Thailand Warns Angelina Jolie Over Comments On Rohingyas

[WaiWai]

Why is the UN buying in to the crass commercialism of "famous is good"? I don't think this enlarges the audience; I think it reduces significant issues to 30 seconds of Our Agelina doing good works ... somewhere ... Taiwan, is it ? for those who live in one or another state of delusion.

??? I wouldn't know if this strategy of the UN is effective. What is your proposition?

No proposition. Just leave people who are just famous for being famous out of UN activities. Some celebs/well-known people may also have the necessary expertise, but it's highly unlikely unless they spend their time 24/7 in a particular area. Use the experts. I don't think we should be encouraging our children to adulate film stars and regard their every word as gospel. I think we should be showing them examples of the people who really do devote themselves to humanitarian causes. It's not just about giving money, either (though that helps, of course).

QUOTE

And yes, I would absolutely love some evidence of the shooting stars speaking about and giving money to their own backyards.

Guantanomo in particular.

Do you know the Dixie Chicks? They caused a big stink in Texas by saying they were embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. Have you watched Fox News?... Hollywood constantly has Fox raising a stink, so this nonsense that celebrities only pop off about foreign countries is ridiculous. I dare say, celebrities are more critical of the US than other countries... Does Hanoi Jane ring a bell?

Sure -- good. I don't watch Fox but I am aware of some change of complexion amongst the Hollywoodites. Dare I say it would be almost uncool now not to speak out about something ?

But I was referring to the particular pair of shooting stars who are the subject of this thread.

I can't think of a specific example for Guantanomo off the top of my head, but... are we required to discuss every western abuse before we discuss the Rohingyas? I suppose, in the future, the Rohingya issue is a prerequisite to any discussion about Guantanomo. Do you really think the Rohingya issue has even received a fraction of the publicity that Guantanomo has or will still get?

I understand your point. However, I mention Guantanamo because in my experience, until fairly recently, not too many people from the US were very comfortable discussing the topic, at all. It is relevant to the case of the Rohingas in other ways, but perhaps most of all in the aspect of blatant denial (plus hypcocrisy of the highest order) which we have been discussing here. I was absolutely delighted to see your new President move swiftly on this issue.

Edited February 14, 2009 by WaiWai

[henryalleman]

Wasn't aware that even Tenerife and the Canary Islands, even the Azores are effected..that is why I asked!

To inform you

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...e-Canaries.html

http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/16057...numbers-down-28

[henryalleman]

Wasn't aware that even Tenerife and the Canary Islands, even the Azores are effected..that is why I asked!

To inform you

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...e-Canaries.html

http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/16057...numbers-down-28

[jdinasia]

From that linkt to UN News Center, thanks to GK for providing it:

Recent media attention has focused on the large number of stateless Muslim refugees making the perilous trip from northern Myanmar to Thailand in rickety vessels. UNHCR has recently gained access to 78 of the Rohingya boat people held in detention centres in the south of the country to determine their need for international protection.

Ms. Jolie noted that witnessing the Government’s hospitality towards the 111,000 mostly Karen and Karenni refugees over the years “makes me hope that Thailand will be just as generous to the Rohingya refugees who are now arriving on their shores."

In all honesty, she should have said SOMETHING about Rohingyas, but this "be just as generous" is a very provocative wording. Recent media attention focused on hundreds of dead people first and foremost, deaths that Thailand strenuously denies and feels very sensitive about.

She should have been more diplomatic. Her job is to create goodwill, not piss off people who are supposed to help.

wow she said that the Thais were generous with the Burmese/Karen State refugees? how is that even remotely provacative?

[WaiWai]

From that linkt to UN News Center, thanks to GK for providing it:

Recent media attention has focused on the large number of stateless Muslim refugees making the perilous trip from northern Myanmar to Thailand in rickety vessels. UNHCR has recently gained access to 78 of the Rohingya boat people held in detention centres in the south of the country to determine their need for international protection.

Ms. Jolie noted that witnessing the Government’s hospitality towards the 111,000 mostly Karen and Karenni refugees over the years “makes me hope that Thailand will be just as generous to the Rohingya refugees who are now arriving on their shores."

In all honesty, she should have said SOMETHING about Rohingyas, but this "be just as generous" is a very provocative wording. Recent media attention focused on hundreds of dead people first and foremost, deaths that Thailand strenuously denies and feels very sensitive about.

