Thailand Warns Angelina Jolie Over Comments On Rohingyas

[Mobi]

I stand corrected Mobi but how come the only name that rings a bell with me regards all these UN[insert any letters here] goodwill ambassadors is Lady Di? I mean Georgio Armani <deleted>???!!!!

Since elder statesman aint got bling or are remotely photogenic (sorry Jimmy Carter), why is Tony Blair some 'global ambassador' to the sh!tstorm that never ends? Maybe give The Schürzenjäger a crack at that? Are they sexy enough?

All about the sound bite and the media moment... blink and it's all forgotten, including Angelina's admittedly more ardent efforts.

Maybe The Schürzenjäger should do a double act with Angelina, with our Tone as guest guitar performer

(What a name - I'm thinking of changing my TV name to Schürzenjäger )

[animatic]

I think that there are a lot of issues for Miss Jolie to comment in her own country like water boarding, Gitmo, unlawful arrests, denying legal assistance to suspects, special courts for so called suspects of terrorism, kidnapping, lack of health care, the list is almost endless. In the French language there is an nice quote for people like her

"sois belle et tais toit"

Further more I advise all American citizens to modest their comments about human rights abuse, especially for SEA. Their track record in SEA is far from spotless. Every year ten thousands of handicapped baby's are still born in Vietnam due to the spraying of chemicals by the US air force. Not to mention their responsibility for the destruction of 2 peaceful countries Laos and Cambodia.

"Look beautiful and be quiet" or "Be pretty and shut up"... ( mod's don't edit this, it fits too well.)

As I understand it she has been outspoken against that laundry list of American abuses also.

She was barely even born when those war abuses took place. I was but had no say.

So if she concentrates on things NOW, of her generation I can't blame her.

I can't take responsibility for the doings of Nixon, before I was old enough to TRY to vote him out.

The sins of the father are visited on the son... by what right? Accident of birth?

Secondly she is UN sponsored for refugee causes, and so it is quite valid for her to comment.

And yes the Hmong should have been included.

Even if the technocrats in charge of mis-handling the situation take umbrage.

Why does the stupidities of governments before my ability to control them,

for that matter since I can vote, suddenly invalidate my right to comment

on anything else in the world?

Henry i wouldn't say you can't comment on Congo issues,

even thought we know Belgain history in the subject.

You see my point?

[Plus]

What did she say EXACTLY that was out of line? And if she was as you say "performing her official duties" why should she mind her own business?

1. She advised Thailand on how to deal with Rohingyas

2. Her business scope lies within UN mandate. The UN doesn't have any business with Rohingyas yet.

[jdinasia]

What did she say EXACTLY that was out of line? And if she was as you say "performing her official duties" why should she mind her own business?

1. She advised Thailand on how to deal with Rohingyas

2. Her business scope lies within UN mandate. The UN doesn't have any business with Rohingyas yet.

Plus ... "exactly"

She said nothing wrong ... and was within her purview.

To publicly hope that the Thais would be as generous with the Rohingyas isn't advising them on how to deal with them. I am unaware of the UN policy on the Rohingya BUT the refugee group has a mandate to speak out for ALL refugees.

(Personally I see this as an illegal immigration issue, that does not excuse some of the things that have happened. )

[Scott]

I am sure that Ms. Jolie is not the least bit concerned about getting a warning from the Thai gov't. I am also reasonably sure that she knew what she was doing when she brought the issue up.

The point is that the Thai gov't needs to respect the conventions to which it is a signatory and international laws relating to those in distress on the high seas. Thailand certainly does not have to agree to 'take' these people and they certainly can prevail on the UNHCR and the international community to cough up the money and the resources to help deal with the problem.

One problem is that it is the military that is in control (or out of control) and the military is not a good group for humanitarian efforts. Logistics, yes, but humanitarian, they are not.

Unfortunately the gov't has to 'cover-up' for the military.

[freddiefunk]

As you noted, her intentions are ambiguous. The quote you provided is hardly inflammatory at face value. Why not take your own advice and wait until all the facts are known until making a rush to judgement with regards to AJ's intentions?

She said what she said and was clearly out of line.

