I do agree that Daw Aung would like to accommodate all ethnic groups in Burma.
U Nu tried it and failed. I don’t know the
answer other than regional autonomy for
the Kachins, Karens, Rohingyas, but ethnic
Burmans are very sensitive about Burma’s
geographic unity (like the PRC), so dealing with the different ethnic groups (let’s not
forget the Chinese and Indian community) is
a difficult situation to manage to everyone’s
benefit.
Re: Your comment about India and China’s administration. There is ONE big difference.
The Indian military remains in the barracks
and does not interfere with Indian politics.
The Chinese military has a direct hand (like
the Tatmadaw in Burma) in all matters that take place in China.
I think you make some incomplete and ‘questionable’ statements about Burma and the Tatmadaw. I do not think the Tatmadaw are all that religious like the average Burmese. They use religion to stay in power; they are not sincere. Secondly, the younger officers in Tatmadaw, while trained overseas and more cosmopolitan than the older Generals, do not wield power because, like most Asian nations, age carries “wisdom.” Than Shwe and the older generals still wield power, not the young officers. The older generals are not pro-West, they studied in Russia, China and even North Korea. They are imbued with Stalinist Socialism not the Democratic Socialism of U Nu. There is a big difference in the ideology of the Tatmadaw and early post-independence Burmese politicians. The young officers probably will not make a move without rising up in rank first. Burma is not Thailand, where somewhat younger officers of Colonel rank initiated coups in the 1970s. Maybe there will be a coup in Burma, but not at the present moment, I think.
Finally, the NLD has been restricted from
political participation from the beginning
and let’s not forget that they won the last
election; the election was not entirely free
(the Tatmadaw bullied opposition supporters) but there is no substantial evidence that
the NLD gained support through bullying or
financial largesse (what money do they have ?
Is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi wealthy ?) Tin Oo
is 87. He is old, but well-respected since
he was a member of the Burmese Rifles, former post-independence General turned civilian,
and deputy leader of the NLD. Tin Oo is
a practicing Buddhist and democrat. Though
released from house arrest about three years ago, the Tatmadaw is very afraid of Tin Oo, despite his age and ailing health. They are
afraid of him because he represents the
transition from military to civilian life that the Tatmadaw are incapable of doing.
Yes, Tin Oo is opinionated and vocal about
his beliefs; Daw Aung is more soft-spoken. The Tatmadaw regard Tin Oo as intransigent (even arrogant) for the reasons I just gave-he successfully transitioned into civilian life and refused to be silenced by the Tatmadaw. Good for him, I say.
I do agree with you that the older generals are not puppets. They spout Burmese
“nationalism” and are paranoid about foreign
influence; but they do not hesitate to make
money from dealing with China, Thailand, Singapore and some Europeans. As I said,
there may be slight economic reform to
“accommodate” Chinese, Japanese and European
(mostly German and Scandanavian) investment,
but the infrastructure is poor and investors
know they will have to deal with the Tatmadaw
to set up corporate operations in Yangon or Mandalay. The countryside remains poor, though beautiful and bucolic.
Daw Aung tried to mediate with the Tatmadaw
and it went nowhere. Tin Oo probably would not talk with them given how they treated him. Shared power is not possible now.
“U” Khin Nyunt at one time may have been a reformer or bridge between Tatmadaw and NLD.
But it doesn’t endear him to the Generals
that his Brother-in-Law, Than Nyein, is leader of the NDF party. His Son-in-Law Tin Htut remains in prison. Since his release from house arrest about 18 months ago, Khin Nyunt has been silent. Can he be a possible compromise leader for Burma ? He is about 84.
His health condition is unclear. Will Daw Aung and Tin Oo accept Khin Nyunt as a leader for Burma ? There are so many unknown questions when it comes to Burma (I prefer
Burma to Myanmar).
Moe Aung, I still don’t see your point. For me, you just interpret the facts as a grand manipulation and don’t try to put yourself in their place.
For my knowledge, the Tatmadaw doesn’t maintain the internal conflict because it wants to, but because it can’t defeat guerrillas that easily.
It seems to me that you already came with an anti-military view and is sustaining it without arguing why. Desire for power is a common human feeling, or do you think it’s an exclusive feature of Myanmar or Thai military?
