There are worse things in SE Asia than the royalty in Thailand. Maybe it is outdated
and one should be free to criticize the King
(god bless HRH), but King Bhumibol Adulyadej
remains a positive unifying force for most Thai.
Burmese will sometimes tell you things under
the influence of “drink” that they wouldn’t otherwise say. Sometimes they will also say what they think you want to hear; it depends
on the person, location and context of the
conversation.
The Rohingyas are an issue that won’t go away. Bombings by Muslims in Burma is not out of the question. There are grievances, just as there are some extremists among ethnic Malays in southern Thailand (not all are extremists) who bomb in Hadyai, as well as Bangkok once in a while.
-even so you should have slowly realized that the problem is not Thaksin
– but 60 years lying and cheating,
– huge Popaganda for a monarchy and fight against any kind of democratization and liberalization in Thailand .
– Described the oppression of the masses by a lack of education and information, along with a huge propaganda machine which lifts the monarchy in the sky
-Military coups, military governments, murder and slaughter for King and Amart
– For wealth and corruption,
– For moneymaking and Cover Up
– in the past 60 years the mass of the people had better to remain stupid and practice in “sufficiency”
Couldn’t agree more. Ethnicity has been used to justificate armed groups who are 99% of the times linked with drugs and smuggling.
Karen, for example, live among Burmese in Rangoon region and they’re not discriminated. I read a text from professor Thawngmung (she’s karen) and she mentioned that, besides the accent (like country farmers), they merged really well in the society.
I think buddhism may be some kind of more realistic division.
“China is a model of administration, economic growth, military might and political stability for developing countries, while India has hundreds of inoperant ministries and a weak currency…”
I couldn’t disagree more. China is a model
of economic disparity and corruption
(PC-GDP in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen
about 6,0000 USD/year and about 300 USD/year
in the countryside where 80 % of Chinese live). Economic growth is limited to the coastal areas and China’s pushy expansion into Southeast Asia is similar to Japan’s
adventures in SE Asia minus the genocide..so far. China owns all the telecom and power plants in Cambodia and Laos (maybe even in Burma). China is far from stable. Strikes
routinely take place in urban areas over
wages and working conditions. Muslim Han,
Hue Jiao and Xinjiang Muslims are in revolt.
So China doesn’t outsource its call centers to India like the US, but the Chinese Yuan
is artificially kept low and the World Bank
and IMF have told China to stop it (China
doesn’t listen of course). China has a Stalinist regime and foreign policy; it props
up Kim Jong Un and North Korea, ignores massacres by Assad in Syria, supports
dictators in Africa in order to gain natural
resources. India’s middle-class is very
entrepreneurial, even if Indian institutions
are poorly functional.
The issue of a non-political military matters. India is a Democracy, China is not.
A good deal of this has to do with a non-politicized military. Elections in India are
boisterous, sometimes corrupt, but largely
free and democratic. China does not have elections. India is a better model politically than China, in my opinion, even
if India has a lower growth rate and decentralized institutions.
We are all aware of the ethnic diversity of Burma. Burmans who claim pure blood lines
often are not pure. There is a similarity
between Burman nationalism and ethnic pride
and the Malay equivalent in Malaysia (and, of
course, many Malays are mixed).
“There are simply still too many crooks and thugs everywhere in Burma, not just in the military, the government, police, customs, but also in all these ethnic insurgent groups (lots of smugglers and traffickers).”
That is true….
People in Burma seem to “worship” drug warlords like Khun Sa or Hsinghan(Heroin) Lo, who recently died (his funeral was grander than the late dictator Ne Win’s funeral!). Lo’s billionaire son Stephen Lo who now “resides” in that money-laundromat city Singapore.
That is not entirely true…many Burmese do
not worship drug lords, they just want to
have enough ‘rice on the table’ to survive.
Yes, if they could be rich, they would. But
many Burmese are honest people who want to
get ahead the right way.
