Thanks for this comment Ian. I wasn’t aware at all of the developments you describe in the area around Luar Batang. Many thanks for the heads up. But I’m wondering how your comment fits with the apparent reality that Ahok-Djarot got a greater percentage of votes in the North Jakarta area than they got anywhere else in DKI, and around Luar Batang Ahok-Djarot even seem to have won a MAJORITY of votes, see for example: https://medium.com/@samuelmarulam/jakarta-election-2017-map-efd6f183ba46 .
Thanks George, a really fascinating piece. Its interesting to contrast the warm reception towards Ahok in Priok with the hostility he faced in Luar Batang. It became a major hub for the sectarian anti-Ahok movement, in particular from networks linked to the mosque and tomb of Habib Husein Alaydrus who even formed a militia, Laskar Luar Batang dedicated to his electoral defeat. The issue there was not that attention was being paid by the administration to the mosque and tomb complex: the mosques caretaker caretaker Daeng Mansur had lobbied for funds to develop LB as a religious tourism precinct for some years. It was the nature of the administrations redevelopment plans that caused consternation as it entailed the eviction of the surrounding kampung and its residents, one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. This was done by the administration without consultation in nearby Pasar Ikan in early 2016, also on the pretext of developing it as a cagar budaya site. It left Ahok with few friends in the area and a deep suspicion towards his intentions. Many Luar Batang residents I spoke to believed the cagar budaya plans were a pretext for creating a corridor connecting to proposed land reclamation in Jakarta Bay, and on the behest of land developers.
Fascinating article and comments that shed so much light on the multilayered nature of things in Nusantara generally and Java in particular. Thank you.
Thanks for this comment Mark. Much appreciated. The authors of the MUI report (“Kasus Mbah Priok” Madani Institute, 2010) were a mixture of religious scholars and academics. Some were certainly modernists, but I doubt if any were extremist anti-ziarah types in the salafi / Saudi mold. You are right about the international character of practices like those at Mbah Priok’s tomb. In visits there I’ve been quite surprised at how strong the feeling of connection to the Hadramaut is. The town of Tarim (where the Haddad family came from) has reputedly more sayyid and holy figures (alive and deceased) than anywhere else in the Middle East. At least so I was told.
Thanks for the comment. Your students are right, the inclusivism of pilgrimage sites is coming under pressure. In a seminar at the ANU two weeks ago I gave some examples of what I called (or probably mis-called) “santrification” of place, ibadah and story at pilgrimage sites. I’m especially interested in the “santrification” (there must be a better term than this!) of hagiographic stories.
Thanks for posting this George and for bringing attention to the importance of debates about saint veneration in contemporary Indonesian politics.
I have heard much the same thing. Several well informed people have mentioned that if Ahok had been more public in his support for efforts to preserve this shrine and made preserving holy places a more visible priority, the elections results might (repeat might) have been different.
There is one point that requires clarification. The MUI report mentioning “irregular practices” appears to have been shaped by modernist/Salafi perspectives on the Muslim custom of visiting tombs (ziyarah). This group considers the devotional practices common at Mbah Priok’s tomb to be “irregular” and indeed examples of bidah (religious innovation) and even syirik (polytheism). They share this perspective with Saudi Arabian religious authorities who have destroyed hundreds of holy sites in Mecca and Medina.
Most Indonesian, and other, Muslims see things very differently. For them, these practices are a basic part of Islam. Traditionalist scholars including Hasyim Asy’ari, one of the founders of Nahdlatul Ulama, condemned the modernist/Salafi as bidah. I have visited Mbah Priok’s tomb many times. The devotional practices I observed are widely shared in the NU and Hadrami Sayyid communities. These are not just Indonesian customs. They are common in Muslim communities across the globe.
Both parties to this dispute cite proof texts from the Qur’an and Hadith (dalil) to support their positions. Some of the pro-ziyarah dalil are prominently displayed on billboards near the entrance to the Mbah Priok shrine.
As anthropologists (and other religiously neutral scholars) it is not for us to judge what it theologically correct or irregular. Rather, it is our responsibility to point out that this is a highly contentious, centuries old debate within the global community of Islamic scholars. It is not a debate between “purists” and “syncretists.” It is a complex intellectual debate that has profound implications for defining what is, and is not, proper Muslim religious practice.