I argue that both sides can win. The military and associates keep their autonomy and their businnesses; the civil opposition win the opportunity to slowly increase its participation and organize themselves (another point against them, NLD still doesn’t have a nationwide project, just complaints. The other parties are much worse).
The military will continue to participate in the government, first as guardians and later as economic and political elites, but not in uniform anymore.
Also, Suu Kyi is starting to understand that you can’t run a country giving autonomy to every ethnic group or regional culture. Look at India’s administration and China’s administration, which do you think is better?
I think most of people have biased views and that’s why I decided to bring new ideas, not everything is black or white.
The Tatmadaw is blessed with the “Midas touch”, greed and lust for power its driving force, at the same time accusing all opposition, communists and the rest, of being power mad. Classic.
Once they have tasted power every justification will be used to keep them in power, especially deliberate low intensity conflict (LIC) in the ethnic homelands, and it has the ultimate arbiter of power… the gun.
Whereas the Thai army will meddle willy nilly and holds the world record for the number of coups it has staged, their Burmese counterparts go for staying power. There is no way they’re going to return to their barracks. Now the coup is no longer a coup but a constitutional takeover enshrined in the Nargis Constitution.
A new lease of life is what they have achieved, not only legitimacy but respectability as the leader of a regional bloc. As for the West free trade always wins hands down, human rights concerns take second place. Yes, they can and will now do business with the Tatmadaw, Kachin blood dripping from their hands or not.
Thank you for your comments, Peter and Moe Aung. I understand your positions and respect your personal experience regarding Myanmar. I have studied deeply all the proccesses you talked about and am quite aware of the consequences. Also, I agree that professor Steinberg is a major scholar on Myanmar studies and could improve the discussion. Actually, his books were an inspiration for my monography last year.
However, I’m not sure that the military (Tatmadaw or retired) are all the same thing. I prefer to believe some of them are strongly pragmatic, avoiding empty politics and factionalism.
That doesn’t mean they will deliver the government in the hands of Suu Kyi, but they are willing to open channels to improve the country’s international position. What the military won’t allow is the total liberalization and full participation of NGO’s, minority separatist groups or opposition financed by other countries.
In my opinion, the civil opposition has been as much intransigent as the military. NLD wanted to govern immediately in 1990, but they were elected to write the constitution. Nowadays, NLD thinks it will vanish USDP from the parliament and with international support they will govern the country alone.
As Matthew Walton wrote, Buddhism should be seen as a means for mediation to find a middle ground and both NLD and the military pursue religious merit.
I’m not naive, I’m just telling that Tatmadaw is paranoid because they had reasons to believe that. Nowadays, democracy foundations raise money to help opposition groups and who knows what else.
The military can’t go alone, also the NLD would never govern without military backing. It’s time for mediation, don’t matter if foreign driven or genuine.
The divide between these groups will only make them dependent from China and the United States.
In this article, I offer some alternatives, like supporting national businness community and so reinforce the capacity of the country to maintain it’s growth after the gold rush in Myanmar moves to another hot spot.
About the industrial, infrastructure and banking sectors, they were also improductive in Brazil (of course, not a fraction of Burma’s problems). The privatizations opened half of the enterprises to private capital and maintained the state ownership (case of Petrobras and Banco do Brasil). Also, the construction company Odebrecht grew a lot under civilian government and had close links to the military back in the 1980’s. Now they’re helping to build infrastructure in Western Africa and South America.
Finally, Peter, your comment about Ne Win clarifies my view. He, much like Than Shwe, was from the old school, had a rural background, was superstitious (a little like Stalin or Chiang Kai Shek with the number 9).
The military generals nowadays have studied abroad, are from urban centres, feel ashamed by the poverty of the country and also the lack of resources within the state. Many of them are not puppets chosen like the Burma Fourth Rifles links with Ne Win. They ascended in their careers by their merit, they were indoctrinated to defend their country. This view was shared by Mary Callahan and David Steinberg in an article addressed to American Congress. I can share the link if you want.
Many of them may still be paranoid, but not without justification. International politics are complex and frequently the weaker side foots the bill.