She should have been more diplomatic. Her job is to create goodwill, not piss off people who are supposed to help.

wow she said that the Thais were generous with the Burmese/Karen State refugees? how is that even remotely provacative?

Oh, please, jdinasia ... you don't know that she was (attempting to make) a big statement in a "high context" culture?

[Jungian]

Let her go back to the USA and welcome the Mexicans in... What business does she have here to dictate who can stay, I pay taxes here she does not! This is not about the Thai government it is about people rushing the border we would not allow in our own home countries why should the Thais?

[TAWP]

Here comes the foreign(!) xenophobes marching in...

[WaiWai]

Here comes the foreign(!) xenophobes marching in...

I am not sure why you say that?

Many Thais have been taught "xenophobia" towards various other groups, for various reasons, for sure, but the parallells with the ambivalent attitude to Mexicans in the USA are quite apt.

And yes, I continue to ask of evidence of our recently shooting stars speaking out in their own backyards ...

[WaiWai]

And yes, this is a very far-flung refugee case:

21 January 2009

Men found floating in ice box taken for questioning by Australian immigration authorities

Two men were found floating in a giant esky off the north coast of Australia after being stranded in shark-infested waters for 25 days.

A helicopter rescued the Myanmar men on Saturday and taken to a hospital on Thursday Island. The pair said they were forced to work aboard a Thai fishing with 18 other crewmembers, who each died at sea after the 10m vessel sank.

A spokesperson from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) said authorities are holding the men at nearby Horn Island for questioning.

"I think it will take several days to get to the facts and get to the bottom of their claims."

Australian immigration authorities will investigate their claims of indentured labour, and if put forward, would consider any claims for refugee status. Otherwise, they will be returned to their home country within a matter of weeks

I am Australian, and have not always been happy with the way my country has dealt with refugees (though on the whole, I believe Australia's post 200+-years European settlement has been generally welcoming to migrants from all over, and continues to be. I say that partly to appease any Americans whose hackles may have been raised by my comments about Guantanamo etc. but mostly by way of demonstrating that this is , as everything increasingly is, a worldwide issue, and one that needs to be dealt with in new ways. I believe we have something of a positive zeitgeist & values re-assessment happening just now, amidst the financial doom and gloom. Let's try to ride that wave in a good way, as much and as far as we can. I do believe there's not just an inevitabilty, but a positive inevitabilty to all that's going on.

Yes, amongst that I do mean let's hope the USA can accept that they are not born to rule. Other nations/groups are guilty of the same arrogance, but a change from the US would be a great casting of scales from eyes, and a helpful impetus for change, in my view.

Edited February 14, 2009 by WaiWai

[yoshiwara]

Let her go back to the USA and welcome the Mexicans in... What business does she have here to dictate who can stay, I pay taxes here she does not! This is not about the Thai government it is about people rushing the border we would not allow in our own home countries why should the Thais?

Why indeed! Probably so that those liberals who have Thailand earmarked as their very own little academic playground can exercise the continuing art of pontification.

Edited February 14, 2009 by yoshiwara

[bf2002]

When you find yourself in a hole.....Bring out the steam shovels!!!

That isn't just how the govt behaves. It's how most Thais behave too. When things get bad and the fire's raging, most will try to "fix" the problem by pouring gasoline on the fire! I've seen this in personal experiences with Thai nationals, experiences of friends, and observations (and it's not just with the lower 90% social class of Siam either)....it's not TiT (this is Thailand). It's really TiTP (this is Thai people).....

Remember the govt. is simply a reflection of the people. They love to blame the govt, because TiTP!!!

Edited February 15, 2009 by bf2002

[LomSak27]

What I learned today on Thaivisa.

Angelina Jolie is so much more than a Hollywood movie star or UN special representative. Angelina Jolie is the official spokesperson for the United States of America and all it citizens. She embodies the hopes, dreams, beliefs and hypocritical morality of the USA’s 300 million people. The world hangs on every utterance of this big lipped bimbette and trembles when she swaps spit with Brad Pitt.

That is all ...

[HorseDoctor]

not sure if anyone listen to the CNN interview with abhisit ,

he is CLEARLY not interested in getting to the bottom of things , prosecuting those involved , investigating

absolutely pathetic and irresponsible performace as PM on this and many other areas.

