37 is the twelfth prime number and there are twelve Zodiac signs.
OK, OK, I’m just being a bit numero-satirical about Burmese superstitions, but I notice that you are pretty serious about these things. There is a grain of truth in every joke and every comment I suppose, and so my apologies to all the 37 Popa Nats + the Pegu-MeyTaw + the Shan/Thai Nats + … and those who believe in these ancient deities but excluding those old-tree-fellers (the Rukhasoe’s will be mad at them!) who send all that illegal timber to China and elsewhere!
The Pantheon of 37 Nats is derived from all over the land. It has nothing to do with numerology and only Popa Medaw and her sons actually belong to Mount Popa although the Mahagiri(Great Mountain) brother and sister nats and the rest were all put atop this mountain by Anawrahta.
Bago Medaw is not in the 37 but a local one. Burmese belief in spirits of the natural world such as mountains,forests and rivers is an ancient one that predates Buddhism and the 37. They won’t fell very old trees willy nilly. And I am sure they will not look on foreign spirits invading their land favourably.
Thanks Longway for proving my point about the 2007 charter and insidious traps
(don’t believe me, then ask yourself why is it proving so difficult for an elected govt with a clear majority, that ran on a policy of charter amendment, to actually amend it? – especially when it has already been amended under the previous Democrat led coalition with little fuss?)
I do agree with you on one point though – a referendum choice between the 1997 and 2007 charters would have been a great idea – wonder why the military junta didn’t think so?
“Its not up to me to give a method of the rewrite its up to parliament to come up with one that can pass a referendum.”
Parliament proposed a method, but you criticized it:
“Neither of you 2 mention the 77 member CDA (plus 22 unelected ‘experts’) proposed by the PT, its clearly designed to ensure that the PT and UDD dominate the charter overhaul process.”
This very method you criticize was proposed and implemented by the Democrat Party for the 1997 charter. Do you feel the Dem Party dominated the 1997 rewrite process?
What other method would you propose, so that it would be more fair?
“There should be a referendum to get permission from the electorate to rewrite the current charter.”
So, you *aren’t* proposing a referendum on the methods of revising a charter, but whether the charter should be changed at all? As such, do you think voters would vote on what they think it will be changed to, versus what it would actually be changed to? And as such vote on opinions, rumors, and fears/aspirations on what the new Constitution could be – and not what it actually will be?
I have no idea what you are talking about now. I have said nothing of the sort.
I think I was right in the first place, you deliberately come up with strawmen and ludicrous conclusions to obfuscate discussions until they become meaningless rehashes of the same point again and again.
To repeat myself yet again.
The CC has said (and I agree and I like their quorum rules as it prevents a referendum becoming some kind of game.)
There should be a referendum to get permission from the electorate to rewrite the current charter.
Once the the rewrite is completed IMO, there should be another referendum on whether the electorate accept the new charter. I think that is fair enough.
Its not up to me to give a method of the rewrite its up to parliament to come up with one that can pass a referendum.
If there is a honest attempt to bring about a better charter that will benefit the electorate there should be no problem meeting the quorum rules.
Its only when people like you are playing games that the quorum rule becomes an issue.
[…] The conviction, on July 26, of Kang Guek Eav—“Duch”— former prison chief of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, drew international media attention to Cambodia, at least for one news cycle. The verdict of the UN- sponsored tribunal, was important in that, for the first time, a key Khmer Rouge official was held accountable for the unspeakable crimes of the regime. The press highlighted the outcry that the sentence, 19 years in jail, was too lenient. Read more here. […]
I rather like this piece.(No matter that it appears to have already been published elsewhere. So what?)
I think, however, it would have been a more full-bodied, accurate and certainly braver piece had it mentioned that without a certain other person’s consent and support, Mr Sarit would never have ‘accomplished’ what he did.
So . . . you want a referendum on whether there should be a referendum? And how, specifically, do you think the new referendum should be drafted? You repeatedly criticize the method but offer no alternatives.
Fascinating. As Arthurson says, it shows the cultural sensitivities that can erupt in the most unexpected places. To an outsider like me, the similarities between Thai and Burmese (and Cambodian) popular religion are the interesting thing; to the locals, it’s the differences that count.
(Tocharian: you also raise some interesting ideas. It would be great to follow all this up in more detail – wonder if I can get a grant from ANU to spend a year or two at their expense doing it? (joke)).
The number of Nats in Burma is fixed. It’s 37 (a prime number). They all come from Mt. Popa, so there! We can’t have all these extra Thai Nuts, Muslim moschees, Hindoo fire-walkers, Chinese ancestor-worshippers, Baringyi churches, etc, etc, can we? That will screw up Burmese numerology (a rather deep science in Burma, somewhat like the search for dark energy), no?
