.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
DeepInTheForest
-
Posts
468 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by DeepInTheForest
-
-
Also known as Dalbergia cochinchinensis.
It can bring $95,000 per cubic meter on the Chinese market these days, according to the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature, which publishes the famous red list). It's prized for use in making furniture and musical instruments.
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/dalbergia_cochinchinensis.pdf
In 2013 it was listed in Appendix II of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), which means that a permit is required to sell it across international borders.
The hongmu, or luxury furniture business, is booming as newly-minted elites seek to display their wealth. The furniture can cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hongmu wood imports from Burma and Laos have skyrocketed since 2010. See the graphic in this piece from mongabay.com:
http://news.mongabay.com/2014/05/chinese-luxury-furniture-linked-to-murder-near-extinction/
It's very beautiful in the wild-- or at least it was. It is a legume, incidentally-- as you can see by the pictures of the seed pods in the link below. Yes, trees can be legumes.
http://www.natureloveyou.sg/Dalbergia%20cochinchinensis/Main.html
-
Thanks too, for your further information and links. I do indeed remember the Salween logging scandal, but don't recall Chavalit being at the centre of it. Maybe he was, but I just don't recall his name coming up in the news reports at the time. I do remember his links with pulling a lot of the logs out of Cambodia, though, both before and after the UN elections, and his control of the trade along the Thai-Cambodian and Thai-Lao borders in Isaan, using his old military connections and new political alliances with Isaan godfather politicians to good effect. Wasn't Newin Chidchob initially a New Aspiration Party politician, bringing home the bacon for Chavalit in Buriram, for instance?
By the 90s, Chavalit was an old hand at the game of border logging, having presided over the 1987 debacle at Ban Rom Klao along the Loei-Pitsanuloke border with Laos, that started over rights to logging border forests and resulted in the deaths of an estimated 700 + Thai soldiers and heaven knows how many Lao soldiers, an incident that was deftly brushed under the carpet within the domestic media, though is featured in James Fahn's book you link to, in Grant Evans book on Lao modern history and was obliquely mentioned in Grossman & Faulder's 2011 biography of King Bhumibol (p.158).
If any living Thai politician deserves a critical biography more than Big Jiew and his amazing exploits, I can't think of any. Or perhaps there is one, but written in Thai and not yet translated to English? Historians note......
Thanks for the mention of Grant Evans' book, which I will hunt down, and Grossman and Faulder. I will look up Newin's history, as well, to satisfy curiosity. Good stuff, thanks!
The Salween saga is covered in the Fahn book on p. 141. Or here: https://books.google.com/books?id=281WqbKblukC&pg=PA140&dq=%22james+fahn%22+%22land+on+fire%22+%22the+salween+scandal%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXnPmf1-7JAhVB4D4KHTF1B5YQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22james%20fahn%22%20%22land%20on%20fire%22%20%22the%20salween%20scandal%22&f=false Scroll down a little and readers will see it.
You mentioned that Chavalit would be a great subject for a book. Of course you are right. Many probing articles about his career were written by Pasuk Phongpaichit, the Thai economist, and her husband, Chris Baker, the journalist and historian. (They are usually referred to in order reverse to how I presented them!) You can see their work here: http://www.geocities.ws/changnoi2/main98.htm . The columns, published by The Nation, are a treasure trove-- essential if you're interested in the twists and turns of Thai history, society, and politics. The page of the link contains a link to a piece on Chavalit and the Salween.
-
I guess this is so that the Burmese soldiers can work on the land that the military stole from the Karen.
Did the Thai military steal land from the Karen in Myanmar?
I don't know about their land (Burma-Thai gas pipeline anyone?) but the Thai military have been complicit in stealing the Karen's forests and wildlife for many years, through their counterparts in the Burmese junta. Big Jiew was one of the worst offenders in this regard, exchanging Burmese students arrested in Thailand after they fled for their life following the 1988 crackdown for Burmese timber concessions, much of it sourced from Karen native territory. The Karen military also got into the act to a certain extent, but were a little less rapacious than their Burmese counterparts.
Excellent post. Thanks for this, plachon. Few know the history and sociopolitical implications of the deforestation of this region. Big Jiew's real name was Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, a Thai army general and politician. He did indeed cooperate with the Burmese Army in corrupt and dodgy scams that resulted in the deforestation of large swaths of Myanmar/Burma as well as Thailand. At one point, after logging was banned in Thailand, he had an operation that exported logs to Burma, where they were stamped with a forestry stamp to disguise their origin, then re-imported to Thailand. After awhile, they did away with shipping logs across the Salween-- why bother?-- and simply brought the stamp to Thailand. The great Thai forests disappeared into the pockets of Chavalit and others involved.