Yes I listened to it, he was uncomfortable , his body language guarded and he blinked a lot, the hallmarks of a liar.

He also didn't say much of anything other than somewhat contradictory backtracking.

What a puppet .

And you got all that from listening to his interview? Was his blinking really that loud? I know it's never stopped you before, but get your facts right please.

This is a perfect example of trolling, seizing on a solitary misused term and then basing an attack on it because the troll has a personality conflict with the poster and canot allow her opinions to go unchallenged, yet lacks a coherent or logical argument .

Or any argument at all

[HorseDoctor]

What I learned today on Thaivisa.

Angelina Jolie is so much more than a Hollywood movie star or UN special representative. Angelina Jolie is the official spokesperson for the United States of America and all it citizens. She embodies the hopes, dreams, beliefs and hypocritical morality of the USA's 300 million people. The world hangs on every utterance of this big lipped bimbette and trembles when she swaps spit with Brad Pitt.

That is all ...

Actually AJ she is a spokesperson for the UN of which Thailand is a member.

I think you're upset because you've been taught to be nationalistic above all- and the truth hurts.

Attacking her as a " Big lipped bimbette " really shows you as a immature sexist racist.

[grandpops]

What I learned today on Thaivisa.

Angelina Jolie is so much more than a Hollywood movie star or UN special representative. Angelina Jolie is the official spokesperson for the United States of America and all it citizens. She embodies the hopes, dreams, beliefs and hypocritical morality of the USA's 300 million people. The world hangs on every utterance of this big lipped bimbette and trembles when she swaps spit with Brad Pitt.

That is all ...

Actually AJ she is a spokesperson for the UN of which Thailand is a member.

I think you're upset because you've been taught to be nationalistic above all- and the truth hurts.

Attacking her as a " Big lipped bimbette " really shows you as a immature sexist racist.

I think he meant "vacuous, big lipped bimbette". Just look at the pose she strikes in the picture. Where are the animal rights activists when she is walking round with two drugged, overfed pink slugs stuck to her lips.

This is why we make comments like this about Hollywood types of both sexes.

I suggest you confine your immature "immature sexist racist" inults to your wimmins club or 80's throw back clubs.

Big on photo ops and 1st class travel and sounding off is what many think of her, and we are entitled to think that as well without your outdated battle of the sexes, wimmins sufferagettage comments.

[jdinasia]

Why do I think some of the above posts are the same person speaking to himself?

[freddiefunk]

And yes, this is a very far-flung refugee case:

21 January 2009

Men found floating in ice box taken for questioning by Australian immigration authorities

Two men were found floating in a giant esky off the north coast of Australia after being stranded in shark-infested waters for 25 days.

A helicopter rescued the Myanmar men on Saturday and taken to a hospital on Thursday Island. The pair said they were forced to work aboard a Thai fishing with 18 other crewmembers, who each died at sea after the 10m vessel sank.

A spokesperson from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) said authorities are holding the men at nearby Horn Island for questioning.

"I think it will take several days to get to the facts and get to the bottom of their claims."

Australian immigration authorities will investigate their claims of indentured labour, and if put forward, would consider any claims for refugee status. Otherwise, they will be returned to their home country within a matter of weeks

I am Australian, and have not always been happy with the way my country has dealt with refugees (though on the whole, I believe Australia's post 200+-years European settlement has been generally welcoming to migrants from all over, and continues to be. I say that partly to appease any Americans whose hackles may have been raised by my comments about Guantanamo etc. but mostly by way of demonstrating that this is , as everything increasingly is, a worldwide issue, and one that needs to be dealt with in new ways. I believe we have something of a positive zeitgeist & values re-assessment happening just now, amidst the financial doom and gloom. Let's try to ride that wave in a good way, as much and as far as we can. I do believe there's not just an inevitabilty, but a positive inevitabilty to all that's going on.

Yes, amongst that I do mean let's hope the USA can accept that they are not born to rule. Other nations/groups are guilty of the same arrogance, but a change from the US would be a great casting of scales from eyes, and a helpful impetus for change, in my view.

No need for appeasement, though your comments suggest a rather rosy view of Australia's racial issues. To appease you, I will say that I can admit that Guantanamo is one of many instances in which the US is guilty of human rights abuses.