Thais told her it was inappropriate, that's all there is to it.

She didn't mean any harm, just a careless remark, but she should stop talking out of ther ass, it's good for great many other things.

Another issue was that they visited camps run by the Interior Ministry, not the UN, thus she had no mandate, as UN's goodwill ambassador, to comment on them. Again, no harm done, but she should mind her business while performing her official duties.

Overall, it's not so easy to jump right in and solve all the worlds problems. Talks is cheap, she can talk all she wants but not as UN representative. There's a limit to what the UN can do and she should be aware of it.

Hope it doesn't discourage her forever.

I didn't know it was out of line to suggest people behave with generosity towards one another... clearly, I misinterpreted the values of LOS and the message of the "Amazing Thailand" campaign.

One has to be pretty desperate to interpret ill-intent from her statement. Again, I ask, why not wait until the facts are known about what she meant? Why the haste to judge? ("me thinks thou doth protest too much"...quote may not be 100% accurate, but I think you get the point)

Finally, I want to point out that you continue to make crude, vulgar, and insulting remarks about other people.

she should stop talking out of ther ass,

There should be a law to ban people from making such insulting remarks.

[Plus]

She said nothing wrong ... and was within her purview.

There's no official UN positions on how Thailand should deal with Rohingyas, not "better than", nor "more accomodating" - nothing. She wasn't authorised to give any advice.

I am sure that Ms. Jolie is not the least bit concerned about getting a warning from the Thai gov't

If she doesn't care how the host country that carries most of the burden feels about her remarks, she shouldn't be dispensing her advice here.

I hope she doesn't turn into a "seagull ambassador" - flies in, shits all over, and leaves.

Her job is not to impress the West but to get problems solved, and pissing off the host country is a bad start that achieves exactly the opposite of what he was hired to do.

[jdinasia]

Plus ---

I am sure if she wasn't within her purview she will be dismissed by the UN as a goodwill ambassador (how do you know what she was authorized to say or not? .. perhaps the UN folks thought that a word from AJ might be better rec'd than an admonition from the UN)

Now .. what are her EXACT words that you disagree with?

[Priceless]

Maybe Brad and Angie can adopt the refugees as their 'special children', they have between them earnt enough money to donate millions to re-house and help educate these poor people.

But Thailand is right, you have to be cruel to be kind, and once word makes its way back to the refugee camps in India and Burma that their people are not being welcommed they will soon stop comming.

Look at the problems they have had in the Canaries with Blacks swimming over from Africa!...their soft hearts have cost them plenty dollar!

I'm sorry, but I have this thing about FACTS The African mainland is ~100 km from the nearest Canary Island (Fuerteventura), with no islands in between. That's about three times the width of the Strait of Dover I guess those "Blacks" are pretty outstanding swimmers (or that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about).

/ Priceless

[Steve2UK]

I hope Thai handlers have given her a copy of Arakan project report saying that much of the alleged mistreatement is lies told by traffickers themselves.

ThaiVisa members may like to see "a copy of Arakan project report" for themselves - such as it is:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rohingya-advoc...90209-82b6.html

I'll see what I can do about e-mailing it to Ms Jolie's agent.

[Jimmeee]

I find it amazing that the last few governments of this country where conflict-avoidance and keeping face means so much has so little clue of public relations and such an abundant ability to make themselves like complete idiots.

Trying to reprimand the UNHCR and a goodwill ambassador so obvious in the center of the public eye without backing it up with hard facts that nothing bad happened to the boat people must be one of the stupidest things the Thai government currently can do.

I nearly get the impression they actually try to sabotage their country intentionally, as with the airport closure.

Well said. Unfortunately my blood boils so im not able to be as clear and to the point as you. But Im soooooo looking forward to seeing Thailand deeeeply regret its current attitudes and stupidity. And Boy is it only a matter of time. No need to intervene ... they are quite happily doing it to themselves. (ah you gave me the power to be clear!)

[Samuian]

Jolie said she hoped Thailand would be "just as generous to the Rohingya refugees who are now arriving on their shores."

What does it even mean? Set up permanent camps for them?

Just like that?

While the ISOC stated that they are short in funds for such an operation, so said Mr.Abhisit, that there is a problem with fund allocation for such purposes!