Great article. I teach a class on religion and tourism at UGM and many of my students are reporting from their research about how the growth of wisata religi and other forms of spiritual tourism, along with older practices of pilgrimage, are increasingly pushing formerly inclusive sites to become politicized and/or more exclusive. Looking at changing practices and how established and emerging sacred sites are managed both regionally and nationally is an important window into the shifting politics of religion in Indonesia.
[…] Stigma yang melekat pada diri orang-orang keturunan Tionghoa di negara ini mayoritas berupa sindiran ‘pelit’, ‘super kaya’, ‘eksklusif’ dan sejenisnya. Padahal faktanya tidak demikian. Cukup banyak teman sekolah saya yang bekerja paruh waktu manakala mereka bebas dari kewajiban praktikum atau kegiatan ekstrakurikuler lainnya. Beberapa anak bahkan rela ngekos jauh dari keluarganya demi menghemat biaya transportasi. Di kalangan kaum elit konglomerat Indonesia pun, jumlah miliarder keturunan Tionghoa masih terhitung…. […]
Thanks for both of your comments. Roland, I quite agree with your points about the fragile power position that Mutu and his followers have put themselves into with pushing for the outcome of the recent congress, i.e. that despite their formal victory their actual support among the KNU grassrooots did not increase. It seems more likely that the exclusion of opposition voices from the EC might exacerbate the internal split and could well lead to increased disobedience or even a formal split. That said, I did not mean to forget anything, indeed, you can find some of what you are looking for in the full article in Asian Security (for instance a brief discussion of the previous congress). The main intention of this very blog post and the article it is based upon though is to explain the very origins of these internal divisions. I also know that there is more to the story still (as there always is). Yet, I hope my reflections help to better understand the structural divides within the movement, their origins and their repercussions, which in my opinion are very important but not appreciated enough in general discussions.
Best, David
Well, it’s not about the West is bad or Ne Win is good. No other force in the past 500 years has ever been more impactful on the world history than the West. If you look at the good sides, you’ll say communicable diseases eradicated, development in science, etc. If you look at the bad sides, you’ll say disappearance of native populations, colonialism, world wars, arrogance, etc. That aside. What I meant was that in instances like the Rohingya issue, what the West is doing won’t lead to the resolution of the conflict.
The critical need lacking here is compassion. Compassion to understand Ne Win in the context of his times. Compassion to understand Rakhine grievances. Compassion to understand Suu Kyi. For the Burmese, compassion to understand the motives of ordinary Rohingyas, and compassion to understand their leaders.
Say for example, the Burmese like to label all Rohingyas as liars because for ordinary Burmese who know soldiers for decades, it’s fairly obvious that a lot of allegations have never happened. But if we look from the perspectives of a Rohingya who is unemployed, unwanted, and has no hope in the country, his only chance for a better life is to gain a refugee status in a developed country. Everything becomes justifiable then. In similar circumstances, a lot of Burmese, unemployed and hopeless under sanctions, went to Malaysia and did and said whatever they could to register with UNHCR.
Compassion alone won’t lead to resolution but to understanding. From there, we can start asking questions such as, “Are we giving the right incentives that favor resolution, instead of entrenching the status quo? Will our actions lead to an equilibrium condition in which the dominant strategy for all parties involved is to work for resolution? Or do our actions give a lot of benefits to “maintain” the conflict for individual and short-term gains (such as aid, asylums, victim status, political recognition) instead of seeking a resolution and long-term gains (such as economic development, citizenship, and mutual understanding)?
With all this talk of “skyrocketing land values” and Khon Kaen’s “skyline turning vertical”, I couldn’t help but be reminded of another “sky” metaphor that was employed as a development tool at the very site referred to by the author, back in the mid-1990s. I am referring to the Population and Community Development Association’s (PDA) “Sky Irrigation Project” (see http://site.pda.or.th/e_sky.htm), that had a narrow project site a short distance to the south of the Khon Kaen railway station parallel with the railway tracks.
