Given that he was just an obedient colourless Than Shwe sidekick lackey until recently, I thought his speech (I read it) was quite OK (better than a lot of Suu Kyi’s empty rhetoric!), even though I don’t agree about his comments on the Rohingyas (so what about all those illegal Chinese immigrants?) and about Army-owned-businesses (what about the all the MoU’s that the junta signed with China?) Good speech-writer, I guess. The question is of course, (i) whether he really means everything he says and (ii) whether he can really implement all of this stuff ( before the duo ShweMann + SuuKyi takes over in 2015!)
I thought Burmese history began with the Pondaung primates (not with Abhiraza at Tagaung)!
It seems like anyone who can read Burmese (Pyu is an extinct language like Tocharian!) and has a good command of English (or some standard European language) can become an expert on Burmese history. Obviously I am not an expert, but I do trust solid archaeological evidence more than “The Glass Palace Chronicles” and all that misty romantic nationalistic history books written by the “glorious kings and conquerors”. When I lived in Burma, I did read a couple of papers by an archaeologist (I knew) named Aung Thaw and more
recently I found some interesting work by Elizabeth Moore about the Pyu city states. I do admit that I have read two of Aung Thwin’s books which I think are at least provocative and hence more fun to read than the boring facile books by Thant Myint-U, who in my opinion, is a bit of a charlatan. Fundamentally speaking though, I don’t think there is anything special about Burmese history (most of it is just your average medieval feudal stuff like in many other similar countries, or shall I say polities, like an expert lol)
It certainly is fair to ask what the contribution of ‘intellectual stultification’ is to the persistence of non-empirical ways of knowing in Thailand. I think it also derives from and is supportive of a need to maintain a kind of Thai exceptionalism. There is a claim to legitimacy for this Thai way of knowing in its Thainess, a claim for the uniqueness of Thainess in this way of knowing, and a fear of compromising Thainess in ever letting go of it. That is probably abetted by intellectual stultification, but it is maybe also a little different? Or, of course, it is fully legitimate, another culturally coherent way of seeing what you and I see differently.
So you’re telling me that the Burmese Army’s business interests are devoted solely to providing comfort for veterans? I find this rather hard to believe as I do the prospect that such business interests will be terminated any time soon.
Yes you are right — I should have clarified or defined what I thought successful rural development was.
I am not clear on what Murray means by successful rural development.
I personally think there really is no successful rural development because when successful, rural areas become urbanised.
Following economic theory, successful rural development should lead to rural areas being urbanised, and a move away from low productivity agriculture towards high productivity agriculture, industry and services.
Rural areas that are developed essentially loose their characteristics of being rural.
The countries you counted appears to support this notion, where the higher the urbanisation rates, the lower the poverty levels, and where rural poverty is greater than urban poverty.
Happy to hear what you think is successful rural development, and why you think these countries have actually done what you defined.
We can see a clear parallel here with Western Orientalist cinema. For example, the geopolitical coding of Raiders of the Lost Ark has been outed, betraying how the American archaeologist hero “liberates the ark from illegal Egyptian possession while also rescuing it from immoral Nazi control, subliminally reinforcing the American and Jewish solidarity vis-├а-vis the Nazis and their Arab assistants”.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not pro-TheinSein or anything like that, but mixing up Kachins with Rohingyas is a bit misleading. As far as I am aware of, most Kachins don’t give a damn about the plight of Rohingyas. It’s not their problem, they would say. I even think they (and most other ethnic minority groups) have a similar negative view about the “ugly” Rohingyas like most of the majority “Burmans”. They all seem to agree with the government doctrine that there are exactly 135 ethnic groups, what a joke! In Burma you have to look through the smoke and mirrors to see the ugly truth, so I wouldn’t pay that much attention to ex-pat special interest dissident groups with limited agendas (and acronyms). This whole issue about political asylum, UNHCR, is a rather tricky murky one anyway.
Yes, thanks!
I also watched a few YouTube videos and listened to what she said (in Burmese) to the protesting farmers. I am old enough to understand that politicians sometimes “change their minds” but in her case it was a 180 degree turn and because a lot of people put so much trust and hope in her, it was a bit of a shock.
Even though I made a lot of sarcastic remarks, I do hope that there is still a chance of changing the country so that the really poor and oppressed population, irrespective of religion or ethnicity, have a chance to breathe freely and work and live peacefully in a healthy and safe environment, where tall the children can get a modern education. It shouldn’t be about the oligarchy getting super-rich at the cost of destroying the environment and the livelihood of millions. Isn’t Suu Kyi supposed to be the champion of such basic values?