Now that the necessary appeasements are out of the way, can we discuss the topic at hand?

This does illustrate why US abuses are worse than others. Do to its position of power, US abuses produce a ripple effect, where people are willing to give a pass to other countries abuses, simply because the US is guilty too. Unfortunately, two negatives do not produce a positive in this case.

If we demand criticism only come from a position of moral purity, then we can assume that nobody will ever be deemed guilty of abuses again.

[HorseDoctor]

What I learned today on Thaivisa.

Angelina Jolie is so much more than a Hollywood movie star or UN special representative. Angelina Jolie is the official spokesperson for the United States of America and all it citizens. She embodies the hopes, dreams, beliefs and hypocritical morality of the USA's 300 million people. The world hangs on every utterance of this big lipped bimbette and trembles when she swaps spit with Brad Pitt.

That is all ...

Actually AJ she is a spokesperson for the UN of which Thailand is a member.

I think you're upset because you've been taught to be nationalistic above all- and the truth hurts.

Attacking her as a " Big lipped bimbette " really shows you as a immature sexist racist.

I think he meant "vacuous, big lipped bimbette". Just look at the pose she strikes in the picture. Where are the animal rights activists when she is walking round with two drugged, overfed pink slugs stuck to her lips.

This is why we make comments like this about Hollywood types of both sexes.

I suggest you confine your immature "immature sexist racist" inults to your wimmins club or 80's throw back clubs.

Big on photo ops and 1st class travel and sounding off is what many think of her, and we are entitled to think that as well without your outdated battle of the sexes, wimmins sufferagettage comments.

No.

I"ll make comments anywhere I want , just as entitled.

Ans I'll add, you're the throwback; " wimmins sufferagettage " Women's suffrage, you mean?

Good grief you're still sore about "wimmen " getting the vote?

( can't even write the word, women, he's so intimidated )

[freddiefunk]

And yes, this is a very far-flung refugee case:

21 January 2009

Men found floating in ice box taken for questioning by Australian immigration authorities

Two men were found floating in a giant esky off the north coast of Australia after being stranded in shark-infested waters for 25 days.

A helicopter rescued the Myanmar men on Saturday and taken to a hospital on Thursday Island. The pair said they were forced to work aboard a Thai fishing with 18 other crewmembers, who each died at sea after the 10m vessel sank.

A spokesperson from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) said authorities are holding the men at nearby Horn Island for questioning.

"I think it will take several days to get to the facts and get to the bottom of their claims."

Australian immigration authorities will investigate their claims of indentured labour, and if put forward, would consider any claims for refugee status. Otherwise, they will be returned to their home country within a matter of weeks

I am Australian, and have not always been happy with the way my country has dealt with refugees (though on the whole, I believe Australia's post 200+-years European settlement has been generally welcoming to migrants from all over, and continues to be. I say that partly to appease any Americans whose hackles may have been raised by my comments about Guantanamo etc. but mostly by way of demonstrating that this is , as everything increasingly is, a worldwide issue, and one that needs to be dealt with in new ways. I believe we have something of a positive zeitgeist & values re-assessment happening just now, amidst the financial doom and gloom. Let's try to ride that wave in a good way, as much and as far as we can. I do believe there's not just an inevitabilty, but a positive inevitabilty to all that's going on.

Yes, amongst that I do mean let's hope the USA can accept that they are not born to rule. Other nations/groups are guilty of the same arrogance, but a change from the US would be a great casting of scales from eyes, and a helpful impetus for change, in my view.

No need for appeasement, though your comments suggest a rather rosy view of Australia's racial issues. To appease you, I will say that I can admit that Guantanamo is one of many instances in which the US is guilty of human rights abuses.

Now that the necessary appeasements are out of the way, can we discuss the topic at hand?

This does illustrate why US abuses are worse than others. Do to its position of power, US abuses produce a ripple effect, where people are willing to give a pass to other countries abuses, simply because the US is guilty too. Unfortunately, two negatives do not produce a positive in this case.

If we demand criticism only come from a position of moral purity, then we can assume that nobody will ever be deemed guilty of abuses again.