Erik, though well-meaning is naive about the
motives and political views of the Tatmadaw.
The very small amount of reform in Burma is in response to foreign criticism which the Tatmadaw in Naypyidaw (Nay Pyi Taw) largely ignores because China, Singapore, Thailand, Japan, Germany and the Scandanavians are willing to do business with Burma; Australia, UK, USA and France are more (rightly so) skeptical of going into Burma in a big way. Economic problems, insufficient food distribution, lack of infrastructure (George Orwell gave Burma more attention than the British, who focused on India), continued fighting with the Kachins and ethnic division with the Rohingyas, all plague Burma. The Tatmadaw see any ethnic or political change as a threat to their rule so don’t expect civilian or shared (with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi) rule anytime soon. Those semi-secret (not really secret) talks between the Tatmadaw and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi went nowhere.
Infant mortality continues to rise, Burma imports rice from Thailand (in the 1960s, Burma was one of the primary exporters of rice), literacy has fallen (the Tatmadaw
control the Ministry of Education, of course)
from being one of the highest in Southeast Asia. Infrastructure and the banking and
corporate sectors are very underdeveloped,
being under the control of the Tatmadaw.
Aung San and U Nu tried to unify the nation
through a mix of agrarian socialism and Burmese nationalism. It was short-lived under U Nu. U Nu tried, but failed, to unify the nation (he was an honest and devout Buddhist
but not much of a technocrat). After that, the agrarian economic policy was divined from astrological charts by Ne Win and then Burma closed for a while (concurrent with China’s Cultural Revolution). Now, there are European and Japanese tourists, limited freedom to practice non-political Buddhism (Burmese are generally quite religious), and engage in underground money exchange (since the Kyat is worthless).
NOTE: New Mandala might want to get a commentary from Professor David Steinberg,
who is an expert on Burma and is a (retired)
Professor from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service living in Maryland, USA. On this I am biased a little-I know him and feel he is very objective about Burma.
I was in Phnom Penh during the protests in mid-September and they were massively over-hyped by the media. We had a rooftop view of the rally site and there were no more than 5000 to 7000 there. We also visited the police barricades and were on hand when they fired teargas. It was literally 4 or 5 opposition activist attempting to pull down the barricades and that was it.
As for anecdotal references to local Khmer people – we spoke to several who said that they wanted change but didn’t really trust or like Sam Rainsy. It seemed to us that some people were voting against Hun Sen rather than voting for Rainsy.
Proselytization happens in Malaysia by
both Muslims and Christians. The term
“Allah” should not be used as a vehicle
for proselytizing by Christians
or Muslims. Christian missionaries in the past and present have tried to use the Al-Kitab and Islamic Sura concepts to try and harmonize them with Islam to covertly convert Muslim Malays and non-Christian Bumiputera in East Malaysia (Iban, Kadazan, etc.) and Muslim Bumiputera (Melanau, Bugis, etc.). This is an historical and contemporary fact. Almost all Kadazan became Christian a long time ago, while there are Christian and Muslim Iban who also were (and still are) converted now and then. Missionaries were
historically unsuccessful, for the most part,
in converting Malays to Christianity. Recent
Christian Malays (e.g., Lina Joy) leave Malaysia for more tolerant pastures (like Australia or UK) or remain ‘underground’ in Malaysia. Obviously, they would be ostracized by family (and maybe friends) and be subject to Syariah Hudud (apostasy) punishment in Malaysia. Most ‘Eurasians’ of are Christian, as are a good portion of Chinese-Malaysians and some Indian-Malaysians.
Muslims are obviously offended by missionary activity by activist churches; I understand this. But let me clear, real (not imagined) Christian missionary activity among non-Christians, while understandably offensive to many Malays and indigenous Muslims, does in no way justify Jakim, Perkasa and UMNO misusing Christianity and local churches in Malaysia as a proxy vehicle to clamp down on, and restrict, Malaysian Christians; furthermore, if proselytization by Christian groups is to be banned, then I believe Muslim proselytizing should be restricted as well or BOTH activities should be permitted (not a good idea actually).