My last remark was supposed to poke fun at the overarching meme of the article:
“Western Colonial Chauvinist Masculine vs Eastern Elegant Subservient Feminine”
C’mon, people, let’s not ├╝ber-analyse. We’re talking here about a “soapy B+-rated” movie (“The King and I” was more fun to watch!)
Now let me make two short points:
1. Suu Kyi was totally overrated by western media (just ask Bono) and she does have some kind of “Grössenwahnsinn” and so “Greatness was thrust upon her” (and she doesn’t mind!)
2. I do not want to go back too far in history (when our ancestors were still some kind of amphibians) but the recent “dominance” of the West over the East during the last 400 years or so, has less to do with psycho-socio-cultural differences and a lot more to do with the sudden burst of scientific and technological advances that happened mainly in Europe during those years (leading to much better weapons and guns among other things) I bet both Michael Aris and Suu Kyi do not really understand Einstein’s E=mc^2, let alone the Higgs mechanism of the standard model which led to the prediction of the Higgs Boson (the “God particle” as journos like to call it). Speaking of East meets West, Higgs was a Brit and Bose was born in Calcutta.
Homo Sapiens better start moving beyond “primitive ethno-cultural profiling”(Sheldon Cooper might agree with me but maybe not the jury in the Zimmerman trial lol)
Willard G. Van De Bogart in a piece titled “Brahman Cosmology in the Thai Monarchy of the 21st Century” (link provided below), writes about how many of the most important ceremonies and rituals surrounding the Thai King are not Buddhist but Hindu and are supervised/carried out by Hindu Brahmin priests who are part of the Royal Household, not Buddhist monks. And that the Thai King and royal family regularly worships Hindu gods and basically follows in the Devaraja Hindu tradition of a divine God King, the reincarnated Hindu God Vishnu, as inherited and absorbed from the Khmer kingdom which also followed the tradtion of a Hindu God King. While the Thai King may give a nod to Buddhism and Buddhist ceremonies, the fundamental basis of Thai Royalism (which some say is the mandatory State Religion of Thailand, ie., under penalty of the law/punishment/imprisonment, all Thais shall venerate and worship the Thai King)is Hinduism and Brahminism, not Buddhism.
======================= http://www.asthabharati.org/Dia_July%20011/will.htm
John Grima, thanks for your message. Not least, it helps turn this discussion back to the review in question. I guess that one of the questions that arise from any comparison of Kamala’s book with Dr Jory’s review is the degree to which the latter takes into account the ties that Buddhadasa had with Thailand’s leading progressive intellectuals. Just as the post-1957 renaissance of monarchism in Thailand was associated with the re-peasantization of Thai society, one wonders if it was not also associated with the divorcing of mainstream Thai Buddhism from modern intellectual life. It was easy, by the 1980s for foreigners to go to Suan Mok and seen a wise old Thai monk, without really appreciating the intellectual milieu out of which he had emerged. Dr Ito’s book and Dr Jory’s review make clear that that lack of appreciation was a big mistake. Similarly, we need to ask ourselves if the apparent persistence of the forest tradition in which Dr Kamala has such an interest was not more a product of the intellectual stultification of Thailand during the hey-day of the ninth Chakri reign than she might want to accept? One awaits, in this connection, the book that will result from Dr Eugene Ford’s recent Yale dissertation, in which the intellectual vibrancy of the 1950s-era Sangha and its systematic dumbing down become clear, as do the origins of pseudo-progressive “development monasticism” in the machinations of the Central Intelligence Agency. One expects that this story will leave Buddhadasa’s legacy intact. Not so sure that Dr Kamala’s work or Aj Sulak will come out looking so good, however.
[…] volume begins with an excellent preface by one of Malaysia’s intellectual giants, Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr. Mohamed Ariff. He provides a broad sweep of Malaysia’s economic history since independence, identifying […]
Thank you for that reply. But does this imply that that all Thai people therefore understand the Crown Prince to be Vishnu incarnate as well? I don’t mean in theory, but in practice. Since the internet hides sarcasm, I want to be clear that I am not asking a sarcastic question.