“The central governments of Burma, elected or not, junta or “reformed” never had full control over its “official” territory, so forget about about a piece of paper if the “State” does not “rule” over the “Land”. Suu Kyi’s favourite banal fuzzword “Rule of Law” doesn’t make sense until you know where and to whom the law applies (and that includes citizenship questions and revenue/taxation)”
It is true the Tatmadaw never had full control of Burma. Neither did U Nu or Ne Win.
As I said, Daw Aung isn’t a technocrat and
the details of rule of law and taxation and
representation politically are details she
doesn’t focus on. She is a symbol of Burmese
desire for change, but not necessarily the
best leader for Burma (I am sure the Tatmadaw
aren’t…).
Malaysia is slowly going towards the practice of the Middle East or Pakistan. When we say Islam, we must specifically say Sunni Islam in Malaysia, as all others are banned and practitioners (non Sunni Muslims) can be arrested and thrown in jail!
Having said that, the owners of the biggest bistro bars in the Klang valley are the royal families (protector of Islam)- Hard Rock / Chillis etc
In response to your comment about the NLD.
Like many opposition groups (think of Anwar
Ibrahim and PR in Malaysia), opposition members often spend time overseas for studies or in self-imposed exile, sometimes more than in their native countries. There are many Burmese students and activists in London, Australia, New York and Washington, DC. Several NLD members attended college in the Washington, DC area (Tin Oo spent time there too). So, yes, the NLD is more cosmopolitan and ‘Westernized’ than the Burmese generals or the average Burmese citizen, urban or rural. And, yes, money definitely comes from Burmese overseas to support families in Burma and also to support the NLD. The Tatmadaw constantly play up the foreign connections
of NLD members, particularly Daw Aung, who was married to an Englishman and was English
educated. The paranoia of the Tatmadaw and
their suspicion of foreign influence doesn’t
prevent them from having Swiss bank accounts,
does it ? Than Shwe always complained about
Daw Aung being a foreign toady (agent) because of her ties to the UK and popularity
overseas. Clearly, the Burmese want to improve their livelihoods and even the generals (though they won’t admit it) look with jealousy at relatively prosperous Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur, not to mention clean and very prosperous Singapore. Burma will slowly follow the China model:
Open up economically to attract foreign investment, initially with government strings
attached (e.g., 80 % government ownership
of international firms who set up subsidiaries in Yangon with Burmese frontmen
as CEOs, just like in Malaysia with Malay frontmen). But Burma will retain a Stalinist
political structure and foreign policy, like
the PRC for quite a while. If the NLD comes to power in the future, this will change somewhat and Burma will open up more. I don’t
expect Daw Aung to be necessarily pro-American (like Corazon Aquino in the Philippines who tried to institute an independent foreign policy), but probably generically pro-West yet she will still have to deal with the Tatmadaw which won’t go away. The younger officers want power too, so they don’t gain much by negotiating with the NLD in my opinion. They see them as competitors for future leadership not as peers.
“The military will continue to participate in the government, first as guardians and later as economic and political elites, but not in uniform anymore…”
Maybe…..but very slowly. President (ex-General) Yudhoyono in Indonesia gave up his uniform but the military still controls 25 % of the Indonesian Parliament and has free will to arrest anyone they please and have a
big hand in the Indonesian economy.
Maung Aye (mentioned earlier by Moe Aung) has little credibility. I agree with the good cop bad cop metaphor vis-a-vis Khin Nyunt and Maung Aye, respectively. Min Aung Hlaing is not well-known like Daw Aung. The fact is everybody in Burma has a “skeleton in their closet” whether its Daw Aung’s Western ties
and support or the Tatmadaw’s dictatorial control over Burma.
On another point: Building pagodas and shrines is an easy way to make one think you
are a good Buddhist. Thaksin built many
in Thailand but I don’t consider him as good
a Buddhist (or as good a leader) as former PM Prem Tinsulanonda. Than Shwe and the Tatmadaw thought they could gain credibility by building pagodas; I think this is disingenuous and most Burmese don’t buy it.