Islamic Syariah Law as practiced in all Muslim countries forbids forced or consensual conversion out of Islam (see the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Malaysia). This includes so-called
moderate Malaysia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan and Turkey. ALL proselytizing should be banned if Malaysia wants to ameliorate bad feeling between different religions (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.) and advance economically, politically and socially. In effect, however, in ALL Islamic countries bar none, conversion is only allowed in one direction (Non-Muslim—>Muslim). There have been debates about whether Malaysia is a secular state. A secular state, in my definition, cannot have Syariah courts at all and cannot institute Hudud practices at the national level. ALL legal, economic, political and social matters must be judged by civil courts only. Religion must remain a private and unimpeded (by the state) individual matter always.
This is not the case in Malaysia; whatever the Tunku’s original intention for Malaysia, it is a Muslim nation with a thin veneer of pseudo-secularism and democratic institutions. I believe this should change,
regardless of whatever Perkasa, Mahathir, Zulkifli, Najib, and others may say about Malaysia and Islam.
According to one very respected social and political critic Thirayuth Boonmee, since Oct 14 1973, nothing has changed. Thailand was and still is a ‘society of servants’:
from Bangkok Post quote: “On political culture, Mr Thirayuth said society is plagued by the patronage system or, in harsher words, is a society of servants. He said that since Thais like to use the word “khee” (faeces) to describe , former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra can be described as the “khee kham” of Thai politics. He said “khee kham” is a hardened lump of faeces that blocks the rectum and is hard to remove.
Organisers of a “Singaporean only” event (at Sydney’s Royal Botanical Gardens) could be found to have breached anti-discrimination laws for turning away Caucasians at the door…
Anthony Sim, who attended the event and then blogged about it online, wrote that he had never seen so many Singaporeans congregating in the one place
“It is quite heartwarming to know we are not alone. Everyone of us were on the same page,” he wrote.
“There were no PRCs, India Indians, Bangla or Pinoys to annoy us.”
This idea that we should never have kicked out the British colonial rulers but instead developed under their benevolent and expert guidance till they felt the country was fit for self rule has also gained currency among some of the Burmese.
One can only imagine it’s the same kind of people who maintain that the generals have to be appeased and let them carry on with the reforms at their own pace, not rock the boat, no protests etc., we must be very patient so in the next 20 years it will bear fruit.
One can only say there’s a distinct yellow servile streak showing down what goes for a spine in them.
Network Monarchy don’t want this rhetorical bomb-thrower out there causing trouble. He’s lobbed bombs in both directions in the past. After the Army’s embarassing failure to get rid of him (attempted murder… er, what else does the Army do?), the courts seem to have done a better job.
Couldn’t agree more, Peter. And not bloody likely, Erik, however laudable the sentiments and the hope.
They do try to distance themselves from the previous incarnations of the same outfit but for obvious reasons. The same with this current period of grace, yes, truly a great window of opportunity as you see the lifting of “civil society suppression and forced co-optation”, not least the release and subsequent voluntary co-optation of ASSK, in exchange for the lifting of the international sanctions and removal of the label “international pariah”.
The transformation of historic import of the military took place when Ne Win seized control of the institution after Aung San’s death. Wishful thinking on the part of the opposition or foreign analysts will be just that… wishful thinking. Only in a fairy tale the frog turns into a prince by the kiss of the Lady. And she probably realises that.
They’ll talk the talk alright and go through the motions wherein lies the people’s chance of making a real difference by pushing them down that slippery slope a reforming authoritarian regime finds itself on… for its own compelling reasons i.e. its own survival.
Ernest, this a discussion about CNRP electoral gain and not about Sam Rainsy’s alleged used of so called derogatory term of Vietnamese people. If you so incline to make such usage of the term you deemed unacceptable, then start your own article and people will have discussion on it. You need to learn the history between the Khmer and the Youn……
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Eric,
I do agree that Daw Aung would like to accommodate all ethnic groups in Burma.
U Nu tried it and failed. I don’t know the
answer other than regional autonomy for
the Kachins, Karens, Rohingyas, but ethnic
Burmans are very sensitive about Burma’s
geographic unity (like the PRC), so dealing with the different ethnic groups (let’s not
forget the Chinese and Indian community) is
a difficult situation to manage to everyone’s
benefit.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Eric,
Re: Your comment about India and China’s administration. There is ONE big difference.