I'll add that while discussing if AJ is or isn't a hypocrit may be relavent to this particular thread, overall, the stirred up "controversy" about AJ, and the desire to point out the wrongs of the US seems to be a "smoke and mirrors" strategy (a pretty successful one judging from the thread). Further, even if AJ is a hypocrit, does that automatically mean she is wrong on the issue?

[Steve2UK]

<snip>

Recent media attention focused on hundreds of dead people first and foremost, deaths that Thailand strenuously denies and feels very sensitive about.

Here are headlines from Western media, links taken from "Similan thread", I ignored Bangkok Post and local outlets:

[my emphasis in both quotes above]

"ignored..... local outlets" - does "local" include Hong Kong, Indonesian, Indian, Japanese media etc? Such tiny territories, of course - minute population and not the white devil "Western media" - BTW is Al Jazeera included in that? And "local" presumably includes "Phuket Wan" (who are on the spot and have been astonishingly diligent in investigating the local end of this story from the beginning); rather inconvenient headlines for the Plus version of reality there, of course..........

Thais 'leave boat people to die' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7830710.stm (15 Jan)

Quite properly in quotes - being a sub-editor's precis of the testimony of Zaw Win, a Rohingya survivor in the Indian Andaman Islands. Other similar accounts from other survivors in the same article - including "One Rohingya villager from Burma said that his son and seven friends had left together on the same boat. He said that after they were arrested by the Thai authorities, they were forced onto the same large boat without an engine: 'Four of them, including my son, survived but four died,' he said". Is this father lying?

Thailand's deadly treatment of migrants - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7834075.stm (17 Jan)

Personally, I'd prefer to see the "deadly" part of the headline in quotes - as was the relevant part of the item above; but, against that, it seems few outside ISOC are denying that Rohingya have died in the course of their "handling" by the Thai military. Needless to say, the article properly refers to "allegations made by Rohingyas" and also quotes the Thai response. So far, so balanced? It also includes input from the Arakan Project's Chris Lewa based on Project staff's "extensive interviews with some of the survivors"; confusingly, this is the same Ms Lewa who is recently quoted as saying certain Rohingya testimony was exaggerated. I think the lady has some explaining to do.

Hundreds dead, set adrift by Thais (Sunday Post, Hong Kong - 18 Jan)

(quoted by TV member Pierrot - SCMP is subscription only, so I can't verify and link it - though I have no reason to doubt what he says)

Hmmm...... Hong Kong? So - is that still "western", then? See below about this headline.

Thailand Is Accused of Rejecting Migrants - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/world/asia/18thailand.html (17 Jan)

In that one the first paragraph ends with "At least 300 people are reported to be missing at sea."

Hardly the most sensational headline? And the quoted line is accurate i.e. "reported to be missing" - not dead. The article steadfastly and properly gives both sides of the story - i.e. including the Thai responses. Standard NYT procedure.

Abandoned at Sea: The Sad Plight of the Rohingya - http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1872426,00.html

That one has a line "More than 300 people who were with Muzaffar are missing; they are all believed to be dead." at the end of the second paragraph.

Again - hardly the most sensational headline? The particular line quoted here is from Muzaffar (aka Mohamed, I believe........ later said to have been exaggerating by Ms Lewa) - not Time claiming or editorialising...... and the writer cites other incidents from the region (i.e. not this part of the story). The article quite properly uses qualifying terms ("allegedly", "the tale.... if accurate") and tries to give both sides of the story - though they're rather hampered by the fact that "The Thai government has yet to return TIME's calls on the matter of the treatment of these refugees". It concludes with a brief background summary and analysis of the Rohingya situation. Again - standard Time procedure.

>>

I think it's kind of silly to deny that the west played the issue of hundreds of dead, and Jolie was probably caught up in this just like everyone else.

[my annotations and links added in blue above]

That's it? Ask for evidence for your assertion and this is all there is? Five headlines pulled from a thread (leaving aside the many others that you chose to bypass). In principle, a good idea to use the thread - after all most TV members draw on a wide range of sources and post what they find, so we can reasonably take the accumulated material here as a fairly dependable index of coverage.