Daw Aung is not perfect, mind you (who is ?).
She likes the foreign media attention and
her technocratic skills are zilch. She is
an intellectual, not a skilled administrator.
Burma needs a Lee Kuan Yew to take charge,
institute financial, political and social reforms, and yet somehow accommodate the disparate interests of the various ethnic groups in Burma.
The Rohingyas have received particular attention from the foreign media and human
rights groups. The Tatmadaw regard them
as Muslim interlopers from Bangladesh, not Burmese citizens. Singapore has ignored them, while Malaysia plays both sides, signing natural gas deals with the generals
(Petronas would like to control Burmese natural gas if it could) while playing up Tatmadaw discrimination against Muslim Rohingyas at the UN. Like Laos, which the French left in a state of ruin, Burma will need a long time to build infrastructure (power, housing, food distribution, health facilities) and this requires leadership that has vision, but perhaps most importantly, is not corrupt.
I respect a lot Aung Gyi. If he had continued in the government after 1963, Myanmar would have a stable economy by now. Also he never changed his position, even after strongly criticizing the socialist government.
First off, I am probably 25% Rohingya, 25% Rakhaing, 25% Bamar and I’m not s osure about the rest!
This silly tribal/ethnic division is a pure socio-political construct that will wreck the country; just too many thugs and war-lords fighting for turf to run their smuggling and trafficking operations without any control and taxation from the government. It doesn’t even matter whether the thugs are from the “Tatmadaw” (Burmese Army) or from the heavily armed insurgent groups. Burma does not have territorial integrity. The central governments of Burma, elected or not, junta or “reformed” never had full control over its “official” territory, so forget about about a piece of paper if the “State” does not “rule” over the “Land”. Suu Kyi’s favourite banal fuzzword “Rule of Law” doesn’t make sense until you know where and to whom the law applies (and that includes citizenship questions and revenue/taxation)
There are simply still too many crooks and thugs everywhere in Burma, not just in the military, the government, police, customs, but also in all these ethnic insurgent groups (lots of smugglers and traffickers). People in Burma seem to “worship” drug warlords like Khun Sa or Hsinghan(Heroin) Lo, who recently died (his funeral was grander than the late dictator Ne Win’s funeral!). Lo’s billionaire son Stephen Lo who now “resides” in that money-laundromat city Singapore.
There are officially 135 officially designated tribal ethnic groups in Burma, including the Salone (or Moken), the sea gypsies of the Mergui Archipelago and perhaps also the almost extinct Tarong, the pygmy-esque tribe in Northern Kachin State, but excluding Rohingyas and the ubiquitous illegal recent Chinese “business” immigrants. So what now? 135 + 2 national states with substates and subsubstates? How are you going to determine ethnicity? DNA analysis?
People in the West might not remember that:
1. the last King of Burma, Thibaw was half-Shan
2, the first commander in chief of the Burmese army right after independence was Smith Dun, an ethnic Karen.
3. the first President of Burma after independence was Sao Shwe Thaik, a Shan (and the third President Mahn Ba Maung(?)was a Karen)
4. Ne Win, the first despotic military dictator was half-Chinese as is Khin Nyunt, the military intelligence boss for a long time
5. the heroin billionaire drug lord Hsinghan Lo was a Chinese from Kokang etc. etc., I can go on!
is this part of transformational PM Najib’s moderate Muslim 1Malaysia of endless possibilities? with so many khabar angin to makan, where got time to see Anwar ler?
Iugoslavia was a socialist centralized country where people of all races lived together in the same neighborhoods. Foreign alliances, NATO hunger and economic crises destroyed them.
I believe burmese people and military have this strong nationalistic behavior because they became third class citizens during British colonization.
Much of the struggle is related to geographic location. The minority areas are also the hills and jungles far from great centers. The infrastructural integration between regions should bring development and replace armies with politicians (the 2010 already made some political elites emerge separated from armed groups).