The Indian military remains in the barracks
and does not interfere with Indian politics.
The Chinese military has a direct hand (like
the Tatmadaw in Burma) in all matters that take place in China.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Eric,
I think you make some incomplete and ‘questionable’ statements about Burma and the Tatmadaw. I do not think the Tatmadaw are all that religious like the average Burmese. They use religion to stay in power; they are not sincere. Secondly, the younger officers in Tatmadaw, while trained overseas and more cosmopolitan than the older Generals, do not wield power because, like most Asian nations, age carries “wisdom.” Than Shwe and the older generals still wield power, not the young officers. The older generals are not pro-West, they studied in Russia, China and even North Korea. They are imbued with Stalinist Socialism not the Democratic Socialism of U Nu. There is a big difference in the ideology of the Tatmadaw and early post-independence Burmese politicians. The young officers probably will not make a move without rising up in rank first. Burma is not Thailand, where somewhat younger officers of Colonel rank initiated coups in the 1970s. Maybe there will be a coup in Burma, but not at the present moment, I think.
Finally, the NLD has been restricted from
political participation from the beginning
and let’s not forget that they won the last
election; the election was not entirely free
(the Tatmadaw bullied opposition supporters) but there is no substantial evidence that
the NLD gained support through bullying or
financial largesse (what money do they have ?
Is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi wealthy ?) Tin Oo
is 87. He is old, but well-respected since
he was a member of the Burmese Rifles, former post-independence General turned civilian,
and deputy leader of the NLD. Tin Oo is
a practicing Buddhist and democrat. Though
released from house arrest about three years ago, the Tatmadaw is very afraid of Tin Oo, despite his age and ailing health. They are
afraid of him because he represents the
transition from military to civilian life that the Tatmadaw are incapable of doing.
Yes, Tin Oo is opinionated and vocal about
his beliefs; Daw Aung is more soft-spoken. The Tatmadaw regard Tin Oo as intransigent (even arrogant) for the reasons I just gave-he successfully transitioned into civilian life and refused to be silenced by the Tatmadaw. Good for him, I say.
I do agree with you that the older generals are not puppets. They spout Burmese
“nationalism” and are paranoid about foreign
influence; but they do not hesitate to make
money from dealing with China, Thailand, Singapore and some Europeans. As I said,
there may be slight economic reform to
“accommodate” Chinese, Japanese and European
(mostly German and Scandanavian) investment,
but the infrastructure is poor and investors
know they will have to deal with the Tatmadaw
to set up corporate operations in Yangon or Mandalay. The countryside remains poor, though beautiful and bucolic.
Daw Aung tried to mediate with the Tatmadaw
and it went nowhere. Tin Oo probably would not talk with them given how they treated him. Shared power is not possible now.
“U” Khin Nyunt at one time may have been a reformer or bridge between Tatmadaw and NLD.
But it doesn’t endear him to the Generals
that his Brother-in-Law, Than Nyein, is leader of the NDF party. His Son-in-Law Tin Htut remains in prison. Since his release from house arrest about 18 months ago, Khin Nyunt has been silent. Can he be a possible compromise leader for Burma ? He is about 84.
His health condition is unclear. Will Daw Aung and Tin Oo accept Khin Nyunt as a leader for Burma ? There are so many unknown questions when it comes to Burma (I prefer
Burma to Myanmar).
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Moe Aung, I still don’t see your point. For me, you just interpret the facts as a grand manipulation and don’t try to put yourself in their place.
For my knowledge, the Tatmadaw doesn’t maintain the internal conflict because it wants to, but because it can’t defeat guerrillas that easily.
It seems to me that you already came with an anti-military view and is sustaining it without arguing why. Desire for power is a common human feeling, or do you think it’s an exclusive feature of Myanmar or Thai military?
I argue that both sides can win. The military and associates keep their autonomy and their businnesses; the civil opposition win the opportunity to slowly increase its participation and organize themselves (another point against them, NLD still doesn’t have a nationwide project, just complaints. The other parties are much worse).
The military will continue to participate in the government, first as guardians and later as economic and political elites, but not in uniform anymore.
