king of Thailand has remained a positive unifying force, when a contest between himself and Thaksin has torn the country in half? Whether he is in the right or not, it is not possible to say in 2013 that he is a unifying force. I might add that the evidence indicates that the king and his courtiers instigated the conflict, and that they have ended up holding onto the smaller half (electorally).
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
I find myself broadly in agreement with Peter who I’m sure is more widely travelled and experienced even if I find Cohen’s Rule – you can’t comment with any credibility unless you’ve been there – rather unfair and arrogant. Yes, we are all opinionated.
Tocharian if others are unaware is more nationalistic to the extent of chauvinistic than I, and rabidly anti-Chinese evident from his recurring rants on various sites.
The nationalism of the Burmese, farmers and generals alike, is second to none. ASSK is seen not without justification to be too reliant on foreign supporters but nowhere near enough on the masses whose uprising (led by the unknown) got her catapulted to the position she has enjoyed since. No faith whatsoever, indeed afraid of, in mass movement and mass action. On top of that a woeful lack of concrete policy and programme which perhaps is explained by her unwillingness to directly compete with and necessarily confront the generals. Remember how she dropped second Panglong like a hot potato as soon as she realised the generals were not amused? The real power today rests in the National Defence and Security Council (NDSC or karlon in Burmese), not Thein Sein and his quasi-civilian govt/parliament, ASSK’s remit and latitude for action necessarily proscribed by the very generals she hopes to replace, a forlorn hope short of a US invasion.
Peter rightly and justly puts the emphasis on the poor majority as real stakeholders in a properly developing economy. My anti-military stance is a pro-masses historical product you will notice in the average Burmese, the rank and file in the army included. There’s only a half century record of totally and utterly self centred behaviour which unashamedly and blatantly committed sacrilege against its own professed religion in brutally suppressing the Saffron Revolution which the populace witnessed in disbelief and disgust only six years ago. Like Peter said the military is inimical to progress in Burma, and anti-Buddhist (an accusation constantly hurled at its arch enemy the CPB) when it comes to the crunch.
“Economic determinism” as a way forward suggested by Erik is attractive to many, both inside and outside Burma, only with pervasive and insurmountable corruption every step of the way (in fact for survival and now an entrenched way of life under the military led by its own example) posing a real obstacle in the way of genuine development and progress. Foreign investors, current and potential, are experiencing that first hand, enough to expect substandard and unsafe ventures in the offing.
How can a cultural sea change happen? I couldn’t agree more with Peter. The military must go.
Loyalty demands ambiguity
they can not prevent the truth coming to light
-112 but prevents pronounce the truth loud
– this will remain as long until the two have died
– and then it will be over with the splendor and glory of this era
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Alright Peter, I understand your point. We have different means to achieve the same end. I believe in political stability and state capitalism, you believe in a more liberal and open nationalism. Still, history will prove which one is right (maybe both, why not?).
After the bombings: 15 October in Yangon
Yes definitely not out of the question. The concern is with linking these bombings to Islam in general, and thus attributing blame to all Muslims. As opposed to specific extremists, which there are in any religion.
Gentle reminder – thou shall not think
I am rather concerned about this attempt to make Malaysians more stupid by preventing students on PSD/JPA scholarships from learning how other countries operate their freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, etc.
My concern is that we are possibly creating a whole new second-class of Malaysians, in which case, I will probably have to change my nick to “A Third Class Malaysian” just to ensure I don’t compete with the new second class.