I think it's more than silly - it's downright laughable - to claim "that the west played the issue of hundreds of dead" based on this non-evidence. And it comes down to one headline that mis-states the known facts - and it's in a Hong Kong paper. I have provided the links again (why don't you?), so TV members can also easily access the body of the articles. Surely there must be some "shock horror" headline somewhere out there to back up this wild claim of yours? I mean, even if it's from the kind of western tabloid rag that brings you "WW2 bomber found on the moon" kind of stuff - at least it would be something............

So - there was and is no "this" for Jolie (or "everyone else") to be caught up in. Ah well, I guess one can't make bricks without straw - or, it seems, make some anti-western brick-bats without concocting straw men........... e.g. "the west played the issue of hundreds of dead" in this case.

"Recent media attention focused on hundreds of dead people first and foremost" (my emphasis - your words again quoted above). You have splattered this same wild accusation over these threads as if it were established fact - despite having it pointed out to you that there is no evidential basis for it. It seems reasonable to ask - why?

IMO it's really long overdue that you faced the reality that you wishing something is true and saying it's true (repeating it however often) does not make it true. Evidence does.

The "western media" (so-called - but, more relevantly, we should include "eastern" media and any that are not Thai) do not "have it in" for Thailand nor have they blown anything out of proportion (except, arguably and I grant, the one sloppy Hong Kong headline reported above - one out of dozens). What has blown things out of all proportion is your febrile claiming about the non-Thai media's handling of this issue (and others). As always, you're entitled to your opinions - however baseless they may be; after all, it matches the indignation expressed by many Thai - but that's rather more understandable coming from them. [That is a cultural observation related to patriotic feelings, sensitivities, translation issues etc - and not intended to slight the Thai]. But....... what's your excuse?

[Plus]

&lt;deleted&gt;, Steve?

The two BBC articles clearly allude to dead people in their headlines. NY Times and Time article mention hundreds of dead. Oh, "missing at sea" is such a nice euphemism! You must be really desperate to think that it changes the tone of their stories.

I got HK paper quote here by mistake, but still, it talks about hundreds of dead.

I omitted only ONE Australian article that didn't mention death. I didn't exclude any other Western articles, that's all there was to it. All death death and more death.

When the story first broke up, in HK, there was no talk of massive deaths, it was a story about their mistreatment on Similan beach observed by tourists. There was whole series on that in local, Asian media, and no deaths.

First reports about hundreds dead came from the West when resqued Rohingyas were interviewed in India and Indonesia.

Weeks later and I still don't see the apologies for getting it completely wrong - they interviewed unreliable "victims" who told them big lies.

Jolie was a just another victim of the same disinformation and was reminded by Thais not to rely on media but follow established protocols when performing official duties - no mandate, don't talk.

[Journalist]

Greg Torode of the SCMP has been writing on this subject. IMHO that paper has been pursuing the issue beyond its 'sell-by' date and they are still keeping it to the forefront of their 'international news' pages.

I guess its something he wants a Pulitzer for ! And the subbies are letting him go forward on it - perhaps because it is not newswire copy they'd otherwise have to pay for !

To contextualise this. Hong Kong has previous form with boat people - Vietnamese. They were treated quite reasonably, but were kept in a camp at High Island Reservoir, where to be honest they treated each other badly too. Friend of mine is a barrister and he defended a boat person who killed another by holding his head over a lit gas burner.

[Scott]

Until the Thai authorities acknowledge how many boat loads of people have been towed back out to sea and someone accounts for how many have arrived somewhere, there will be no way of knowing the death toll. Undoubtedly, the reason that the authorities aren't coming up with numbers is because it will make them look bad.

Over a period of time, the UNHCR and some of the international NGOs will be able to make some estimates. People will be able to verify the number of people who have left (relatives, friends, boat organizers etc). This doesn't definitively answer all the questions, but it does start giving some estimates.

There isn't a good reason to be towing anybody back out to sea and the neighboring countries may strongly object to this policy as well. These are not enemy combantants and even the military would have a difficult time listing them as 'collateral' damages.

[Steve2UK]

&lt;deleted&gt;, Steve?

The two BBC articles clearly allude to dead people in their headlines. NY Times and Time article mention hundreds of dead. Oh, "missing at sea" is such a nice euphemism! You must be really desperate to think that it changes the tone of their stories.

I got HK paper quote here by mistake, but still, it talks about hundreds of dead.

I omitted only ONE Australian article that didn't mention death. I didn't exclude any other Western articles, that's all there was to it. All death death and more death.