It was designed to productively use a slice of “wasteland” to provide both livelihood and fresh vegetables for the “railway slum community” on the other side of the tracks, with a number of families (c. 20) offered plots to tend. For a few years, it was considered a glowing example of a cooperative project between the bureaucracy (State Railways Authority and Khon Kaen Municipality), civil society (PDA, Khon Kaen NGOs and the community itself) and the private sector (various sponsors, both Thai and foreign), with lots of study tours taken there to see “urban villagers” tending their plots, growing fresh veg and selling it from small stands on the roadside. Khon Kaen people supported it and there was a ready market not 10 m from the plots.
All good stuff, initially, but like many such social welfare project located on inner city state-owned land that was not “protected” by any law, local statute or long term tenancy agreement, at the end of the 3 or 4 year project, the land was converted to market stalls selling just about everything (a mini-Chatujak) and the “Sky” veg allotment concept was lost. Before long, local people had sold out their rights to ever bigger, more wealthy and powerful operators and by the early 2000s, it was just another over-developed patch of commercial land, where no doubt people were paying “official” and “unofficial” rents through the State Railways of Thailand kleptocracy.
And now it is being further capitalised upon, as the article so well illustrates, by yet a new era of development from “above and beyond” (China). It leaves me wondering whether Thailand is ready at some point in the coming years to introduce some legislation akin to the Allotments Acts of the UK, such as the Allotments Act of 1925 to provide for and protect the rights of urban people to have somewhere to grow their own produce, that cannot be taken away at the drop of a hat, like the Khon Kaen railway Sky Irrigation Project (and ditto somewhere secure to simply live, of course) :
“The Allotments Act 1925- specifies that land purchased or appropriated by local authorities for use as allotments must not be disposed of without Ministerial consent. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that ‘adequate provision will be made for allotment holders displaced by the action of the local authority, or that such provision is unnecessary or not reasonably practicable’. (Section 8)”
Source: http://www.allotmoreallotments.org.uk/legislation.htm
Probably another pipe dream of mine……but the longer term development history of the KK railway communities is still worth recording in any case.
Simon it is a good point re the paying of taxes but I think there may be other factors to take into account. There are a lot of other areas that the regime needs to pay attention to in order to move into the Thailand 4.0 era. Many people do not pay tax, there is a tax threshold and low income earners pay low taxes. Inflation is kept in check making Bangkok one of the most affordable cities in the region. If everyone is paying relatively high rents prices are likely to sky rocket, and access for working class and middle class alike to affordable street food will diminish. If Thailand wishes to move out of the middle income trap they are going to depend on the tourist industry. Bangkok has often been voted the most popular city, and its street food is acclaimed as possibly the best in the world. A Singapore-type Bangkok will not attract more visitors, which Thailand seems to desperately want to increase.
As for the hygiene question it is certainly a problem, but not one that cannot be overcome through regulations enforced by the BMA. Simple hygiene and sanitation practices could control the rat problem. Yes there are a lot of rats but I have seen them in many areas where there are no food stalls. I have seen them in other major cities of the world, not usually as many though. As for intellectual property, from my observations the impact has thus far been limited, such products are still freely available in tourist and other areas. Some markets selling such goods may have been affected by closures, but I don’t think this has much to do with street food.
The generals do not have a mandate to make such sweeping changes, especially when it affects the lives of so many of those living on the margins who sell and often provide the food from local provinces for food stalls and markets. I would hate to see Isan people driven from the city, or driven into more menial and less entrepreneurial roles. Yes, many in the elite and middle classes have long called for such changes and the generals are obliging their constituency.
Come on Simon. You sound like some “wanker” from the WB or ADB when you talk about tax avoidance in Thailand and how the net needs to be spread to ensure even more Thais (and others) including presumably those on less than the minimum wage should pay tax. They do already via their daily toil but perhaps you haven’t noticed that. As for rats I know of no Thai that eats sewer rats and Bangkok is not the only city in the world – including many larger Western cities – that has sewer rats. As for enclosing markets clearly you have not enjoyed some of the best street food in the world washed down with a beer or three of your own choice. The contagion you mention seems to be in your own mind and your muddled modernizing problematic. I suggest you go to the ADB website and apply for a job with the ADB or similar. As for me, while I don’t often stroll down Silom Road as I live out in the “boonies” where we have lovely snakes who like to visit us, especially during the wet season, I would be traumatized if I did not see a rat or two. Although of course you can see a rat or three gracing the areas very close to MBK. Perhaps you had better stick to Paragon where all or most of the rats nibble away at the top of the food chain.