Just asking! LOL
In relation to the above information.. a denial was run in the Bangkok Post on March 28 (headline: NSC insists camp blaze horror was an accident).
Song Klinprathum, director of the Royal Rain-making Operations Centre in the upper North based in Chiang Mai, said the centre launched an operation last Friday to make artificial rain to ease the choking haze in Mae Hong Son, and Khun Yuam district was chosen as the operation base. Three helicopters were deployed to improve air quality, he said.
Mr Song insisted chemicals used in rain making did not cause the fire.
“I am confident those chemicals have nothing to do with the fire. Moreover, the helicopters operated at high altitudes so there was no chance that they would create a fire on the ground below.”
“The pilots also detected smoke on their radar during the operation. But they didn’t realise that the smoke came from the burning camp. They learned later the fire [at the camp] happened near the operation base.”
What may have complicated the investigation into the cause of this tragic blaze is reports that the only aircraft near the camp at the time of the fire were three small aircraft allegedly with the royal rainmaking unit. I’m not sure what sort of substance they would drop – when they seed clouds – but I think it’s fair to ask if traces of that chemical was found in the camp.
Totally agree. So pretentiously empty. I don’t mind New Mandala publish royalist, consevative articles, as long as they are of good quality. But this one is just a waste of space.
Came across this while trawling the web though I feel a comment or two is not too late.
Commerce and finance are the ‘Asian Studies’ programs for undergraduates. This has actually been going on for awhile and I foresee that it will continue to the detriment of the traditional scope of Asian Studies which some of us were familiar with (which you also rightly hint may be in need of renewed self-examination)
We have all been prospecting Asia in one form or another. But the ‘new’ Asian Studies programs do it with a promise of prestige, excitement, and sometimes even with an ethical dimension through mutual financial returns with the object of their ‘study’.
I feel its hard to compete with that. Why study when one can live it.
I say the above from little ole’ Singapore though ironically, I majored in anthropology at Sydney Uni 10 years ago (not quite Asian Studies…but debatable)
Johninbkk you wrote: So, what you are proposing is a referendum on the methods of revising the charter – and NOT a referendum on changing the charter? The issue I have with a referendum before the change is that it would be like signing a blank contract. I wouldn’t want to approve anything until I see it in writing. Is that not ‘clear and transparent’?
There would be a second referendum after the rewrite using the same quorum, sorry that I was not clear. IMO the blank cheque comes if there is no referendum before the charter rewrite.
Its not just on the method of rewrite, but it would require a parliamentary consensus on all aspects of the charter overhaul.
This is why I like the CC suggestion (ruling??), it effectively calls the bluff of anyone who claims a false mandate. If you cant get even 50% of the electorate to vote on a matter like this, then you don’t have any business overhauling the entire charter.
As for what I would recommend. Here I would recommend that parliament agree a way of rewriting the charter and clear set of goals and present it to the Thai people for their approval. Then follow through on it and present the result to the Thai people for their approval again.
Then there should be something pretty decent in place and it will be close to impossible to disrespect it or annul it in the future.
Your response reminds me of Ricky Gervais’ favorite tweet that he once received, “Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, so shut up about your atheism!” (quoted in a recent interview on ‘The Daily Show’)
This confirms the newspaper reports at the time that somebody flew over and dropped an incendiary phosphorus device on the roof of one of the buildings. The only discrepancy in the stories from the Bangkok Post is that the newspapers said it was a helicopter. From the eyewitness testimony collected on site by Saw Yan Naing, it appears there were three single engine airplanes, one of which dropped the chemicals.
The likeliest suspect, in my opinion, would be someone in the Thai military or police, because they are the ones with the aircraft, NOT someone from across the border. The other fact that makes me suspect the Thai authorities are involved is that Pol Col Nitinart Wittayawuthikul, the Khun Yuam district police chief, was transferred and accused of incompetence because he refused to go along with the cover-up/cover story of the fire being purely an accident caused by a cooking fire, or a forest fire, both of which are clearly not true.
Why would the Thai military or police do such a thing? Because they want to dislodge the refugees and force them back into Myanmar. I strongly suspect money in the form of a large bribe, or an eventual land grab, is involved.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Goodbye Lenin, hail the Malaysian ‘Caesar’?
Here it is, I hope …
The Big Durian by Amir Muhammad
(Just gave you a quick hand with the coding: Editor, NSF)
Thai spirits not welcome in Myanmar
37 is the twelfth prime number and there are twelve Zodiac signs.