Also, Suu Kyi is starting to understand that you can’t run a country giving autonomy to every ethnic group or regional culture. Look at India’s administration and China’s administration, which do you think is better?
I think most of people have biased views and that’s why I decided to bring new ideas, not everything is black or white.
Cheers.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
The Tatmadaw is blessed with the “Midas touch”, greed and lust for power its driving force, at the same time accusing all opposition, communists and the rest, of being power mad. Classic.
Once they have tasted power every justification will be used to keep them in power, especially deliberate low intensity conflict (LIC) in the ethnic homelands, and it has the ultimate arbiter of power… the gun.
Whereas the Thai army will meddle willy nilly and holds the world record for the number of coups it has staged, their Burmese counterparts go for staying power. There is no way they’re going to return to their barracks. Now the coup is no longer a coup but a constitutional takeover enshrined in the Nargis Constitution.
A new lease of life is what they have achieved, not only legitimacy but respectability as the leader of a regional bloc. As for the West free trade always wins hands down, human rights concerns take second place. Yes, they can and will now do business with the Tatmadaw, Kachin blood dripping from their hands or not.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Thank you for your comments, Peter and Moe Aung. I understand your positions and respect your personal experience regarding Myanmar. I have studied deeply all the proccesses you talked about and am quite aware of the consequences. Also, I agree that professor Steinberg is a major scholar on Myanmar studies and could improve the discussion. Actually, his books were an inspiration for my monography last year.
However, I’m not sure that the military (Tatmadaw or retired) are all the same thing. I prefer to believe some of them are strongly pragmatic, avoiding empty politics and factionalism.
That doesn’t mean they will deliver the government in the hands of Suu Kyi, but they are willing to open channels to improve the country’s international position. What the military won’t allow is the total liberalization and full participation of NGO’s, minority separatist groups or opposition financed by other countries.
In my opinion, the civil opposition has been as much intransigent as the military. NLD wanted to govern immediately in 1990, but they were elected to write the constitution. Nowadays, NLD thinks it will vanish USDP from the parliament and with international support they will govern the country alone.
As Matthew Walton wrote, Buddhism should be seen as a means for mediation to find a middle ground and both NLD and the military pursue religious merit.
I’m not naive, I’m just telling that Tatmadaw is paranoid because they had reasons to believe that. Nowadays, democracy foundations raise money to help opposition groups and who knows what else.
The military can’t go alone, also the NLD would never govern without military backing. It’s time for mediation, don’t matter if foreign driven or genuine.
The divide between these groups will only make them dependent from China and the United States.
In this article, I offer some alternatives, like supporting national businness community and so reinforce the capacity of the country to maintain it’s growth after the gold rush in Myanmar moves to another hot spot.
About the industrial, infrastructure and banking sectors, they were also improductive in Brazil (of course, not a fraction of Burma’s problems). The privatizations opened half of the enterprises to private capital and maintained the state ownership (case of Petrobras and Banco do Brasil). Also, the construction company Odebrecht grew a lot under civilian government and had close links to the military back in the 1980’s. Now they’re helping to build infrastructure in Western Africa and South America.
Finally, Peter, your comment about Ne Win clarifies my view. He, much like Than Shwe, was from the old school, had a rural background, was superstitious (a little like Stalin or Chiang Kai Shek with the number 9).
The military generals nowadays have studied abroad, are from urban centres, feel ashamed by the poverty of the country and also the lack of resources within the state. Many of them are not puppets chosen like the Burma Fourth Rifles links with Ne Win. They ascended in their careers by their merit, they were indoctrinated to defend their country. This view was shared by Mary Callahan and David Steinberg in an article addressed to American Congress. I can share the link if you want.
Many of them may still be paranoid, but not without justification. International politics are complex and frequently the weaker side foots the bill.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Erik, though well-meaning is naive about the
motives and political views of the Tatmadaw.