Thank you for interpreting the vendors as important potential contributor to state stability, hygiene and future progress by taking the carts indoors and formalizing. And for pointing out that romanticizing vendors may avoid down to earth obstacles to state management such as paying taxes. But comparing world cities like those in Germany, France and the US with Bangkok and the role of food vendors doesn’t fly at this time. Vendors make the system work. Watch the conversations starting regarding the monthly salary humans who don’t have a choice where (financially) where they get their food from other then the vendors.
The point is Bangkok is a mega-city. Meaning it has been created by the huge migration over the past 50 years of farmers from the country side ignited by huge neo-liberal projects that are the engine for job creation and progress in Thailand. The people who don’t fit into these projects make up the lion’s share of vendors and the people who partake of their services are low paid employees who really don’t have a choice. It sounds like instead of getting a decent meal outside you would rather have them go wave food at the 7-11, get in line and further tie them selves into a system that doesn’t care about them (I am speaking not only of the formalized capital system as well as the government).
Perhaps in the distant future BKK will have system like Singapore. If you ask Bangkokians what they think about the vendors your sure to get complaints about the inconvenience created on the sidewalk but most people rely on them and are happy to get a taste of home where the food sellers have to pay attention to the quality of their food in order to keep their customers.
I get great pleasure out of their mutinous movements throughout the city defying the order and primacy of privileged capital. Oh and don’t forget to watch your step on the sidewalks!
Good analysis, but you neglect to mention that the current situation dates to a power struggle in the KNU following the assassination of General Secretary Padoh Mahn Sha. At the Congress which followed, his allies maintained control. But they lost power at the next Congress four years later due to vote counting fraud. At the recent Congress there was no fraud, but the current leadership chose the senior delegates to attend, who in turn picked junior delegates who followed their voting preference. Inside the KNU, it is viewed that these junior delegates were used. The result, the entire group of leaders who proposed deliberate and careful negotiations with the Tatmadaw was purged. This has disrupted the KNU and it may well lead to a split, first by people not following HQ orders and then formally. It is notable that many KNLA officers and rank and file troops do not support the current leadership, which is also the case with local communities and civil society groups. For example, there is now not a single woman in the top leadership, which is amazing for a culture that has strong traditions of gender equality.
Yet, interestingly, he lacks any real awareness of his own limitations and of those with whom he has surrounded himself.
Which might (to a less charitable person imply stupidity as well as the ubiquitous poor quality Thai education.
The only reliable way to quantify power is to count the number of people who are prepared to do what you tell them. In this sense Prayuth’s ability to alienate people by imposing rules which have no particular merit but which may appeal to a widespread conceit about the (in my view largely non-existent) beauty of Thailand or its people, without any sense of an approaching day of reckoning.
I would not be at all surprised if that day of reckoning were not to closely follow a certain fiery conflagration planned for later this year. there have been some indications in the past few months that people are beginning to test the boundaries of the good general’s dictats (and perhaps patience). It has seemed to me for a long time that the coup-mongers share a sense of their own importance with those who believe in the “Divine Right of Kings”. it’s not always sensible to swim against the tide of history.
New Mandala publishes ‘comment after comment’ because that’s what it does – it is a forum which invites and publishes comments. You might be surprised to be aware that nowhere in its rules does it say that comments must comply with your opinion, in fact nowhere in its rules does it mention Michael Wilson at all.
You mention that some posts are ‘agonisingly long’and I venture to suggest, because you appear not to have thought of it, is that some posts need a certain length in order to effectively make their point, Whether or not that point is correct, widely held, or even sensible, however it is your comment about ill-informed that is more important, because it is more pernicious, in my opinion.
Scholars, and those people with academic qualifications, rarely accuse other contributors of being ill-informed, and that is because a part of their education is to teach them better approaches and greater tolerance of ideas and opinionsthat may not agree with their own. Almost always, people who accuse others of being ill-informed without stating where the information is wrong, and without proposing different information which is demonstrably right and not just mere opinion, are usually only interested in implying that they themselves are better informed, which is sometimes true but more often than not, untrue. It’s also calculatedly offensive, but expressed in a pseudo-polite fashion in order to avoid the post not seeing the light of day at all courtesy of the moderators.