OK, OK, I’m just being a bit numero-satirical about Burmese superstitions, but I notice that you are pretty serious about these things. There is a grain of truth in every joke and every comment I suppose, and so my apologies to all the 37 Popa Nats + the Pegu-MeyTaw + the Shan/Thai Nats + … and those who believe in these ancient deities but excluding those old-tree-fellers (the Rukhasoe’s will be mad at them!) who send all that illegal timber to China and elsewhere!
Thai spirits not welcome in Myanmar
The Pantheon of 37 Nats is derived from all over the land. It has nothing to do with numerology and only Popa Medaw and her sons actually belong to Mount Popa although the Mahagiri(Great Mountain) brother and sister nats and the rest were all put atop this mountain by Anawrahta.
Bago Medaw is not in the 37 but a local one. Burmese belief in spirits of the natural world such as mountains,forests and rivers is an ancient one that predates Buddhism and the 37. They won’t fell very old trees willy nilly. And I am sure they will not look on foreign spirits invading their land favourably.
Why Thailand needs its king
Thanks Longway for proving my point about the 2007 charter and insidious traps
(don’t believe me, then ask yourself why is it proving so difficult for an elected govt with a clear majority, that ran on a policy of charter amendment, to actually amend it? – especially when it has already been amended under the previous Democrat led coalition with little fuss?)
I do agree with you on one point though – a referendum choice between the 1997 and 2007 charters would have been a great idea – wonder why the military junta didn’t think so?
Why Thailand needs its king
“Its not up to me to give a method of the rewrite its up to parliament to come up with one that can pass a referendum.”
Parliament proposed a method, but you criticized it:
“Neither of you 2 mention the 77 member CDA (plus 22 unelected ‘experts’) proposed by the PT, its clearly designed to ensure that the PT and UDD dominate the charter overhaul process.”
This very method you criticize was proposed and implemented by the Democrat Party for the 1997 charter. Do you feel the Dem Party dominated the 1997 rewrite process?
What other method would you propose, so that it would be more fair?
“There should be a referendum to get permission from the electorate to rewrite the current charter.”
So, you *aren’t* proposing a referendum on the methods of revising a charter, but whether the charter should be changed at all? As such, do you think voters would vote on what they think it will be changed to, versus what it would actually be changed to? And as such vote on opinions, rumors, and fears/aspirations on what the new Constitution could be – and not what it actually will be?
Why Thailand needs its king
I have no idea what you are talking about now. I have said nothing of the sort.
I think I was right in the first place, you deliberately come up with strawmen and ludicrous conclusions to obfuscate discussions until they become meaningless rehashes of the same point again and again.
To repeat myself yet again.
The CC has said (and I agree and I like their quorum rules as it prevents a referendum becoming some kind of game.)
There should be a referendum to get permission from the electorate to rewrite the current charter.
Once the the rewrite is completed IMO, there should be another referendum on whether the electorate accept the new charter. I think that is fair enough.
Its not up to me to give a method of the rewrite its up to parliament to come up with one that can pass a referendum.
If there is a honest attempt to bring about a better charter that will benefit the electorate there should be no problem meeting the quorum rules.
Its only when people like you are playing games that the quorum rule becomes an issue.
An alternative view of the Duch verdict in Cambodia
[…] The conviction, on July 26, of Kang Guek Eav—“Duch”— former prison chief of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, drew international media attention to Cambodia, at least for one news cycle. The verdict of the UN- sponsored tribunal, was important in that, for the first time, a key Khmer Rouge official was held accountable for the unspeakable crimes of the regime. The press highlighted the outcry that the sentence, 19 years in jail, was too lenient. Read more here. […]
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
I rather like this piece.(No matter that it appears to have already been published elsewhere. So what?)
I think, however, it would have been a more full-bodied, accurate and certainly braver piece had it mentioned that without a certain other person’s consent and support, Mr Sarit would never have ‘accomplished’ what he did.
Why Thailand needs its king
So . . . you want a referendum on whether there should be a referendum? And how, specifically, do you think the new referendum should be drafted? You repeatedly criticize the method but offer no alternatives.
Thai spirits not welcome in Myanmar
Fascinating. As Arthurson says, it shows the cultural sensitivities that can erupt in the most unexpected places. To an outsider like me, the similarities between Thai and Burmese (and Cambodian) popular religion are the interesting thing; to the locals, it’s the differences that count.
(Tocharian: you also raise some interesting ideas. It would be great to follow all this up in more detail – wonder if I can get a grant from ANU to spend a year or two at their expense doing it? (joke)).
Thai spirits not welcome in Myanmar
The number of Nats in Burma is fixed. It’s 37 (a prime number). They all come from Mt. Popa, so there! We can’t have all these extra Thai Nuts, Muslim moschees, Hindoo fire-walkers, Chinese ancestor-worshippers, Baringyi churches, etc, etc, can we? That will screw up Burmese numerology (a rather deep science in Burma, somewhat like the search for dark energy), no?