The very small amount of reform in Burma is in response to foreign criticism which the Tatmadaw in Naypyidaw (Nay Pyi Taw) largely ignores because China, Singapore, Thailand, Japan, Germany and the Scandanavians are willing to do business with Burma; Australia, UK, USA and France are more (rightly so) skeptical of going into Burma in a big way. Economic problems, insufficient food distribution, lack of infrastructure (George Orwell gave Burma more attention than the British, who focused on India), continued fighting with the Kachins and ethnic division with the Rohingyas, all plague Burma. The Tatmadaw see any ethnic or political change as a threat to their rule so don’t expect civilian or shared (with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi) rule anytime soon. Those semi-secret (not really secret) talks between the Tatmadaw and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi went nowhere.
Infant mortality continues to rise, Burma imports rice from Thailand (in the 1960s, Burma was one of the primary exporters of rice), literacy has fallen (the Tatmadaw
control the Ministry of Education, of course)
from being one of the highest in Southeast Asia. Infrastructure and the banking and
corporate sectors are very underdeveloped,
being under the control of the Tatmadaw.
Aung San and U Nu tried to unify the nation
through a mix of agrarian socialism and Burmese nationalism. It was short-lived under U Nu. U Nu tried, but failed, to unify the nation (he was an honest and devout Buddhist
but not much of a technocrat). After that, the agrarian economic policy was divined from astrological charts by Ne Win and then Burma closed for a while (concurrent with China’s Cultural Revolution). Now, there are European and Japanese tourists, limited freedom to practice non-political Buddhism (Burmese are generally quite religious), and engage in underground money exchange (since the Kyat is worthless).
NOTE: New Mandala might want to get a commentary from Professor David Steinberg,
who is an expert on Burma and is a (retired)
Professor from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service living in Maryland, USA. On this I am biased a little-I know him and feel he is very objective about Burma.
Loyalty demands ambiguity
112 will only be changed when the sunset is finished in hua hin
-Sonthi has already been sentenced to more than 82 years prison – but he is still a free man
Rethinking Cambodia’s political transformation
I was in Phnom Penh during the protests in mid-September and they were massively over-hyped by the media. We had a rooftop view of the rally site and there were no more than 5000 to 7000 there. We also visited the police barricades and were on hand when they fired teargas. It was literally 4 or 5 opposition activist attempting to pull down the barricades and that was it.
As for anecdotal references to local Khmer people – we spoke to several who said that they wanted change but didn’t really trust or like Sam Rainsy. It seemed to us that some people were voting against Hun Sen rather than voting for Rainsy.
The beginning of something ugly
Proselytization happens in Malaysia by
both Muslims and Christians. The term
“Allah” should not be used as a vehicle
for proselytizing by Christians
or Muslims. Christian missionaries in the past and present have tried to use the Al-Kitab and Islamic Sura concepts to try and harmonize them with Islam to covertly convert Muslim Malays and non-Christian Bumiputera in East Malaysia (Iban, Kadazan, etc.) and Muslim Bumiputera (Melanau, Bugis, etc.). This is an historical and contemporary fact. Almost all Kadazan became Christian a long time ago, while there are Christian and Muslim Iban who also were (and still are) converted now and then. Missionaries were
historically unsuccessful, for the most part,
in converting Malays to Christianity. Recent
Christian Malays (e.g., Lina Joy) leave Malaysia for more tolerant pastures (like Australia or UK) or remain ‘underground’ in Malaysia. Obviously, they would be ostracized by family (and maybe friends) and be subject to Syariah Hudud (apostasy) punishment in Malaysia. Most ‘Eurasians’ of are Christian, as are a good portion of Chinese-Malaysians and some Indian-Malaysians.
Muslims are obviously offended by missionary activity by activist churches; I understand this. But let me clear, real (not imagined) Christian missionary activity among non-Christians, while understandably offensive to many Malays and indigenous Muslims, does in no way justify Jakim, Perkasa and UMNO misusing Christianity and local churches in Malaysia as a proxy vehicle to clamp down on, and restrict, Malaysian Christians; furthermore, if proselytization by Christian groups is to be banned, then I believe Muslim proselytizing should be restricted as well or BOTH activities should be permitted (not a good idea actually).