While in the meantime the findings of the SPEAKER of the Arakan Project are "gone with the wind" such damage can be done by celebrieties!

Rohingya advocates say tales of sea tragedy were exaggerated

CLAIMS that more than 20 Rohingya asylum-seekers died during a perilous sea journey to Indonesia after being rounded up by the Thai military were deliberately exaggerated, according to an aid group.

The Arakan Project, which advocates for the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group from Burma, said the misleading account which gained headlines around the world was made by a people-smuggler on the vessel, the only one of 198 Rohingya on board who could be understood because he spoke Malay.

But the group has since interviewed four of the genuine boat people who landed in Indonesia last week after fleeing alleged repression in Burma. They used a translator who spoke the men’s obscure Bengali dialect.

While rebutting aspects of the initial account, their testimony still detailed brutal beatings by the Thais and confirmed that the men were set adrift in a flimsy wooden craft by the Thais during January.

At the time there was international condemnation about earlier instances of pushing Rohingya boat people back out to sea, and the Thai Government was insisting such behaviour was not part of its policy.

The false claims were first made by Indonesian naval officers based on the testimony of the only Malay-speaker on board the vessel, a man named Rahmat. Malay is almost identical to Bahasa Indonesia.

Rahmat then gave interviews with the international media, telling how, as the boat drifted for almost three weeks, one person died every day from starvation or dehydration.

full article here:

Arakan Project:

[henryalleman]

Henry i wouldn't say you can't comment on Congo issues,

even thought we know Belgain history in the subject.

You see my point?

I would like to confirm you that the track record of Belgium and especially the Belgian Royal family in Congo Rwanda and Burundi is scandalous. Leopold II the second king was personaly responsible for the killing of approximately 10 million natives.

I really like to describe in extensive all the atrocities of 70 Belgian colonialism, and even the political assassination in Post colonial times. I even proclaim that Belgium is not even a democracy and can explain why, but I fear it will be regarded by the moderators.

Look my avatar and you know what I think about this surrealistic country.

Sorry to be

[ballpoint]

I find it amazing that the last few governments of this country where conflict-avoidance and keeping face means so much has so little clue of public relations and such an abundant ability to make themselves like complete idiots.

Trying to reprimand the UNHCR and a goodwill ambassador so obvious in the center of the public eye without backing it up with hard facts that nothing bad happened to the boat people must be one of the stupidest things the Thai government currently can do.

I nearly get the impression they actually try to sabotage their country intentionally, as with the airport closure.

Well said. Unfortunately my blood boils so im not able to be as clear and to the point as you. But Im soooooo looking forward to seeing Thailand deeeeply regret its current attitudes and stupidity. And Boy is it only a matter of time. No need to intervene ... they are quite happily doing it to themselves. (ah you gave me the power to be clear!)

You must be very happy that the suffering of the Rohingya is allowing you to pursue your own little vendetta against Thailand. By the way, you might need to get someone to look at your 'e" and "o" keys, they appear to get stuck occasionally.

[kowneeoh]

What arrogance ! "Warning" someone in democratic country for exercising their right to free speech ! Thank God Thai Visa is'nt like that !

[Scott]

I was just watching CNN (7:30 p.m.). The Thai PM was on and admitted that they had towed Rohingyas out to sea and set them adrift.

It's interesting that Angeline just touches on the topic and suddenly some movement by the gov't. Maybe just a coincidence, but I think not.

I don't think the attitude toward the Rohingyas is likely to change, but hopefully their treatment will improve.

[A_Traveller]

There seems to some confusion herein [and it must be said in the minds of the Thai government] about the UNHCR's position re the Rohingyas. In the 2000 report The State of the World's Refugees the UNHCR outlines their long term commitment and involvement in this issue, including government level activities [albeit grudgingly]. As I have repeatedly noted here, there were crass exaggerations about numbers and deaths, but there was sufficient evidence to show that there had been harsh treatment by the Thai authorities. However, it is wrong to suggest that UNHCR has no prior involvement, nor that they had no 'mandate'.