I would like to pose some questions abouit the “nominal 90%” which is a figure often repeated. Has this been studied? In my humble experience, I suspect the figure is closer to 75% or 80%, and in some northern provinces (esp Chiang Rai) probably less than 50%. My conjecture is based on three religious issues:
1).Muslims are not only in the South, but constitute a sizeable percentage in the North (Amphoe Fang and Amphoe Mae Sai in particular) and have a presence in every major metropolitan area.
2). Christian conversions have been occurring widely in every province. There are churches in most small towns. The conversions are coming from Buddhism too, not just animism.
3). Animists. The ethnic minorities have a long-standing and contentious issue with being seen as Thais and citizens of Thailand. Is the religious designation of “local” or “animist” as often disregarded as is their status as Akha, Karen, etc?
And I haven’t even gotten to the heart of the book’s issue, the non-Buddhism of popular Buddhism.
Ok, technically Than Tun was not one of the “founders” but he definitely was the leader of the “white flag” communists that broke away from the AFPFL and went underground, right after Independence. (Thakin Soe was the leader of the “red flags”).Aung San did go briefly to China but he definitely got his military training from the Japs, before he switched sides again when the Japanese were losing the war (Chiang Kaishek’s army was on the side of the allies) Aung San actually told the British general that he prefers to be on the winning side (some people might think he was honest, but Churchill thought of him otherwise!). Anyway, some of the things, especially Aung San’s assassination, are still somewhat murky issues in Burmese history and I think the Brits didn’t tell everything they knew. It would be interesting to see how Aung San will be glorified in the new biopic about him to be shot in Burma (Suu Kyi herself picked the lead actor!)
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thein Sein talks at Chatham House
Given that he was just an obedient colourless Than Shwe sidekick lackey until recently, I thought his speech (I read it) was quite OK (better than a lot of Suu Kyi’s empty rhetoric!), even though I don’t agree about his comments on the Rohingyas (so what about all those illegal Chinese immigrants?) and about Army-owned-businesses (what about the all the MoU’s that the junta signed with China?) Good speech-writer, I guess. The question is of course, (i) whether he really means everything he says and (ii) whether he can really implement all of this stuff ( before the duo ShweMann + SuuKyi takes over in 2015!)
Review of History of Myanmar Since Ancient Times
I thought Burmese history began with the Pondaung primates (not with Abhiraza at Tagaung)!
It seems like anyone who can read Burmese (Pyu is an extinct language like Tocharian!) and has a good command of English (or some standard European language) can become an expert on Burmese history. Obviously I am not an expert, but I do trust solid archaeological evidence more than “The Glass Palace Chronicles” and all that misty romantic nationalistic history books written by the “glorious kings and conquerors”. When I lived in Burma, I did read a couple of papers by an archaeologist (I knew) named Aung Thaw and more
recently I found some interesting work by Elizabeth Moore about the Pyu city states. I do admit that I have read two of Aung Thwin’s books which I think are at least provocative and hence more fun to read than the boring facile books by Thant Myint-U, who in my opinion, is a bit of a charlatan. Fundamentally speaking though, I don’t think there is anything special about Burmese history (most of it is just your average medieval feudal stuff like in many other similar countries, or shall I say polities, like an expert lol)
Review of Modern Thai Buddhism and Buddhadasa
It certainly is fair to ask what the contribution of ‘intellectual stultification’ is to the persistence of non-empirical ways of knowing in Thailand. I think it also derives from and is supportive of a need to maintain a kind of Thai exceptionalism. There is a claim to legitimacy for this Thai way of knowing in its Thainess, a claim for the uniqueness of Thainess in this way of knowing, and a fear of compromising Thainess in ever letting go of it. That is probably abetted by intellectual stultification, but it is maybe also a little different? Or, of course, it is fully legitimate, another culturally coherent way of seeing what you and I see differently.
Thein Sein talks at Chatham House
So you’re telling me that the Burmese Army’s business interests are devoted solely to providing comfort for veterans? I find this rather hard to believe as I do the prospect that such business interests will be terminated any time soon.
Reinvigorating rural Malaysia – new paradigms needed
Hi Colum,
Yes you are right — I should have clarified or defined what I thought successful rural development was.
I am not clear on what Murray means by successful rural development.
I personally think there really is no successful rural development because when successful, rural areas become urbanised.
Following economic theory, successful rural development should lead to rural areas being urbanised, and a move away from low productivity agriculture towards high productivity agriculture, industry and services.
Rural areas that are developed essentially loose their characteristics of being rural.