And not just in Burma and Thailand, either-- he moved his operations to Cambodia after the heat got turned up. This operation involved the Khmer Rouge. Global Witness says that pursuant to a meeting between Cambodian Ag minister Tao Seng Huor and then-Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit, Cambodia agreed to export 1.1 million cubic meters of 'old felled' timber to Thailand.
"All the logs were in Khmer Rouge (KR) held territory, making verification of their existence impossible. Global Witness’ investigations, however, showed that the loggers were in fact cutting to order and paying the KR between $35-90 per m3."
This Global Witness paper makes it clear that China was also involved in the pillaging of natural resources from minority areas of Burma.
(you can open the below link in Internet Explorer or some other browser)
For a good summary, look into James Fahn's 'Land on Fire: the environmental consequences of the Southeast Asian boom': http://www.amazon.com/Land-Fire-Environmental-Consequences-Southeast/dp/0813342678
For a look at the political economy of deforestation in Thailand, check out these two posts:
https://www.ncsu.edu/project/amazonia/Delang.pdf
http://dev.mtnforum.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/857.pdf
-
from ratcatcher's link:
"The lignite mine is an opencast mine with an estimated proven lignite reserves of approximately 370.8Mt. Based on an average annual lignite production of 14.3Mt, the reserves are expected to last for 26 years of operations."
All this for a lousy 26 years of profits. What happens then? We start using the renewable energy we should have developed in the first place?
-
Wth is peoples hate with GMOs? It's among the best invention humans started to make use of....obviously I'm not saying "best thing ever, no regulations needed" because regulations and keeping an eye on them is required so there won't be real detrimental effects, but why not just keep the fear mongering alive...it's not like there are still bigger issues to keep a closed eye on, right?
This is a classic example of how editorials can be so full of ignorance. The OP is no different, and carries no more weight than any of the paranoid screeds posted below it.
When they've got nothing else, spout fear and paranoia and litter the forum with home made youtube videos featuring "experts" such as computer scientists (Stephanie Seneff), activists like David Suzuki (featured in the scary video above) who accepts one kind of science (global climate change) but somehow reject another kind of science (a highly specific kind of genetic alteration technique), and other people who dress up in white lab coats even though they have no plant genetics credentials to their names. Sure you can probably find a few geneticists who have something bad to say about the tool called genetic modification. This is the Internet, after all, and that means you can even find, for example, physicists who don't buy into the established theories of general relativity. All that means is that YouTube is probably not the best place for the uninformed reader to do research on plant genetics OR general relativity.
We've been through all this before. There's nothing new here except more fear and paranoia of the unknown. The same people who demand more research admit they'll never change their minds no matter what kind of research consensus is reached by the scientific community.
Anyone who cares to present a salient, distilled objection please do so and I'll address it. But if all you have to say is how much you hate Monsanto and OH MY GOD agent orange and how evil those "terminator" seeds are, you've got some work to do to get yourself up to speed before you fully understand the many issues at hand here.
You want scientists to speak, here they are: testimony of several who have reservations about GMO foods. They are the real deal-- biochemists, geneticists. (One was the guy who voiced concern over feeding sheep to cattle years ago. We know about the eventual consequences, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, etc. In my view, we would be demented not to pay attention to him and the others collected in the link below.)
http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm
We also need to acknowledge that David Suzuki is not only an "activist" (and nothing wrong with that), but also received a Ph.D, in zoology from University of Chicago in 1961 and was a professor of genetics at University of British Columbia from 1963 until 2001 when he retired. That in no way confirms his point of view, but his reservations about GMOs are not the product of ignorance as you suggest.
The bit about "similar to physicists who reject the general theory of relativity" is a straw man argument.
There are many reasons to question the use of GMOs. Not all of them have to do with the introduction of Bt genes. (Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces proteins that are poisonous for some insects, but are supposedly harmless to humans.)
Rather, many are concerned with the wholesale takeover of countries' agriculture by international agribusiness. The only reason Monsanto and others produce GM foods is because they own the patent on it. That is a danger in a social and political sense, because it inevitably leads to a corporate monopoly/stranglehold on the world's agriculture.
Most of all, we don't need the risk. We have enough food, as the UN FAO has stated. The issue is one of distribution. The selling of GMO food is a propaganda project designed to enhance the profits of a few corporations.