So, Michael, how about instead of just slagging off other people (a technique which is a barely disguised ad-hominem attack), you actually say what is wrong with what is said (that is not just a difference of opinion) and suggest an alternative, better knowledge.
The purpose of training to be an academic, very often trains people to be very un-academic, and sometimes even un-scholarly. An outstanding example of this is Prof Richard Dawkins, who although qualified as an academic, is widely perceived to be closed-minded, bigoted, and tolerant only of those people and opinions which agree with him and his. It is a mistake to believe that the effectiveness of training to be an academic is proved by a bunch of pieces of paper, because in most cases, those pieces of paper have been awarded because they comply with rules or opinions by academics whose qualifications may well be arguable. Advanced learning is not a perfect science, not even a perfect politics, (though it normally is highly political), but even so I have rarely heard a real academic call somebody ill-informed, and not actually mean that they’ve said something which does not comply with their own views but which can’t really be argued with sensibly, since it is after all, just another opinion.
In conclusion Michael I think this was one of the less useful posts that I have seen on New Mandala, and it is my opinion (my qualified opinion by the way), that you should feel embarrassed by it, since the psychology behind it shines through bright and clear.
‘Would he apply the same analysis to UK Germany France or USA?’ This statement makes no sense. Thailand has its faults, but they are mostly our Western faults, made obvious by the amateurish Thai elites. The notion that the West is superior to Thailand or any other country is a fantasy, they are simply different.
‘It may be fun to take home fake rolexes for yr mates at 3000 bt a pop. But its illegal.’ Ha, ha, ha…seriously?
‘So in socialist countries is tax evasion tolerated?’ It’s certainly tolerated in the West, but only for wealthy individuals and corporations.
In the UK many nurses feed themselves from foodbanks, and due to government cuts the streets are overrun with rats. So your characterisation is inaccurate as well as offensive. Thais or any other type of foreigner are not more corrupt or unhygienic than Westerners, unless you happen to be peering through a monocle whilst wearing a pith helmet.
Dr. Sopranzetti is an accomplished scholar, and his articles are always interesting and a pleasure to read. Antonio Gramsci was a marxist not an anarchist.
Simon – let me assure, you need have no fear of rats. I’ve been eating Thai street food since 1963, and the ONLY times I’ve developed stomach trouble was after too much delicious som tam. I’ve NEVER suffered Well’s disease.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Holy places and unholy politics
Thanks for this comment Ian. I wasn’t aware at all of the developments you describe in the area around Luar Batang. Many thanks for the heads up. But I’m wondering how your comment fits with the apparent reality that Ahok-Djarot got a greater percentage of votes in the North Jakarta area than they got anywhere else in DKI, and around Luar Batang Ahok-Djarot even seem to have won a MAJORITY of votes, see for example: https://medium.com/@samuelmarulam/jakarta-election-2017-map-efd6f183ba46 .
Holy places and unholy politics
Thanks George, a really fascinating piece. Its interesting to contrast the warm reception towards Ahok in Priok with the hostility he faced in Luar Batang. It became a major hub for the sectarian anti-Ahok movement, in particular from networks linked to the mosque and tomb of Habib Husein Alaydrus who even formed a militia, Laskar Luar Batang dedicated to his electoral defeat. The issue there was not that attention was being paid by the administration to the mosque and tomb complex: the mosques caretaker caretaker Daeng Mansur had lobbied for funds to develop LB as a religious tourism precinct for some years. It was the nature of the administrations redevelopment plans that caused consternation as it entailed the eviction of the surrounding kampung and its residents, one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. This was done by the administration without consultation in nearby Pasar Ikan in early 2016, also on the pretext of developing it as a cagar budaya site. It left Ahok with few friends in the area and a deep suspicion towards his intentions. Many Luar Batang residents I spoke to believed the cagar budaya plans were a pretext for creating a corridor connecting to proposed land reclamation in Jakarta Bay, and on the behest of land developers.
Holy places and unholy politics
Fascinating article and comments that shed so much light on the multilayered nature of things in Nusantara generally and Java in particular. Thank you.