The case of Rohyngias, Indians and Chinese is different, of course.
Ok, your comment proves that military in the government isn’t the problem, but WHICH military are governing and their relation with other political elites.
In China, the group of Hu Jintao is made from youngsters, usually not linked with previous leaders neither strongly ideological. I believe Thein Sein could form some base along these lines.
China is a model of administration, economic growth, military might and political stability for developing countries, while India has hundreds of inoperant ministries and a weak currency.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in democracy, but without centralization and state control over some economic activities there’s no way to success.
About religion I agree with you, the military are not the same as the average populations, but they do share some beliefs, it’s questionable to what extent. I know that pagoda construction is a publicity move, I don’t question that.
For my knowledge, these older generals (80 and above) are retired and, at least officially, out of scene. Like you said, they don’t have much time (5 or 10 years max) and will have the same fate as Ne Win and his coup grandson.
Min Aung Hlaing, for example, is a professional, I haven’t heard about any connections with businness or drugs. This article by Callahan and Steinberg showed that the highest ranking military are now 65 y-old average.
About the NLD, I will research more about Tin Oo. On the financial support, I don’t mean opposition groups are becoming rich or are corrupt, I mean that their activities and party survival belong to external funding, including also expatriate burmese money. This makes an impact, since most of the activists were taught by foreign groups and advisors, they share liberal democratic views that Myanmar society isn’t prepared for yet.
About business, the military is more willing to make deals with Asian countries because they don’t put conditional clauses in their assistance, like the IMF and Washington Consensus countries. Do you know something about the Myanmar Investment Comission? I heard it was created to be practical and avoid cronyism. For my taste, the new investment law is interesting and it seems to be working fine.
Like you, I’m also worried about infrastructure, specially the energy and power problem. But I read it’s a government priority and must be solved before other issues. The housing sector worries me too, this is one of the especulation seeds I was talking about when mentioning “liberal hysteria”.
I heard about industrial projects near Mandalay financed by japanese money, I think the regions will increase their economic role progressively from the Mandalay-Yangon axis.
Can’t think of any general who has studied abroad, recent generations of officers in their hundreds have done so in Moscow. Indoctrination to defend the country is hardly peculiar to Burma. To rise up in the ranks depends more on mutual grooming than on merit. Than Shwe was widely known to have favoured the OTS alumni like himself over the defence academy alumni like Maung Aye. If shame were a significant factor in this army over the plight of the country mutinies or assassination attempts such as led by Capt Ohn Kyaw Myint in 1977 and Kyaw Swa Myint a decade earlier would not have been few and far between.
The more enduring myth is the so called split between moderates and hardliners. Khin Nyunt and Maung Aye have successfully played good cop bad cop against the armed ethnic groups. More likely than not they will close ranks whenever their entrenched power is threatened, helped by ASSK famously denying she tried to split the army at the same time splitting the opposition by rejecting U Nu’s offer to join an interim govt.
Given the recent ground breaking reforms, genuine or superficial as a means to an end, army personnel are certainly more likely to buy into it than civilians. Once they renege on that there potentially exists a real reason for a split in the ranks. If ASSK has the foresight and planning ahead for crunch time (not shy away from a no holds barred contest with potential bloodshed) she will not be denied the throne. The question is will she or won’t she. Amending the constitution is merely stringing her along and has the chance of a snowball in hell.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Loyalty demands ambiguity
There are worse things in SE Asia than the royalty in Thailand. Maybe it is outdated
and one should be free to criticize the King
(god bless HRH), but King Bhumibol Adulyadej
remains a positive unifying force for most Thai.
After the bombings: 15 October in Yangon
Burmese will sometimes tell you things under
the influence of “drink” that they wouldn’t otherwise say. Sometimes they will also say what they think you want to hear; it depends
on the person, location and context of the
conversation.