That should make us extremely wary.
-
By the time the developers get done with our lovely once-green planet, it will not be worth living on. All in the name of profit. Oh, and increasing the 'standard of living'-- true in many ways in a material sense, but what good does having a crapload of consumer junk do you when you can't breathe, the rivers are all dammed, and the fish are all farmed? Look for the select few rich to get richer, too, while the rest of us struggle to maintain.
from wikipedia:
Primarily because of latent high moisture content and low energy density of brown coal, carbon dioxide emissions from traditional brown-coal-fired plants are generally much higher per megawatt generated than for comparable black-coal plants, with the world's highest-emitting plant being Hazelwood Power Station, Victoria. The operation of traditional brown-coal plants, particularly in combination with strip mining, can be politically contentious due to environmental concerns.
-
A very surprising editorial in its defiance of the GM lobby. Kudos to The Nation.
GMO crops are being forced down the throats of countries around the world, starting in areas where there is turmoil. Ukraine, for example, received loans from the World Bank and IMF with the stipulation that Monsanto be allowed into the country. http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/12/what-theyre-not-telling-you-about-monsantos-role-ukraine
Africa is squarely in the sights of Bill Gates-- that neoliberal corporatist and destroyer of human societies-- and Monsanto. South Africa has gone deeply into GE crops. Single-trait Bt maize (or corn. intended to produce internal resistance to pests) became such a failure after insects developed resistance that it was withdrawn from the market-- but not before farmers were given discounted insecticides, which they sprayed on their crops in large quantities trying to vanquish the unstoppable. The corporate peddlers have moved on, and Bt maize is now being marketed to other countries. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20058-why-african-farmers-do-not-want-gmos
The industry and its bought-and-paid-for experts are busily creating a huge amount of journal articles, press releases, and other media to blanket the public with the idea that GMO food will bring "food security" to developing nations, and that in fact this is the only way they can advance. (Even certain arms of the UN seem to be involved, although this website seems to be providing the message that an industry front group might be expected to: http://unu.edu/publications/articles/are-transgenic-crops-safe-gm-agriculture-in-africa.html ) That is almost certainly not true-- food insecurity is caused by an unwillingness to distribute food, and economic systems that hold people in poverty. "Meeting the food security challenges is primarily about the empowerment of the poor and their food sovereignty." http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/18/8056163/bill-gates-gmo-farming-world-hunger-africa-poverty
The fight for the future of humanity's food will be a protracted one. The percentage of people in developed countries with a negative view of GMO food is high. And developing countries have pushed back as well-- Bolivia committed to going non-GMO by 2015, and Mexico has banned GM maize. But the forces arrayed against their wishes, including the global corporate capitalist army, are well-funded, in relentless search of profit, and very, very determined to impose their will.
-
The official account cannot be politically tainted.
A contradiction in terms. "Official accounts" are necessarily politically tainted, as are all historical accounts. The "official" account will be biased in a way that favors those in power, which is why it should be viewed more skeptically than most.
The presentation of history is inextricably woven with bias, is it not? Our search for truth is never finished, either personally or societally. And we should view that as a good thing.
-
Measures to stop illegal practices have had some implications on small fishing operators, and in response to this, the Cabinet approved a Bt228-million budget to assist fishermen, the CCCIF said. Some of them have been granted soft loans to help them switch professions, it said.
A travesty and a cruel end for artisinal fishermen. The net result here will be the further monopolization of what should be a shared resource. In a just world, small fishermen would be encouraged-- it would result in less class inequality. Small fishermen were not the ones responsible for the slave trade on fishing boats, after all.
The displaced fishermen will almost certainly become wage slaves like the rest of us, herded into cities and leading lives of ever-increasing precarity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity) . And isn't that the point of our economic system? To privatize the commons and render independent people helpless, clawing for the stray bits of wages that our corporate managers deem us worthy of?
Unless, of course, the fishermen take their "soft loans" and use the money to become stockbrokers, high-tech entrepreneurs, bankers, doctors, and real estate developers. Can't wait to see that happen.
What a vicious and sadistic joke the bolded sentence above is.
-
Shouldn't we just worry about all the stuff they spray on it and the toxins in it ? And when I look at the corn ads on fields , is GMO not already in Thailand ? I hate monsanto , they are an evil company.
Unfortunately, there is more to worry about than simply the presence of herbicides in food, which is indeed a considerable worry.