The countries you counted appears to support this notion, where the higher the urbanisation rates, the lower the poverty levels, and where rural poverty is greater than urban poverty.
Happy to hear what you think is successful rural development, and why you think these countries have actually done what you defined.
Thanks
Greg
Just a lady – Part II
This reading of the movie shows that Shohat isn’t nearly as clever as she thinks she is, and betrays her ignorance of
the subtle, yet clear, message Spielberg and Lucas leaves the viewer with in the final lines of the movie.
Protesters greet Thein Sein in Britain
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not pro-TheinSein or anything like that, but mixing up Kachins with Rohingyas is a bit misleading. As far as I am aware of, most Kachins don’t give a damn about the plight of Rohingyas. It’s not their problem, they would say. I even think they (and most other ethnic minority groups) have a similar negative view about the “ugly” Rohingyas like most of the majority “Burmans”. They all seem to agree with the government doctrine that there are exactly 135 ethnic groups, what a joke! In Burma you have to look through the smoke and mirrors to see the ugly truth, so I wouldn’t pay that much attention to ex-pat special interest dissident groups with limited agendas (and acronyms). This whole issue about political asylum, UNHCR, is a rather tricky murky one anyway.
A sign of progress?
A must read for background to Thailand since the 2006 coup.
white paper : the judicial attack on thailand┬┤s democracy….
robert amsterdam
http://de.scribd.com/doc/154313656/White-Paper-The-Judicial-Attack-on-Thailand-s-Democracy
Protesters greet Thein Sein in Britain
Thanks Philip,
Suggest you try this one. Just posted.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Protesters greet Thein Sein in Britain
Rather a lot of coverage to protesters, but what about the visit itself?
Just a Lady – Part I
Yes, thanks!
I also watched a few YouTube videos and listened to what she said (in Burmese) to the protesting farmers. I am old enough to understand that politicians sometimes “change their minds” but in her case it was a 180 degree turn and because a lot of people put so much trust and hope in her, it was a bit of a shock.
Even though I made a lot of sarcastic remarks, I do hope that there is still a chance of changing the country so that the really poor and oppressed population, irrespective of religion or ethnicity, have a chance to breathe freely and work and live peacefully in a healthy and safe environment, where tall the children can get a modern education. It shouldn’t be about the oligarchy getting super-rich at the cost of destroying the environment and the livelihood of millions. Isn’t Suu Kyi supposed to be the champion of such basic values?
Just a lady – Part II
My last remark was supposed to poke fun at the overarching meme of the article:
“Western Colonial Chauvinist Masculine vs Eastern Elegant Subservient Feminine”
C’mon, people, let’s not ├╝ber-analyse. We’re talking here about a “soapy B+-rated” movie (“The King and I” was more fun to watch!)
Now let me make two short points:
1. Suu Kyi was totally overrated by western media (just ask Bono) and she does have some kind of “Grössenwahnsinn” and so “Greatness was thrust upon her” (and she doesn’t mind!)
2. I do not want to go back too far in history (when our ancestors were still some kind of amphibians) but the recent “dominance” of the West over the East during the last 400 years or so, has less to do with psycho-socio-cultural differences and a lot more to do with the sudden burst of scientific and technological advances that happened mainly in Europe during those years (leading to much better weapons and guns among other things) I bet both Michael Aris and Suu Kyi do not really understand Einstein’s E=mc^2, let alone the Higgs mechanism of the standard model which led to the prediction of the Higgs Boson (the “God particle” as journos like to call it). Speaking of East meets West, Higgs was a Brit and Bose was born in Calcutta.
Homo Sapiens better start moving beyond “primitive ethno-cultural profiling”(Sheldon Cooper might agree with me but maybe not the jury in the Zimmerman trial lol)
Reinvigorating rural Malaysia – new paradigms needed
South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand… Taiwan… Indonesia… You could even argue that Vietnam had success with the end of collective farming.
But then, what’s your definition of success, Greg? Urban chauvinism, indeed!
Review of Modern Thai Buddhism and Buddhadasa
re: Daniel
Willard G. Van De Bogart in a piece titled “Brahman Cosmology in the Thai Monarchy of the 21st Century” (link provided below), writes about how many of the most important ceremonies and rituals surrounding the Thai King are not Buddhist but Hindu and are supervised/carried out by Hindu Brahmin priests who are part of the Royal Household, not Buddhist monks. And that the Thai King and royal family regularly worships Hindu gods and basically follows in the Devaraja Hindu tradition of a divine God King, the reincarnated Hindu God Vishnu, as inherited and absorbed from the Khmer kingdom which also followed the tradtion of a Hindu God King. While the Thai King may give a nod to Buddhism and Buddhist ceremonies, the fundamental basis of Thai Royalism (which some say is the mandatory State Religion of Thailand, ie., under penalty of the law/punishment/imprisonment, all Thais shall venerate and worship the Thai King)is Hinduism and Brahminism, not Buddhism.