At the end of the 1970s, UNHCR became involved in a complex and controversial repatriation operation on Bangladesh’s eastern border. This involved the Rohingyas, a Muslim minority from Arakan state in largely Buddhist Burma, who had taken refuge in Bangladesh.

Burma had a long history of conflict and migration amongst its diverse peoples. Almost immediately after Burma gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1948, tension increased between the Rohingyas and the local Rakhine population in Arakan. The Burmese government claimed that the Rohingyas were relatively recent migrants from the Indian sub-continent and the Burmese constitution therefore did not include them among the indigenous groups qualifying for citizenship.

This marginalized the Rohingyas and made it extremely difficult for them to gain access to basic social, educational and health services. In March 1978, the Burmese immigration authorities launched operation Nagamin Sit Sin Yay (King Dragon Operation), the stated aim of which was to scrutinize systematically the status of individuals living in border areas and to ‘take actions against foreigners’ who had ‘filtered into the country illegally’. The effect was to target the Rohingyas, who were not regarded as citizens.

Widespread arrests and expulsions followed and by July 1978, large numbers of Rohingyas had fled into Bangladesh. Estimates as to the actual numbers varied. The Bangladesh government claimed that more than 250,000 Rohingyas had sought refuge, while the Burmese authorities put the figure at less than 150,000. The arrival of so many refugees put considerable pressure on densely populated, impoverished Bangladesh and strained relations between the two countries.

These pressures and other Muslim countries’ concerns over the Rohingyas’ treatment led the Bangladesh government to appeal to the United Nations for assistance. Many of these refugees lived in pitiful conditions, and the government insisted that the country could not continue to shelter them indefinitely. As a result, a large UN relief programme was launched and coordinated by UNHCR from May 1978. In all, 13 refugee camps were established. As the crisis eased, Burma and Bangladesh sought a permanent solution to the refugee problem. Neither country was at that time (or has since become) party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.

A bilateral agreement between the two countries, to which UNHCR was not a party, was concluded in July 1978, providing for the Rohingyas’ repatriation. There was much opposition to return among the refugees, and serious clashes between the refugees and Bangladesh officials were reported, resulting in hundreds of deaths. Deteriorating conditions in the camps, the arrest of a number of Rohingya leaders, and a reduction in food rations were other factors which led refugees to return. By the end of 1979, more than 180,000 had returned to Burma.

In an attempt to improve the conditions of the returnees, UNHCR spent US$7 million on projects to assist their reintegration. With only a limited presence, UNHCR could not, however, monitor the situation closely or ensure the returning Rohingyas were treated fairly by the authorities. Discrimination against them continued. In 1982, a new citizenship law created three classes of citizenship but it remained extremely difficult for Rohingyas to obtain citizenship.

In 1991–92, Rohingyas fled once more from northern Rakhine state (as Arakan had been renamed). Some 250,000 people were registered and given shelter in 20 camps in Bangladesh. The repatriation of these refugees to Myanmar, as the country was renamed in 1989, was again controversial. Returns in 1992–93 were carried out under another bilateral Bangladesh–Myanmar agreement, from which UNHCR was again excluded. In 1993, the Myanmar government finally agreed to allow UNHCR to have a presence in Rakhine state. In April 1994, once this was established, UNHCR facilitated the voluntary repatriation of refugees from Bangladesh. At the time, human rights organizations strongly criticized UNHCR, questioning whether the repatriation was truly voluntary and arguing that the situation had not improved sufficiently to allow for the Rohingyas’ safe return. While acknowledging the vulnerability of the Rohingyas on both sides of the border, UNHCR’s assessment was that in most cases they were better off in their homes in Myanmar than in camps in Bangladesh.

Thousands of Rohingyas again fled to Bangladesh in 1996 and 1997. At first, Bangladeshi forces forcibly repatriated hundreds of them, but this was largely stopped after intervention by UNHCR. Since establishing a presence in northern Rakhine state, UNHCR has carried out a number of projects aimed at facilitating reintegration and improving basic infrastructure. It has established a dialogue with all levels of the Myanmar government, pressing them to address the question of citizenship for the Rohingyas and to put an end to forced labour practices. Of those who fled to Bangladesh in the early 1990s, around 200,000 had returned by December 1999, leaving some 22,000 in Bangladesh. But even though many of the causes which prompted mass departures in earlier years may have diminished, the plight of the Rohingyas in Myanmar remains a matter

Regards

PS The Report is available on the UNHCR website, the extract above is from chapter 3 Rupture in South Asia.