The Rohingyas are an issue that won’t go away. Bombings by Muslims in Burma is not out of the question. There are grievances, just as there are some extremists among ethnic Malays in southern Thailand (not all are extremists) who bomb in Hadyai, as well as Bangkok once in a while.
Thai politics, 14 October and all that
@ Vichai N
-even so you should have slowly realized that the problem is not Thaksin
– but 60 years lying and cheating,
– huge Popaganda for a monarchy and fight against any kind of democratization and liberalization in Thailand .
– Described the oppression of the masses by a lack of education and information, along with a huge propaganda machine which lifts the monarchy in the sky
-Military coups, military governments, murder and slaughter for King and Amart
– For wealth and corruption,
– For moneymaking and Cover Up
– in the past 60 years the mass of the people had better to remain stupid and practice in “sufficiency”
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Couldn’t agree more. Ethnicity has been used to justificate armed groups who are 99% of the times linked with drugs and smuggling.
Karen, for example, live among Burmese in Rangoon region and they’re not discriminated. I read a text from professor Thawngmung (she’s karen) and she mentioned that, besides the accent (like country farmers), they merged really well in the society.
I think buddhism may be some kind of more realistic division.
Gentle reminder – thou shall not think
Grades have been deteriorating in Malaysia
since Tun Onn. Malaysia’s education policy
is a non-policy.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
“China is a model of administration, economic growth, military might and political stability for developing countries, while India has hundreds of inoperant ministries and a weak currency…”
I couldn’t disagree more. China is a model
of economic disparity and corruption
(PC-GDP in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen
about 6,0000 USD/year and about 300 USD/year
in the countryside where 80 % of Chinese live). Economic growth is limited to the coastal areas and China’s pushy expansion into Southeast Asia is similar to Japan’s
adventures in SE Asia minus the genocide..so far. China owns all the telecom and power plants in Cambodia and Laos (maybe even in Burma). China is far from stable. Strikes
routinely take place in urban areas over
wages and working conditions. Muslim Han,
Hue Jiao and Xinjiang Muslims are in revolt.
So China doesn’t outsource its call centers to India like the US, but the Chinese Yuan
is artificially kept low and the World Bank
and IMF have told China to stop it (China
doesn’t listen of course). China has a Stalinist regime and foreign policy; it props
up Kim Jong Un and North Korea, ignores massacres by Assad in Syria, supports
dictators in Africa in order to gain natural
resources. India’s middle-class is very
entrepreneurial, even if Indian institutions
are poorly functional.
The issue of a non-political military matters. India is a Democracy, China is not.
A good deal of this has to do with a non-politicized military. Elections in India are
boisterous, sometimes corrupt, but largely
free and democratic. China does not have elections. India is a better model politically than China, in my opinion, even
if India has a lower growth rate and decentralized institutions.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Tocharian,
We are all aware of the ethnic diversity of Burma. Burmans who claim pure blood lines
often are not pure. There is a similarity
between Burman nationalism and ethnic pride
and the Malay equivalent in Malaysia (and, of
course, many Malays are mixed).
“There are simply still too many crooks and thugs everywhere in Burma, not just in the military, the government, police, customs, but also in all these ethnic insurgent groups (lots of smugglers and traffickers).”
That is true….
People in Burma seem to “worship” drug warlords like Khun Sa or Hsinghan(Heroin) Lo, who recently died (his funeral was grander than the late dictator Ne Win’s funeral!). Lo’s billionaire son Stephen Lo who now “resides” in that money-laundromat city Singapore.
That is not entirely true…many Burmese do
not worship drug lords, they just want to
have enough ‘rice on the table’ to survive.
Yes, if they could be rich, they would. But
many Burmese are honest people who want to
get ahead the right way.
“The central governments of Burma, elected or not, junta or “reformed” never had full control over its “official” territory, so forget about about a piece of paper if the “State” does not “rule” over the “Land”. Suu Kyi’s favourite banal fuzzword “Rule of Law” doesn’t make sense until you know where and to whom the law applies (and that includes citizenship questions and revenue/taxation)”
It is true the Tatmadaw never had full control of Burma. Neither did U Nu or Ne Win.