Holy places and unholy politics
Thanks for this comment Mark. Much appreciated. The authors of the MUI report (“Kasus Mbah Priok” Madani Institute, 2010) were a mixture of religious scholars and academics. Some were certainly modernists, but I doubt if any were extremist anti-ziarah types in the salafi / Saudi mold. You are right about the international character of practices like those at Mbah Priok’s tomb. In visits there I’ve been quite surprised at how strong the feeling of connection to the Hadramaut is. The town of Tarim (where the Haddad family came from) has reputedly more sayyid and holy figures (alive and deceased) than anywhere else in the Middle East. At least so I was told.
Holy places and unholy politics
Thanks for the comment. Your students are right, the inclusivism of pilgrimage sites is coming under pressure. In a seminar at the ANU two weeks ago I gave some examples of what I called (or probably mis-called) “santrification” of place, ibadah and story at pilgrimage sites. I’m especially interested in the “santrification” (there must be a better term than this!) of hagiographic stories.
Holy places and unholy politics
Thanks for posting this George and for bringing attention to the importance of debates about saint veneration in contemporary Indonesian politics.
I have heard much the same thing. Several well informed people have mentioned that if Ahok had been more public in his support for efforts to preserve this shrine and made preserving holy places a more visible priority, the elections results might (repeat might) have been different.
There is one point that requires clarification. The MUI report mentioning “irregular practices” appears to have been shaped by modernist/Salafi perspectives on the Muslim custom of visiting tombs (ziyarah). This group considers the devotional practices common at Mbah Priok’s tomb to be “irregular” and indeed examples of bidah (religious innovation) and even syirik (polytheism). They share this perspective with Saudi Arabian religious authorities who have destroyed hundreds of holy sites in Mecca and Medina.
Most Indonesian, and other, Muslims see things very differently. For them, these practices are a basic part of Islam. Traditionalist scholars including Hasyim Asy’ari, one of the founders of Nahdlatul Ulama, condemned the modernist/Salafi as bidah. I have visited Mbah Priok’s tomb many times. The devotional practices I observed are widely shared in the NU and Hadrami Sayyid communities. These are not just Indonesian customs. They are common in Muslim communities across the globe.
Both parties to this dispute cite proof texts from the Qur’an and Hadith (dalil) to support their positions. Some of the pro-ziyarah dalil are prominently displayed on billboards near the entrance to the Mbah Priok shrine.
As anthropologists (and other religiously neutral scholars) it is not for us to judge what it theologically correct or irregular. Rather, it is our responsibility to point out that this is a highly contentious, centuries old debate within the global community of Islamic scholars. It is not a debate between “purists” and “syncretists.” It is a complex intellectual debate that has profound implications for defining what is, and is not, proper Muslim religious practice.
Holy places and unholy politics
Great article. I teach a class on religion and tourism at UGM and many of my students are reporting from their research about how the growth of wisata religi and other forms of spiritual tourism, along with older practices of pilgrimage, are increasingly pushing formerly inclusive sites to become politicized and/or more exclusive. Looking at changing practices and how established and emerging sacred sites are managed both regionally and nationally is an important window into the shifting politics of religion in Indonesia.
Class dismissed? Economic fairness and identity politics in Indonesia
[…] Stigma yang melekat pada diri orang-orang keturunan Tionghoa di negara ini mayoritas berupa sindiran ‘pelit’, ‘super kaya’, ‘eksklusif’ dan sejenisnya. Padahal faktanya tidak demikian. Cukup banyak teman sekolah saya yang bekerja paruh waktu manakala mereka bebas dari kewajiban praktikum atau kegiatan ekstrakurikuler lainnya. Beberapa anak bahkan rela ngekos jauh dari keluarganya demi menghemat biaya transportasi. Di kalangan kaum elit konglomerat Indonesia pun, jumlah miliarder keturunan Tionghoa masih terhitung…. […]
Explaining the roots of KNU power struggles
Thanks for both of your comments. Roland, I quite agree with your points about the fragile power position that Mutu and his followers have put themselves into with pushing for the outcome of the recent congress, i.e. that despite their formal victory their actual support among the KNU grassrooots did not increase. It seems more likely that the exclusion of opposition voices from the EC might exacerbate the internal split and could well lead to increased disobedience or even a formal split. That said, I did not mean to forget anything, indeed, you can find some of what you are looking for in the full article in Asian Security (for instance a brief discussion of the previous congress). The main intention of this very blog post and the article it is based upon though is to explain the very origins of these internal divisions. I also know that there is more to the story still (as there always is). Yet, I hope my reflections help to better understand the structural divides within the movement, their origins and their repercussions, which in my opinion are very important but not appreciated enough in general discussions.