[jdinasia]

I was just watching CNN (7:30 p.m.). The Thai PM was on and admitted that they had towed Rohingyas out to sea and set them adrift.

It's interesting that Angeline just touches on the topic and suddenly some movement by the gov't. Maybe just a coincidence, but I think not.

I don't think the attitude toward the Rohingyas is likely to change, but hopefully their treatment will improve.

Abhisit spoke to the Rohingya issue BEFORE Jolie spoke out.

[SmugFarangBore]

You'll find that this isn't some issue that suddenly appeared last month as soon as Abhisit came into power, but is the continuation of a policy put in place by Samak. But you have just jumped on the bandwagon because you see it as a way of nailing Abhisit. It has all been covered in the other recent Rohingya thread, and others dating back a year ago. Of course, you won't be interested in those because Samak was in charge then. But here's the link any way...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Samak-Rohing...nd-t177347.html

Also, from Human Rights Watch, Arakan, March last year:

"Human Rights Watch(HRW),Arakan has drawn its attention with grave shock to the news of above published in the Bangkok Post dated March 29,2008. It is also learnt that relation between Mr. Samak, Prime minister of Thailand and Than Shwe, PM, Burma is improving since recent days on the basis of mutual economic interest amid severe economic sanctions on Burma Junta government by USA and EU since Junta`s crack donw on Monks peaceful protests. At a result 31 protesters were shot dead and hundreds were arrested. Now Mr. Samak is ignoring the economic sanctions and Burma People`s interest and cooperating Than Shwe, the human slaughter and power monger.

Moreover, Samak`s decision to put Rohingyas in a deserted Island ( tough place ) is totally against humanity. There are different religious and different races of people from Burma taking shelter as refugees in Thailand . Why Samak has chosen only Rohingyas to put in tough place ? Why such a religious discrimination was generated in the mind and conscience of Mr. Samak even though Rohingya in Thailand are small in quantity ? It is suspected that Gen. Than Shwe planned to eliminate Rohingya Muslims not only from Burma but also from globe. That's why a question is arising that Than Shwe is trying to exploit the good relationship between he and Samak. It is perceived that Samak is going to materialize the dream of Than Shwe and possibility of silent genocides time to time on such deserted Island"

And, The Guardian, from late last year:

"In Burma, the Rohingya are considered stateless with few rights. Their circumstances have prompted many to seek a better life in prosperous Muslim Malaysia. Most slip into Bangladesh, where people smugglers organize their passage for about £200. Boats packed with migrants set off during October and April, when the seas are calmer. Middlemen in Thailand pay off immigration authorities then take the travelers by land to Malaysia. Thailand turned a blind eye to the traffic, as the Rohingya never planned to stay. But last March the then prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, announced a crackdown on the Rohingya. In December, the new policy of pushing boats out to sea seemed to take effect. The Thai navy intercepts the migrants and hands them to the army, but it seems the army detains them and uses its own boats to push migrants out to sea. By the end of 2005, the UN refugee agency recorded 13,000 Rohingya in Malaysia. Up to 7,000 are estimated to have slipped into the country since, bringing the total to about 20,000."

For a more up to date article, I suggest you get hold of a copy of this weeks Economist, which also lays the blame squarely with Samak. You're correct that the global news media is covering this story, but not in the way you would have it.

No rants, just facts.

Yes, that's all very interesting, but...

You've still not provided any proof to back up your statement that the recent documented human rights abuses by the Thai military under the watch of the current Thai government are "looking somewhat exaggerated."

"While rebutting aspects of the initial account, their testimony still detailed brutal beatings by the Thais and confirmed that the men were set adrift in a flimsy wooden craft by the Thais during January.

At the time there was international condemnation about earlier instances of pushing Rohingya boat people back out to sea, and the Thai Government was insisting such behaviour was not part of its policy."