1) There is also the patented nature of the seeds, which force farmers to buy, every year, from the big-daddy gen tech companies. That enslaves them financially, whereas before, farmers collected, traded, and used seeds from year to year for free. Small farmers are squeezed out, leading to land grabs by corporations, leading to displaced people, leading to social turmoil... suicides... a lack of independence of the body politic... wage slavery...
2) The fact that local farmers no longer save seeds means a concomitant loss of biodiversity. That's not good-- seeds have been adapted for their specific locale for millennia. A lot of historical human labor and development thus goes by the boards. Monocultures are more vulnerable to pests. Which means higher levels of pesticides are required. With the coming of climate change, we will need all the biodiversity we can manage.
3) GM seeds are often marketed as being tolerant of herbicides. But that means that an overabundance of herbicides is usually applied. Weeds adapt to the biotechnology rather quickly, developing into "superweeds". The answer to this is usually the application of more herbicides. http://www.gmfreeze.org/site_media/uploads/publications/resistance_full_Briefing_final.pdf
4) The concentration of wealth in agribusiness and gen mod seed companies corrupts the governance systems of the world. Which means more social inequality, social instability, etc.
-
This, incidentally, is the issue that the protesters should have been telling the ambassador to "go home" about. They're complaining about the wrong issue.
Truly!
-
How I hate this crap and the lying liars who promote it. In a better world, they would be in a prison for those who shamelessly rip off the people of the world.
"Thailand will be better off no matter which trade bloc it joins." "Trade pacts are always good because they decrease tariffs." These statements send my bs detector right up the flagpole.
How stupid do you have to be to swallow this? Pretty stupid. Particularly since the US had some of the highest tariffs in the world right up until WWI, a fact that Mr. Davies and those of his ilk conveniently ignore. In some cases tariffs exceeded 50 percent on imported manufactured goods. These tariffs were the main source of financing for the US government for over a century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
The first secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, favored tariffs in order to build the manufacturing capability of the new country.
So the barriers helped the US developed its own industries. Now that the US is developed, it sure as hell wants others to be denied that right.
Trade pacts are always good? Tell that to the Mexican farmers, who were driven to ruin when NAFTA was instituted and dumped cheap corn into Mexico. Mexico now borders on being a failed state. Is it any wonder that narco-trafficking is rampant? But we're supposed to believe that all trade pacts are wonderful. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/under-nafta-mexico-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain
Thai people may well want to reflect on the fact that the TPP was concocted, not by civil society groups, not by a democratic process, but entirely by representatives of the corporate world. How very convenient for them. Do you think the pact will include any safeguards for labor, human rights, environment, or citizen grievance procedures? Ha, ha, ha, ha!!! Of course it doesn't, and it won't. Because it's the product of the capitalist class, who have every intention of furthering their interests as the expense of everyone else's.
-
Read an article that farmers in the US can grow Jasmine rice at a pretty competitive price compare to Thailand.
its because the US Govt. does subsidise the whole production process, so US companies can buy below the market price, make sure no other company or country can EVER compete.
the only ones will be benefit from this are
- Monsanto as they own the Gen Seeds that can be sprayed by hardcore chemicals without die
- DuPont to keep the market fresh
- Tyson for everything meet-ish that can be eaten
just the slave-driven seafood will remain in thailand .. because free labour can't be beaten .. not even by the US.
have you see the Nestle Action plan ? there is smalltalk planned until December 2018 .. no serious action.
nobody will stop that, because its cheap and they deliver.
Subsidies are used by many countries around the world. Just like here in Thailand. For better or worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
In 2010, the EU spent €57 billion on agricultural development, of which €39 billion was spent on direct subsidies.[4] Agricultural and fisheries subsidies form over 40% of the EU budget.
.................
In 2009, Japan paid USD$46.5 billion in subsidies to its farmers,[25] and continued state support of farmers in Japan remains a controversial topic.
Subsidies are used by many countries around the world. Just like here in Thailand. For better or worse.
If you read the wiki article which you referenced, you would see that many experts argue that subsidies negatively impact developing countries. This is because, while developed countries can afford to throw bushels of money at industrial farming interests, poorer countries, being poor--duh-- cannot afford to do so.
Developing-country farmers must thus compete with subsidized farmers from the developed world-- an inherently disadvantageous situation, particularly if the crops in the developed country as the same as those the poorer country is trying to export: e.g., sugar, rice, cotton. Your article also points out that since the least developed countries have a higher percentage of their GDP coming from agriculture (37% as cited) the effects are even more pronounced.