Just asking! LOL
What caused the Mae Surin fire?
In relation to the above information.. a denial was run in the Bangkok Post on March 28 (headline: NSC insists camp blaze horror was an accident).
Song Klinprathum, director of the Royal Rain-making Operations Centre in the upper North based in Chiang Mai, said the centre launched an operation last Friday to make artificial rain to ease the choking haze in Mae Hong Son, and Khun Yuam district was chosen as the operation base. Three helicopters were deployed to improve air quality, he said.
Mr Song insisted chemicals used in rain making did not cause the fire.
“I am confident those chemicals have nothing to do with the fire. Moreover, the helicopters operated at high altitudes so there was no chance that they would create a fire on the ground below.”
“The pilots also detected smoke on their radar during the operation. But they didn’t realise that the smoke came from the burning camp. They learned later the fire [at the camp] happened near the operation base.”
What caused the Mae Surin fire?
What may have complicated the investigation into the cause of this tragic blaze is reports that the only aircraft near the camp at the time of the fire were three small aircraft allegedly with the royal rainmaking unit. I’m not sure what sort of substance they would drop – when they seed clouds – but I think it’s fair to ask if traces of that chemical was found in the camp.
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
Totally agree. So pretentiously empty. I don’t mind New Mandala publish royalist, consevative articles, as long as they are of good quality. But this one is just a waste of space.
Same old story…Asian Studies on the decline
Nick,
Came across this while trawling the web though I feel a comment or two is not too late.
Commerce and finance are the ‘Asian Studies’ programs for undergraduates. This has actually been going on for awhile and I foresee that it will continue to the detriment of the traditional scope of Asian Studies which some of us were familiar with (which you also rightly hint may be in need of renewed self-examination)
We have all been prospecting Asia in one form or another. But the ‘new’ Asian Studies programs do it with a promise of prestige, excitement, and sometimes even with an ethical dimension through mutual financial returns with the object of their ‘study’.
I feel its hard to compete with that. Why study when one can live it.
I say the above from little ole’ Singapore though ironically, I majored in anthropology at Sydney Uni 10 years ago (not quite Asian Studies…but debatable)
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
Apologies. Due to a miscommunication with the author I posted this on New Mandala not realising it had already appeared on Prachatai.
Why Thailand needs its king
Johninbkk you wrote: So, what you are proposing is a referendum on the methods of revising the charter – and NOT a referendum on changing the charter? The issue I have with a referendum before the change is that it would be like signing a blank contract. I wouldn’t want to approve anything until I see it in writing. Is that not ‘clear and transparent’?
There would be a second referendum after the rewrite using the same quorum, sorry that I was not clear. IMO the blank cheque comes if there is no referendum before the charter rewrite.
Its not just on the method of rewrite, but it would require a parliamentary consensus on all aspects of the charter overhaul.
This is why I like the CC suggestion (ruling??), it effectively calls the bluff of anyone who claims a false mandate. If you cant get even 50% of the electorate to vote on a matter like this, then you don’t have any business overhauling the entire charter.
As for what I would recommend. Here I would recommend that parliament agree a way of rewriting the charter and clear set of goals and present it to the Thai people for their approval. Then follow through on it and present the result to the Thai people for their approval again.
Then there should be something pretty decent in place and it will be close to impossible to disrespect it or annul it in the future.
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
Cod should have stopped writing after his first sentence: “What can we say about the situation in our country that hasn’t already been said?”
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
Your response reminds me of Ricky Gervais’ favorite tweet that he once received, “Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, so shut up about your atheism!” (quoted in a recent interview on ‘The Daily Show’)
What caused the Mae Surin fire?
This confirms the newspaper reports at the time that somebody flew over and dropped an incendiary phosphorus device on the roof of one of the buildings. The only discrepancy in the stories from the Bangkok Post is that the newspapers said it was a helicopter. From the eyewitness testimony collected on site by Saw Yan Naing, it appears there were three single engine airplanes, one of which dropped the chemicals.
The likeliest suspect, in my opinion, would be someone in the Thai military or police, because they are the ones with the aircraft, NOT someone from across the border. The other fact that makes me suspect the Thai authorities are involved is that Pol Col Nitinart Wittayawuthikul, the Khun Yuam district police chief, was transferred and accused of incompetence because he refused to go along with the cover-up/cover story of the fire being purely an accident caused by a cooking fire, or a forest fire, both of which are clearly not true.
Why would the Thai military or police do such a thing? Because they want to dislodge the refugees and force them back into Myanmar. I strongly suspect money in the form of a large bribe, or an eventual land grab, is involved.