Arakan project report

[ballpoint]

You'll find that this isn't some issue that suddenly appeared last month as soon as Abhisit came into power, but is the continuation of a policy put in place by Samak. But you have just jumped on the bandwagon because you see it as a way of nailing Abhisit. It has all been covered in the other recent Rohingya thread, and others dating back a year ago. Of course, you won't be interested in those because Samak was in charge then. But here's the link any way...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Samak-Rohing...nd-t177347.html

Also, from Human Rights Watch, Arakan, March last year:

"Human Rights Watch(HRW),Arakan has drawn its attention with grave shock to the news of above published in the Bangkok Post dated March 29,2008. It is also learnt that relation between Mr. Samak, Prime minister of Thailand and Than Shwe, PM, Burma is improving since recent days on the basis of mutual economic interest amid severe economic sanctions on Burma Junta government by USA and EU since Junta`s crack donw on Monks peaceful protests. At a result 31 protesters were shot dead and hundreds were arrested. Now Mr. Samak is ignoring the economic sanctions and Burma People`s interest and cooperating Than Shwe, the human slaughter and power monger.

Moreover, Samak`s decision to put Rohingyas in a deserted Island ( tough place ) is totally against humanity. There are different religious and different races of people from Burma taking shelter as refugees in Thailand . Why Samak has chosen only Rohingyas to put in tough place ? Why such a religious discrimination was generated in the mind and conscience of Mr. Samak even though Rohingya in Thailand are small in quantity ? It is suspected that Gen. Than Shwe planned to eliminate Rohingya Muslims not only from Burma but also from globe. That's why a question is arising that Than Shwe is trying to exploit the good relationship between he and Samak. It is perceived that Samak is going to materialize the dream of Than Shwe and possibility of silent genocides time to time on such deserted Island"

And, The Guardian, from late last year:

"In Burma, the Rohingya are considered stateless with few rights. Their circumstances have prompted many to seek a better life in prosperous Muslim Malaysia. Most slip into Bangladesh, where people smugglers organize their passage for about £200. Boats packed with migrants set off during October and April, when the seas are calmer. Middlemen in Thailand pay off immigration authorities then take the travelers by land to Malaysia. Thailand turned a blind eye to the traffic, as the Rohingya never planned to stay. But last March the then prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, announced a crackdown on the Rohingya. In December, the new policy of pushing boats out to sea seemed to take effect. The Thai navy intercepts the migrants and hands them to the army, but it seems the army detains them and uses its own boats to push migrants out to sea. By the end of 2005, the UN refugee agency recorded 13,000 Rohingya in Malaysia. Up to 7,000 are estimated to have slipped into the country since, bringing the total to about 20,000."

For a more up to date article, I suggest you get hold of a copy of this weeks Economist, which also lays the blame squarely with Samak. You're correct that the global news media is covering this story, but not in the way you would have it.

No rants, just facts.

Yes, that's all very interesting, but...

You've still not provided any proof to back up your statement that the recent documented human rights abuses by the Thai military under the watch of the current Thai government are "looking somewhat exaggerated."

"While rebutting aspects of the initial account, their testimony still detailed brutal beatings by the Thais and confirmed that the men were set adrift in a flimsy wooden craft by the Thais during January.

At the time there was international condemnation about earlier instances of pushing Rohingya boat people back out to sea, and the Thai Government was insisting such behaviour was not part of its policy."

Arakan project report

1. Try scrolling up the page and looking at post 162.

2. Since it is now evident that pushing them back into the sea was the policy of the previous government, the current government is well within its rights to declare it is not their policy to do so. It now looks like they are taking steps to prove this.

3. Apparently, Abhisit has now confirmed that, in the past, Rohingya were towed out to sea and set adrift. Some of this may well have taken place shortly after he was made PM, but he is no more responsible for it than Obama is for those still held prisoner in Guantanamo Bay. He has acted like any competent world leader would. He stated it was not his government's policy to do so, but he would hold an enquiry. He has looked at the facts and confirmed that yes, past government policy was to do so. One would hope that now he will put a stop to it. One would also hope the perpetrators will be punished, and that includes the enactors of that policy. As I said before, prepare for more charges to be laid on Samak et al. This is increasingly looking like another nail in the coffin of the PPP government.