As I said, Daw Aung isn’t a technocrat and
the details of rule of law and taxation and
representation politically are details she
doesn’t focus on. She is a symbol of Burmese
desire for change, but not necessarily the
best leader for Burma (I am sure the Tatmadaw
aren’t…).
The beginning of something ugly
Malaysia is slowly going towards the practice of the Middle East or Pakistan. When we say Islam, we must specifically say Sunni Islam in Malaysia, as all others are banned and practitioners (non Sunni Muslims) can be arrested and thrown in jail!
Having said that, the owners of the biggest bistro bars in the Klang valley are the royal families (protector of Islam)- Hard Rock / Chillis etc
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Eric,
In response to your comment about the NLD.
Like many opposition groups (think of Anwar
Ibrahim and PR in Malaysia), opposition members often spend time overseas for studies or in self-imposed exile, sometimes more than in their native countries. There are many Burmese students and activists in London, Australia, New York and Washington, DC. Several NLD members attended college in the Washington, DC area (Tin Oo spent time there too). So, yes, the NLD is more cosmopolitan and ‘Westernized’ than the Burmese generals or the average Burmese citizen, urban or rural. And, yes, money definitely comes from Burmese overseas to support families in Burma and also to support the NLD. The Tatmadaw constantly play up the foreign connections
of NLD members, particularly Daw Aung, who was married to an Englishman and was English
educated. The paranoia of the Tatmadaw and
their suspicion of foreign influence doesn’t
prevent them from having Swiss bank accounts,
does it ? Than Shwe always complained about
Daw Aung being a foreign toady (agent) because of her ties to the UK and popularity
overseas. Clearly, the Burmese want to improve their livelihoods and even the generals (though they won’t admit it) look with jealousy at relatively prosperous Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur, not to mention clean and very prosperous Singapore. Burma will slowly follow the China model:
Open up economically to attract foreign investment, initially with government strings
attached (e.g., 80 % government ownership
of international firms who set up subsidiaries in Yangon with Burmese frontmen
as CEOs, just like in Malaysia with Malay frontmen). But Burma will retain a Stalinist
political structure and foreign policy, like
the PRC for quite a while. If the NLD comes to power in the future, this will change somewhat and Burma will open up more. I don’t
expect Daw Aung to be necessarily pro-American (like Corazon Aquino in the Philippines who tried to institute an independent foreign policy), but probably generically pro-West yet she will still have to deal with the Tatmadaw which won’t go away. The younger officers want power too, so they don’t gain much by negotiating with the NLD in my opinion. They see them as competitors for future leadership not as peers.
“The military will continue to participate in the government, first as guardians and later as economic and political elites, but not in uniform anymore…”
Maybe…..but very slowly. President (ex-General) Yudhoyono in Indonesia gave up his uniform but the military still controls 25 % of the Indonesian Parliament and has free will to arrest anyone they please and have a
big hand in the Indonesian economy.
Maung Aye (mentioned earlier by Moe Aung) has little credibility. I agree with the good cop bad cop metaphor vis-a-vis Khin Nyunt and Maung Aye, respectively. Min Aung Hlaing is not well-known like Daw Aung. The fact is everybody in Burma has a “skeleton in their closet” whether its Daw Aung’s Western ties
and support or the Tatmadaw’s dictatorial control over Burma.
On another point: Building pagodas and shrines is an easy way to make one think you
are a good Buddhist. Thaksin built many
in Thailand but I don’t consider him as good
a Buddhist (or as good a leader) as former PM Prem Tinsulanonda. Than Shwe and the Tatmadaw thought they could gain credibility by building pagodas; I think this is disingenuous and most Burmese don’t buy it.
Daw Aung is not perfect, mind you (who is ?).
She likes the foreign media attention and
her technocratic skills are zilch. She is
an intellectual, not a skilled administrator.