Haiti was given as an example. The Haitian agricultural economy once produced enough rice to feed the country. With the advent of "free" trade, this is no longer true. Haiti is now, unbelievably enough, the third biggest importer of US rice. This has gutted the rural economy of Haiti, forcing many to become economic internal migrants who wind up in urban slums.
-
These idiots have no idea how much aid money US gave Thailand and continues to do so, not only that they help protect Thailand from threats and stability of the country.
These idiots have no idea how much aid money US gave Thailand and continues to do so...
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't have any idea either.
Posters in TV are rarely interested in tracking down facts to buttress their arguments. If you had googled, you would have discovered that in 2015 the US allocated a whopping $11 million dollars in aid to Thailand, which, given the size of the US economy, is about the equivalent of tossing a penny. Djibouti and Cape Verde received more, at $13 million and $14 million, respectively.
(Although some aid from various quarters of the US bureaucracy is unavailable, the $11 million figure is the best available data.)
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/aid/140811/charts-us-foreign-aid-requests-2015
The US state department breaks down foreign aid into categories. None of the Thailand aid was in the "democracy, human rights and governance" category. Rather, all the aid was in the "peace and security" category. The largest part of the aid went for "stabilization operations and security sector reform". Obviously this is intended as anti-terrorism money.
Despite the fond delusions of many US citizens (often expressed in this forum), a huge amount of US aid has the purpose of increasing economic gains for the donor. In many cases, the aid is immediately turned around as purchases from US corporations.
-
What is being lost in this discussion over the removal of "blight" is the very real problem of slum-dwellers and poverty. It is all very well (at least some think so!) to displace people and claim that we have solved the "problem". Where do they go? What is the economy doing, that it produces so many who are not part of upward mobility?
There are many slum areas in Thailand, as in other countries, and they are growing. (There is a long linear slum stretching for scores of miles alongside the rail line going to Sisaket in the Northeast, for example.) Every so often, the business leaders of a country or a region will declare it's time for "urban renewal" and "cleanup". Then the residents will carry what meager belongings they can to another more barren and less desirable spot, where they will again endeavor to establish the stability and social networks necessary for a kind of survival. Is that is what is happening here? Probably. Displaced residents the world over are almost never placed into suitable housing. It is something to think about down the road when we are enjoying the improvement in the klong...
-
The key here is how this affects wages. Assumedly there will be downward pressure. Of course this is the prescription of the neoliberal economists, along with austerity. Lower wages will mean that the economy will become more "efficient", as "labor discipline" is "increased".
As profits increasingly flow to the most wealthy capitalists, the global socioeconomic system is facing crisis (after crisis after crisis), inequalities increase, and social conditions degrade. And not just in the developing countries, either. Workers in the richest countries are facing increasing precarity, as well as longer hours and fewer benefits.
Can the people of the world find a solution to the pillaging of entire societies? Remember, it is not pre-ordained that things be this way. The system we labor under is a human creation. There can be no doubt that humans have mastered the ability to produce the material goods that should in principle make life easier, more fulfilling, intellectually and personally rewarding. That's in principle.
Stay tuned...
-
"She raised the example of Denmark, which raised the retirement age to 75 years to cope with an average life expectancy of 90 years. Thailand should do the same because Thais retire at 55 on average but their life expectancy is about 75 years, which means the government will have to pay for pensions for 20 years."
Well, yesss, if Thailand did like Denmark and had its people work till 75, when they expire, that would certainly solve the pension-funding problem.
But this is regression to an earlier, more brutal time. Retirement was a concept that was fought for for centuries. It may be disappearing, and not just in Thailand, but in the developed countries. Is that what we deserve, and what is the promise of capitalism anyway? Given that we produce more goods and stuff than ever, shouldn't workers at least be guaranteed a retirement, assuming they live to retirement age?
-
Just one person's opinion.
Obama:
--is a war criminal (drones)
--has followed in the footsteps of Bush II in embracing policies of violence which have further destablized entire continents
--is a neoliberal who has enabled bankers to escape justice
--has not broken with Israel over its war crimes in Gaza
--has presided over a regime that has increased social inequality
--has clasped corporations tightly to his bosom in a love embrace
--will, like the rest of US presidents, have a very comfortable retirement with book revenues and speaker fees
And now he wants to lecture us lower-class peons on democracy... ?
-
Thammasat students have been a thorn in the side of authoritarian governments for decades.