=======================
http://www.asthabharati.org/Dia_July%20011/will.htm
Review of Modern Thai Buddhism and Buddhadasa
John Grima, thanks for your message. Not least, it helps turn this discussion back to the review in question. I guess that one of the questions that arise from any comparison of Kamala’s book with Dr Jory’s review is the degree to which the latter takes into account the ties that Buddhadasa had with Thailand’s leading progressive intellectuals. Just as the post-1957 renaissance of monarchism in Thailand was associated with the re-peasantization of Thai society, one wonders if it was not also associated with the divorcing of mainstream Thai Buddhism from modern intellectual life. It was easy, by the 1980s for foreigners to go to Suan Mok and seen a wise old Thai monk, without really appreciating the intellectual milieu out of which he had emerged. Dr Ito’s book and Dr Jory’s review make clear that that lack of appreciation was a big mistake. Similarly, we need to ask ourselves if the apparent persistence of the forest tradition in which Dr Kamala has such an interest was not more a product of the intellectual stultification of Thailand during the hey-day of the ninth Chakri reign than she might want to accept? One awaits, in this connection, the book that will result from Dr Eugene Ford’s recent Yale dissertation, in which the intellectual vibrancy of the 1950s-era Sangha and its systematic dumbing down become clear, as do the origins of pseudo-progressive “development monasticism” in the machinations of the Central Intelligence Agency. One expects that this story will leave Buddhadasa’s legacy intact. Not so sure that Dr Kamala’s work or Aj Sulak will come out looking so good, however.
Malaysia-Singapore Update 2013
[…] volume begins with an excellent preface by one of Malaysia’s intellectual giants, Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr. Mohamed Ariff. He provides a broad sweep of Malaysia’s economic history since independence, identifying […]
Just a Lady – Part I
I think this may be the picture you are referring to. It brought me up short as well.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/aung-san-suu-kyi-urges-support-for-controversial-chinesebacked-copper-mine-8531508.html
Review of Modern Thai Buddhism and Buddhadasa
Thank you for that reply. But does this imply that that all Thai people therefore understand the Crown Prince to be Vishnu incarnate as well? I don’t mean in theory, but in practice. Since the internet hides sarcasm, I want to be clear that I am not asking a sarcastic question.
Review of Modern Thai Buddhism and Buddhadasa
I would like to pose some questions abouit the “nominal 90%” which is a figure often repeated. Has this been studied? In my humble experience, I suspect the figure is closer to 75% or 80%, and in some northern provinces (esp Chiang Rai) probably less than 50%. My conjecture is based on three religious issues:
1).Muslims are not only in the South, but constitute a sizeable percentage in the North (Amphoe Fang and Amphoe Mae Sai in particular) and have a presence in every major metropolitan area.
2). Christian conversions have been occurring widely in every province. There are churches in most small towns. The conversions are coming from Buddhism too, not just animism.
3). Animists. The ethnic minorities have a long-standing and contentious issue with being seen as Thais and citizens of Thailand. Is the religious designation of “local” or “animist” as often disregarded as is their status as Akha, Karen, etc?
And I haven’t even gotten to the heart of the book’s issue, the non-Buddhism of popular Buddhism.
Just a Lady – Part I
Ok, technically Than Tun was not one of the “founders” but he definitely was the leader of the “white flag” communists that broke away from the AFPFL and went underground, right after Independence. (Thakin Soe was the leader of the “red flags”).Aung San did go briefly to China but he definitely got his military training from the Japs, before he switched sides again when the Japanese were losing the war (Chiang Kaishek’s army was on the side of the allies) Aung San actually told the British general that he prefers to be on the winning side (some people might think he was honest, but Churchill thought of him otherwise!). Anyway, some of the things, especially Aung San’s assassination, are still somewhat murky issues in Burmese history and I think the Brits didn’t tell everything they knew. It would be interesting to see how Aung San will be glorified in the new biopic about him to be shot in Burma (Suu Kyi herself picked the lead actor!)