Burma needs a Lee Kuan Yew to take charge,
institute financial, political and social reforms, and yet somehow accommodate the disparate interests of the various ethnic groups in Burma.
The Rohingyas have received particular attention from the foreign media and human
rights groups. The Tatmadaw regard them
as Muslim interlopers from Bangladesh, not Burmese citizens. Singapore has ignored them, while Malaysia plays both sides, signing natural gas deals with the generals
(Petronas would like to control Burmese natural gas if it could) while playing up Tatmadaw discrimination against Muslim Rohingyas at the UN. Like Laos, which the French left in a state of ruin, Burma will need a long time to build infrastructure (power, housing, food distribution, health facilities) and this requires leadership that has vision, but perhaps most importantly, is not corrupt.
Gentle reminder – thou shall not think
That is not something new. It is however going out of control, with the “New” moderate Malaysia defined by Najib.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
I respect a lot Aung Gyi. If he had continued in the government after 1963, Myanmar would have a stable economy by now. Also he never changed his position, even after strongly criticizing the socialist government.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
First off, I am probably 25% Rohingya, 25% Rakhaing, 25% Bamar and I’m not s osure about the rest!
This silly tribal/ethnic division is a pure socio-political construct that will wreck the country; just too many thugs and war-lords fighting for turf to run their smuggling and trafficking operations without any control and taxation from the government. It doesn’t even matter whether the thugs are from the “Tatmadaw” (Burmese Army) or from the heavily armed insurgent groups. Burma does not have territorial integrity. The central governments of Burma, elected or not, junta or “reformed” never had full control over its “official” territory, so forget about about a piece of paper if the “State” does not “rule” over the “Land”. Suu Kyi’s favourite banal fuzzword “Rule of Law” doesn’t make sense until you know where and to whom the law applies (and that includes citizenship questions and revenue/taxation)
There are simply still too many crooks and thugs everywhere in Burma, not just in the military, the government, police, customs, but also in all these ethnic insurgent groups (lots of smugglers and traffickers). People in Burma seem to “worship” drug warlords like Khun Sa or Hsinghan(Heroin) Lo, who recently died (his funeral was grander than the late dictator Ne Win’s funeral!). Lo’s billionaire son Stephen Lo who now “resides” in that money-laundromat city Singapore.
There are officially 135 officially designated tribal ethnic groups in Burma, including the Salone (or Moken), the sea gypsies of the Mergui Archipelago and perhaps also the almost extinct Tarong, the pygmy-esque tribe in Northern Kachin State, but excluding Rohingyas and the ubiquitous illegal recent Chinese “business” immigrants. So what now? 135 + 2 national states with substates and subsubstates? How are you going to determine ethnicity? DNA analysis?
People in the West might not remember that:
1. the last King of Burma, Thibaw was half-Shan
2, the first commander in chief of the Burmese army right after independence was Smith Dun, an ethnic Karen.
3. the first President of Burma after independence was Sao Shwe Thaik, a Shan (and the third President Mahn Ba Maung(?)was a Karen)
4. Ne Win, the first despotic military dictator was half-Chinese as is Khin Nyunt, the military intelligence boss for a long time
5. the heroin billionaire drug lord Hsinghan Lo was a Chinese from Kokang etc. etc., I can go on!
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Thanks. Would you have any book or article about Tatmadaw’s internal relations?
I’m familiar with Andrew Selth’s Power Without Glory and Maung Aung Myoe’s Tatmadaw since 1948.
Both give some hints, but it’s not their main focus.
Gentle reminder – thou shall not think
is this part of transformational PM Najib’s moderate Muslim 1Malaysia of endless possibilities? with so many khabar angin to makan, where got time to see Anwar ler?
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
I agree.
I see another way: economic development.
Iugoslavia was a socialist centralized country where people of all races lived together in the same neighborhoods. Foreign alliances, NATO hunger and economic crises destroyed them.