Your argument here, like so many before, consists entirely of what if's, maybe's, negativities and assumptions.

Edited February 12, 2009 by ballpoint

[WaiWai]

All about the sound bite and the media moment... blink and it's all forgotten

Precisely.

Tomorrow , another "star" in another country (not their own country ever, of course) with more suffering people.

Many people from whence our recent visitors came will simply remain within their own terms of reference, thinking, "Oh, what a benevolent person Star #8754 is!". Little else will have much meaning.

In fact, Salma Hayek (sp.?) may already outshone our passing Stars .

Edited February 12, 2009 by WaiWai

[exexpat]

I am really disappointed in the number of expats here who are condemning Jolie. Maybe many are jealous of her popularity, stardom, whatever. I know people think its a publicity stunt, but so what? If she really wanted more publicity, she could just show her breasts! Jolie is merely bringing up an issue which there are people being killed. How is that a bad thing? Is it WRONG to bring up that people are being killed? You wouldn't think its wrong if it was happening to YOU, and someone stuck up for YOU. Get a life people!!!!

As for Rohingya, Viets, and other minorities who happened to be involved, I do see that there are times when minorities are treated fairly, and times when they are not. I know its up to the Thai nation and people to be hospitable, and like in every other nation, hospitality is not boundless. There is a limit. But, people should TALK about this, not simply shove under the rug. That is what Jolie is advocating, she didn't require that Thailand provide 123,232 blankets, or 234 mattresses in 23 camps, she is merely advocating DISCUSSION. It's so easy to close your eyes when its not your family, not your children, not YOU. Problem is Thailand is a lawless nation in many aspects and when laws don't curb abuses of power, then problems like this happen. I don't care if its Thai, African culture or any other culture, culture or ways of doing is such a FALSE EXCUSE. I am so sick of hearing its not the Thai way, the Asian way, the European way, you don't understand. I do understand, a beating is a beating, a death a death, whether its Chinese or Brazilian. Don't tell me because of a certain CULTURE people have the RIGHT to KILL!! Physical abusers need to be dealt with no matter what culture. That goes for Thai men who abuse their wives too, I don't care if Thai men THINK wives are property, did anyone ever bother to ask the wives if they feel they should be mere objects??!! <deleted> CULTURE, ABUSE IS ABUSE NO MATTER WHAT, AN ATTACK ON AN INNOCENT VICTIM IS NEVER JUSTIFIED. EVER.

Again, this is not saying all Thais are bad. Most Thais are not bad. But a few rotten apples do create lots of harm, and if let run wild, give Thailand a bad reputation. Sorry, but Thailand already has a reputation among Vietnamese as vicious people. Its not true, but a few bad apples poison the whole lot. Such people need to be dealt with, lawlessness and impunity can't go on forever. Someone has to step in, shout, make a scene, whatever, and protect those who can't protect themselves.

American abuses have nothing to do with this issue. They need to be dealt with too. Justice is justice and there are no people above it. But the excuse that one group's abuse is justified because another group also committed abuses is NOT valid reasoning. Abuse is abuse. All groups and peoples abuses are not justified, or more justified simply because of other existing abuse. All of it is equally horrible to the person(s) involved, and that is undeniable.

Edited February 12, 2009 by exexpat

[ClaytonSeymour]

Do you want them going to the UK, Australia, US etc?

No!

No I thought not. So, what to do? Send them on? Send them to the Muslem insurgents in the south of Thailand? Send them back?

In my opinion, every country has a right to protect their borders in a manner which they deem appropriate to the problem. A long time ago, I commented on a similar subject, but involving different countries; the post was deleted. On that basis I see no point in making any further response to your question.

How many Brits would like to send teh Muslems in the UK back to Arabic states?

Please rephrase; The Indian Sub-Continent would more appropriate when discussing the UK.

[samgrowth]

I was just watching CNN (7:30 p.m.). The Thai PM was on and admitted that they had towed Rohingyas out to sea and set them adrift.

It's interesting that Angeline just touches on the topic and suddenly some movement by the gov't. Maybe just a coincidence, but I think not.