They have reason to be wary of authoritarianism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thammasat_University_massacre
Kudos to them for what certainly appears to be a principled stand for democracy.
Keep on...
-
Wow! More a century in jail for money laundering. Imagine how the cowboy global banks would clean up their act if their bosses got the same short shrift.
HSBC was convicted of money laundering for drugs gangs and terrorist groups and although the bank given a rap-over-the-wrist fine (promptly passed on to their customers, of course) the top dogs got off Scot free.
Be interesting to see if there are any prosecutions of bosses from the banks which washed this Edam-eater's grubby money. Don't hold your breath.
Wow! More a century in jail for money laundering. Imagine how the cowboy global banks would clean up their act if their bosses got the same short shrift.
HSBC was convicted of money laundering for drugs gangs and terrorist groups and although the bank given a rap-over-the-wrist fine (promptly passed on to their customers, of course) the top dogs got off Scot free.
Not sure what crimes this Dutch person committed, if any. But your comment on the money-laundering by HSBC is brilliant and completely on point. As you say, there was no prosecution of the top bankers involved.
There never is.
-
Mexico is leading the way to fight "Big Sugar"
How one of the most obese countries on earth took on the soda giants...In fact, Mexicans drink more soda than nearly anyone else in the world; their top three daily sources of calories in 2012 were all high-calorie drinks. Mexico also has by far the world’s highest death rate from chronic diseases caused by consumption of sugary drinks – nearly triple that of the runner-up, South Africa. In other words, excessive consumption of soda kills twice as many Mexicans as trade in the other kind of coke that Mexico is famous for.http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/03/obese-soda-sugar-tax-mexico
This is a long article, but it is very worthwhile. Thanks for posting this, Jingthing. One interesting bit in it concerns cultural appropriation (of Coca-Cola by indigenous people in Chiapas, of all things!). The effect of soft drinks on the Mexican nation has been nothing short of catastrophic, and the Thais, and all of us, can learn something from their experience.
Efforts are being made to convince Mexican people to return to their pre-industrial diet-- something that Thais might wish to consider, as mentioned by posters above.
-
Posters in TV can sure be vicious.
-
"The police reform may take five or 10 years or more than that," Prayut said. "Maybe the next government will have to deal with that."
Well, at least he's being realistic. But does that mean we have five or ten more years of this government to look forward to?
-
Most of us have only the sketchiest knowledge of the history of the southern conflict. That includes myself, but I am working on it.
The disbanding of two crucial crisis-management institutions during the Thaksin years was a critical turning point. One was the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre, which employed local leaders and trained others in Malay languages in their efforts to cool things off. People had a way to express grievances down to the village level. The military/intelligence partner in this was CPM 43, a military group responsible for providing security.
But both of these groups were created in 1981 during the premiership of Prem Tinsulanonda, who was born in Songkhla. The Democrats were strong in the South-- they carried those provinces, not the PTP-- and Thaksin's motivation in disbanding the groups may have been politically motivated, both as a way of dislodging the influence of Prem, and in rewarding his police friends by assigning responsibilities to them. He may also have simply felt that the insurgency was not political, but simply related to criminal organizations. Whatever the reason for Thaksin's ending of the successful program, the consequences have been tragic.
Anand was later appointed by Thaksin to address the issue and came up with recommendations in 2005-2006 that included the acknowledgment of Pattani-Malay as a working language in the region. (Assumedly this would have meant that the native language could be used in schools, which was a long-time sore point.) However, the recommendations were vigorously opposed by Prem, who said that Thai people should all speak Thai, etc. Again, it seems his possible, if not likely, that his opposition was based on political reasons, since he himself had previously implemented a soft-hands policy. Anand's plan went nowhere. http://www.mkenology.com/2012/05/history-of-patani.html
This piece, written by Francesca Lawe-Davies in 2005, was prescient. Her seven criticisms go far beyond what I mention here, and include use of excessive force, failure to display sensitivity or attempt justice, and failure to acknowledge failure.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-east-asia/thailand/op-eds/thaksins-timebomb.aspx
BBC says Thailand is among 7 top places in the world to live after retiring
in Thailand News
Posted
Because none of us really is in a bubble, I guess. If we think we aren't inextricably interconnected, well... We can pretend, but that's a sort of senility, and who wants to be senile? (Obviously, many do. Look at the cocoons that the world's wealthy have created for themselves. Still, not such a great way to be, at least in my view.) And it's a lot more fun to try to be aware, despite our obvious human limitations, shortcomings, and outright failures.