When the story first broke up, in HK, there was no talk of massive deaths, it was a story about their mistreatment on Similan beach observed by tourists. There was whole series on that in local, Asian media, and no deaths.

First reports about hundreds dead came from the West when resqued Rohingyas were interviewed in India and Indonesia.

Weeks later and I still don't see the apologies for getting it completely wrong - they interviewed unreliable "victims" who told them big lies.

Jolie was a just another victim of the same disinformation and was reminded by Thais not to rely on media but follow established protocols when performing official duties - no mandate, don't talk.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Similans-Tou...50#entry2535705

"Desperate"? I'll leave others to reach their own sensible conclusion about the facts of the Rohingya media coverage.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Steve2UK

[samgrowth]

If Angelina and Mark goes to war of words in the world press, who do you think will win.

[Scott]

My money would be on Angelina, but that said, I don't think either of them would have a war of words. This wouldn't be in the interest of the Rohingyas, so AJ would avoid it at all costs (as a UNHCR related person). Mark wouldn't because it's not in the interest of Thailand.

[Plus]

Until the Thai authorities acknowledge how many boat loads of people have been towed back out to sea and someone accounts for how many have arrived somewhere, there will be no way of knowing the death toll. Undoubtedly, the reason that the authorities aren't coming up with numbers is because it will make them look bad.

Over a period of time, the UNHCR and some of the international NGOs will be able to make some estimates. People will be able to verify the number of people who have left (relatives, friends, boat organizers etc). This doesn't definitively answer all the questions, but it does start giving some estimates.

Don't hold your breath on that one. Rohingyas apparently don't have any papers and there's no way of knowing how many of them have left Burma. Getting stats from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh and India is impossible, too.

We will never know the whole truth.

There isn't a good reason to be towing anybody back out to sea and the neighboring countries may strongly object to this policy as well. These are not enemy combantants and even the military would have a difficult time listing them as 'collateral' damages.

That's a tricky situation. If they were intercepted approaching Thai waters, not letting them in would be ok, I suppose. More difficult to justify after they arrived, let alone held in local camps for some time.

All in all - they are not wanted in Thailand and they shouldn't try to come. The best strategy, though, is to get Burmese and the UN to pay for it one way or another. Thanks to all the attention, Thais might just come out on top as saviours of Rohingyas and get someone to bankroll the operation, too.

[Scott]

Plus: I understand what your saying, but a number of agencies are pretty good about coming up with reasonably accurate information. First, you can rest assured that the Burmese know who lives on their soil and who doesn't. Keeping track of them and granting them papers are two entirely different things. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the number of people who may have died at sea is extremely high--as in the thousands.

You can't account for all of them or how or why they disappeared. Some boats just never arrive--they sink, they break down etc. But, you can rest assured if you overestimate the number towed out to sea and that died, you'll be surprised at how quick the gov't--or in this case, the military, will start correcting your figures.

During the Vietnamese Boat exodus, at one point, it was estimated that nearly 40% of those headed toward Thailand died at sea, mostly at the hands of pirates in the Gulf of Thailand (some indications the military was involved in this). How many were killed or how many ended up in distress at the high seas is harder to estimate.

It's not an easy or accurate job, but it's important. Keep in mind that it could be a good time for the Junta to do away with large numbers and blame it on them leaving by sea.

[Plus]

Plus: I understand what your saying, but a number of agencies are pretty good about coming up with reasonably accurate information. First, you can rest assured that the Burmese know who lives on their soil and who doesn't. Keeping track of them and granting them papers are two entirely different things.

Well, 500 dead mentioned in BBC article doesn't inspire very much confidence about getting accurate results.

So far media mention only one agency working with Rohingyas, Arakan project, and they put the number at three or four instead of three or four hundred.

The problem is that Arakan people don't have access to all refugees and so they can't possibly produce full stats.

Burmese might know who lives on their soil and who doesn't, but I really doubt they'd release any accurate information, ever.

And we are talking about one, very unfortunate incident that got worldwide coverage. Tens of thousands of others came before that and no one has a clue how many have died. Tens of thousands will come after, some are probably already at sea as we speak, and no one will ever know how many of them would not make it.

This is the harsh reality of the third world.

[thaiwanderer]

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/wp...rals-letter.pdf