I don't think the attitude toward the Rohingyas is likely to change, but hopefully their treatment will improve.

Abhisit spoke to the Rohingya issue BEFORE Jolie spoke out.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/...sion/index.html

CNN website have been updated.

[exexpat]

People get so worked up when GROUPS, NATIONALITIES are involved. Let's focus on individual people. Jolie personally hasn't abused anyone to my knowledge.... She isn't going after all Thais, she is merely saying that specific people who abused their power need to stop the abuse. PM Abihisit recognized this and has stated that it isn't clear at the moment who is responsible, but that he will look into the matter. I think the PM has responded sensibly and honestly. But atleast the topic is being looked into instead of ignored. Yes, there are tons of other issues too that need to be addressed. But, this is a good precedent in my opinion, thanks to Miss Jolie and the UN, regardless of how much/little they plan to do/help the Rohingyas or where they are sent.

People who claim they don't want these people in their country are no better than the Burmese generals who evicted them and called them "ugly ogres". We should all make room for the unfortunate, if living in Thailand has taught you anything, it should be sympathy for the downtrodden.

Edited February 12, 2009 by exexpat

[sawasdee2549]

Agreed, this is all very embarrassing for Thailand, but comments like these are deplorable and reminiscent of "The U.N. is not my father".

One would hope for educated Thais to be more-aware of international expectations, on both the proper treatment of refugees, and on freedom-of-expression.

Educated Thai's....er have yu been here a long time? bit of a joke comment really.

Educated to what standard? and where? have taught here ovr 9 years.pleases define "educated"

You pay the money , you get the credentials (evenif you never show your face)

Educated Thai's.,,, please rephrase.

[sriracha john]

Agreed, this is all very embarrassing for Thailand, but comments like these are deplorable and reminiscent of "The U.N. is not my father".

One would hope for educated Thais to be more-aware of international expectations, on both the proper treatment of refugees, and on freedom-of-expression.

Educated Thai's....er have yu been here a long time? bit of a joke comment really.

Educated to what standard? and where? have taught here ovr 9 years.pleases define "educated"

You pay the money , you get the credentials (evenif you never show your face)

Educated Thai's.,,, please rephrase.

You're consistent, I'll give you that.

5 posts.

4 Thai-bashing posts and 1 deleted.

[Plus]

There seems to some confusion herein [and it must be said in the minds of the Thai government] about the UNHCR's position re the Rohingyas. In the 2000 report The State of ...

2000 report is irrelevant to the UN and Jolie's reaction to the recent incidents. At this point, afaik, the UNHRC is in the process of discovery what has actually happened.

That's how it works - first you determine the facts, than issue advice, condemn, praise, whatever. Jolie jumped the gun. "Loose lips", as they called her in yesterday's Xpress.

I am sure if she wasn't within her purview she will be dismissed by the UN as a goodwill ambassador..

She won't be dismissed for one remark but sure as hel_l local UN staff told her about the sensitive issue of telling other countries what to do when she presents herself as UN ambassador.

Jolie is merely bringing up an issue which there are people being killed

And that's the problem - no one is being killed, if Jolie thought she was trying to stop killings, she was talking nonsense. If she acts as UN ambassador she shouldn't rely on newspapers to form her opinions. Media got the whole thing wrong this time and the UN itself hasn't formed an opinion yet.

Loose lips.

[magicmantom]

THIS HAS REALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH JULIE'S VISIT HERE...I WAS TRYING TO ACCESS THE STORY ON BYE-BYE TAKSIN...HAVE A LOOK AT THE PICTURES WHEN I HIT THE LINK FOR THE TACKY STORY I GET THIS SCREEN WHATS UP WITH THAT...IS HE STILL I CONTROL OF THE THE WHOLE COUNTRY?

[LomSak27]

And that's the problem - no one is being killed

Technically correct but also disingenuous Plus. The refugees were beaten then towed out into open water with little water or food and set adrift, which is why a couple hundred died. Claiming our hands are clean is bull.

Thailand newspapers and media love to howl at other countries behavior, what’s the big deal? If you like to throw rocks better stop living in a glass house.