Islamic Syariah Law as practiced in all Muslim countries forbids forced or consensual conversion out of Islam (see the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Malaysia). This includes so-called
moderate Malaysia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan and Turkey. ALL proselytizing should be banned if Malaysia wants to ameliorate bad feeling between different religions (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.) and advance economically, politically and socially. In effect, however, in ALL Islamic countries bar none, conversion is only allowed in one direction (Non-Muslim—>Muslim). There have been debates about whether Malaysia is a secular state. A secular state, in my definition, cannot have Syariah courts at all and cannot institute Hudud practices at the national level. ALL legal, economic, political and social matters must be judged by civil courts only. Religion must remain a private and unimpeded (by the state) individual matter always.
This is not the case in Malaysia; whatever the Tunku’s original intention for Malaysia, it is a Muslim nation with a thin veneer of pseudo-secularism and democratic institutions. I believe this should change,
regardless of whatever Perkasa, Mahathir, Zulkifli, Najib, and others may say about Malaysia and Islam.
Thai politics, 14 October and all that
According to one very respected social and political critic Thirayuth Boonmee, since Oct 14 1973, nothing has changed. Thailand was and still is a ‘society of servants’:
from Bangkok Post quote: “On political culture, Mr Thirayuth said society is plagued by the patronage system or, in harsher words, is a society of servants. He said that since Thais like to use the word “khee” (faeces) to describe , former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra can be described as the “khee kham” of Thai politics. He said “khee kham” is a hardened lump of faeces that blocks the rectum and is hard to remove.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/374682/thirayuth-backs-power-reroute.
When Lee Kuan Yew dies…
Malaysia is in good company.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/singapore-party-ban-on-whites-at-botanic-gardens-event-attacked-as-racist/story-fni0cx12-1226739873207
Chin Peng and cleavages in Malaysian society
This idea that we should never have kicked out the British colonial rulers but instead developed under their benevolent and expert guidance till they felt the country was fit for self rule has also gained currency among some of the Burmese.
One can only imagine it’s the same kind of people who maintain that the generals have to be appeased and let them carry on with the reforms at their own pace, not rock the boat, no protests etc., we must be very patient so in the next 20 years it will bear fruit.
One can only say there’s a distinct yellow servile streak showing down what goes for a spine in them.
Loyalty demands ambiguity
If she serves the full amount of her sentence, re-affirmed earlier this year by the Appeal Court, Daranee will be behind bars until August 2024.
Loyalty demands ambiguity
Network Monarchy don’t want this rhetorical bomb-thrower out there causing trouble. He’s lobbed bombs in both directions in the past. After the Army’s embarassing failure to get rid of him (attempted murder… er, what else does the Army do?), the courts seem to have done a better job.
Loyalty demands ambiguity
Darunee has already been in jail over 5 years – how much longer?
Chin Peng and cleavages in Malaysian society
Seriously, are we given to believe he died filthy rich on a pile of “Moscow gold”? Get out of here!
The least Peter Cohen and others can do is provide some evidence instead of a sagely pronouncement that it’s true.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Couldn’t agree more, Peter. And not bloody likely, Erik, however laudable the sentiments and the hope.
They do try to distance themselves from the previous incarnations of the same outfit but for obvious reasons. The same with this current period of grace, yes, truly a great window of opportunity as you see the lifting of “civil society suppression and forced co-optation”, not least the release and subsequent voluntary co-optation of ASSK, in exchange for the lifting of the international sanctions and removal of the label “international pariah”.
The transformation of historic import of the military took place when Ne Win seized control of the institution after Aung San’s death. Wishful thinking on the part of the opposition or foreign analysts will be just that… wishful thinking. Only in a fairy tale the frog turns into a prince by the kiss of the Lady. And she probably realises that.
They’ll talk the talk alright and go through the motions wherein lies the people’s chance of making a real difference by pushing them down that slippery slope a reforming authoritarian regime finds itself on… for its own compelling reasons i.e. its own survival.
Rethinking Cambodia’s political transformation
Ernest, this a discussion about CNRP electoral gain and not about Sam Rainsy’s alleged used of so called derogatory term of Vietnamese people. If you so incline to make such usage of the term you deemed unacceptable, then start your own article and people will have discussion on it. You need to learn the history between the Khmer and the Youn……
Chin Peng and cleavages in Malaysian society
Ya,I too am interested in the details.