I believe burmese people and military have this strong nationalistic behavior because they became third class citizens during British colonization.
Much of the struggle is related to geographic location. The minority areas are also the hills and jungles far from great centers. The infrastructural integration between regions should bring development and replace armies with politicians (the 2010 already made some political elites emerge separated from armed groups).
The case of Rohyngias, Indians and Chinese is different, of course.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Ok, your comment proves that military in the government isn’t the problem, but WHICH military are governing and their relation with other political elites.
In China, the group of Hu Jintao is made from youngsters, usually not linked with previous leaders neither strongly ideological. I believe Thein Sein could form some base along these lines.
China is a model of administration, economic growth, military might and political stability for developing countries, while India has hundreds of inoperant ministries and a weak currency.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in democracy, but without centralization and state control over some economic activities there’s no way to success.
Gentle reminder – thou shall not think
Yes, the moderate Malaysians have moved…to
Melbourne, Sydney, London and Manchester….
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Thanks Peter, you gave me some insights here.
About religion I agree with you, the military are not the same as the average populations, but they do share some beliefs, it’s questionable to what extent. I know that pagoda construction is a publicity move, I don’t question that.
For my knowledge, these older generals (80 and above) are retired and, at least officially, out of scene. Like you said, they don’t have much time (5 or 10 years max) and will have the same fate as Ne Win and his coup grandson.
Min Aung Hlaing, for example, is a professional, I haven’t heard about any connections with businness or drugs. This article by Callahan and Steinberg showed that the highest ranking military are now 65 y-old average.
About the NLD, I will research more about Tin Oo. On the financial support, I don’t mean opposition groups are becoming rich or are corrupt, I mean that their activities and party survival belong to external funding, including also expatriate burmese money. This makes an impact, since most of the activists were taught by foreign groups and advisors, they share liberal democratic views that Myanmar society isn’t prepared for yet.
About business, the military is more willing to make deals with Asian countries because they don’t put conditional clauses in their assistance, like the IMF and Washington Consensus countries. Do you know something about the Myanmar Investment Comission? I heard it was created to be practical and avoid cronyism. For my taste, the new investment law is interesting and it seems to be working fine.
Like you, I’m also worried about infrastructure, specially the energy and power problem. But I read it’s a government priority and must be solved before other issues. The housing sector worries me too, this is one of the especulation seeds I was talking about when mentioning “liberal hysteria”.
I heard about industrial projects near Mandalay financed by japanese money, I think the regions will increase their economic role progressively from the Mandalay-Yangon axis.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Aung Zaw’s piece in The Irrawaddy in March 2000 here though overtaken by events is still relevant.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Can’t think of any general who has studied abroad, recent generations of officers in their hundreds have done so in Moscow. Indoctrination to defend the country is hardly peculiar to Burma. To rise up in the ranks depends more on mutual grooming than on merit. Than Shwe was widely known to have favoured the OTS alumni like himself over the defence academy alumni like Maung Aye. If shame were a significant factor in this army over the plight of the country mutinies or assassination attempts such as led by Capt Ohn Kyaw Myint in 1977 and Kyaw Swa Myint a decade earlier would not have been few and far between.
The more enduring myth is the so called split between moderates and hardliners. Khin Nyunt and Maung Aye have successfully played good cop bad cop against the armed ethnic groups. More likely than not they will close ranks whenever their entrenched power is threatened, helped by ASSK famously denying she tried to split the army at the same time splitting the opposition by rejecting U Nu’s offer to join an interim govt.
Given the recent ground breaking reforms, genuine or superficial as a means to an end, army personnel are certainly more likely to buy into it than civilians. Once they renege on that there potentially exists a real reason for a split in the ranks. If ASSK has the foresight and planning ahead for crunch time (not shy away from a no holds barred contest with potential bloodshed) she will not be denied the throne. The question is will she or won’t she. Amending the constitution is merely stringing her along and has the chance of a snowball in hell.