Best, David
How Myanmar’s ‘national races’ trumped citizenship
Well, it’s not about the West is bad or Ne Win is good. No other force in the past 500 years has ever been more impactful on the world history than the West. If you look at the good sides, you’ll say communicable diseases eradicated, development in science, etc. If you look at the bad sides, you’ll say disappearance of native populations, colonialism, world wars, arrogance, etc. That aside. What I meant was that in instances like the Rohingya issue, what the West is doing won’t lead to the resolution of the conflict.
The critical need lacking here is compassion. Compassion to understand Ne Win in the context of his times. Compassion to understand Rakhine grievances. Compassion to understand Suu Kyi. For the Burmese, compassion to understand the motives of ordinary Rohingyas, and compassion to understand their leaders.
Say for example, the Burmese like to label all Rohingyas as liars because for ordinary Burmese who know soldiers for decades, it’s fairly obvious that a lot of allegations have never happened. But if we look from the perspectives of a Rohingya who is unemployed, unwanted, and has no hope in the country, his only chance for a better life is to gain a refugee status in a developed country. Everything becomes justifiable then. In similar circumstances, a lot of Burmese, unemployed and hopeless under sanctions, went to Malaysia and did and said whatever they could to register with UNHCR.
Compassion alone won’t lead to resolution but to understanding. From there, we can start asking questions such as, “Are we giving the right incentives that favor resolution, instead of entrenching the status quo? Will our actions lead to an equilibrium condition in which the dominant strategy for all parties involved is to work for resolution? Or do our actions give a lot of benefits to “maintain” the conflict for individual and short-term gains (such as aid, asylums, victim status, political recognition) instead of seeking a resolution and long-term gains (such as economic development, citizenship, and mutual understanding)?
Despotic urbanism in Thailand
With all this talk of “skyrocketing land values” and Khon Kaen’s “skyline turning vertical”, I couldn’t help but be reminded of another “sky” metaphor that was employed as a development tool at the very site referred to by the author, back in the mid-1990s. I am referring to the Population and Community Development Association’s (PDA) “Sky Irrigation Project” (see http://site.pda.or.th/e_sky.htm), that had a narrow project site a short distance to the south of the Khon Kaen railway station parallel with the railway tracks.
It was designed to productively use a slice of “wasteland” to provide both livelihood and fresh vegetables for the “railway slum community” on the other side of the tracks, with a number of families (c. 20) offered plots to tend. For a few years, it was considered a glowing example of a cooperative project between the bureaucracy (State Railways Authority and Khon Kaen Municipality), civil society (PDA, Khon Kaen NGOs and the community itself) and the private sector (various sponsors, both Thai and foreign), with lots of study tours taken there to see “urban villagers” tending their plots, growing fresh veg and selling it from small stands on the roadside. Khon Kaen people supported it and there was a ready market not 10 m from the plots.
All good stuff, initially, but like many such social welfare project located on inner city state-owned land that was not “protected” by any law, local statute or long term tenancy agreement, at the end of the 3 or 4 year project, the land was converted to market stalls selling just about everything (a mini-Chatujak) and the “Sky” veg allotment concept was lost. Before long, local people had sold out their rights to ever bigger, more wealthy and powerful operators and by the early 2000s, it was just another over-developed patch of commercial land, where no doubt people were paying “official” and “unofficial” rents through the State Railways of Thailand kleptocracy.
And now it is being further capitalised upon, as the article so well illustrates, by yet a new era of development from “above and beyond” (China). It leaves me wondering whether Thailand is ready at some point in the coming years to introduce some legislation akin to the Allotments Acts of the UK, such as the Allotments Act of 1925 to provide for and protect the rights of urban people to have somewhere to grow their own produce, that cannot be taken away at the drop of a hat, like the Khon Kaen railway Sky Irrigation Project (and ditto somewhere secure to simply live, of course) :
“The Allotments Act 1925- specifies that land purchased or appropriated by local authorities for use as allotments must not be disposed of without Ministerial consent. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that ‘adequate provision will be made for allotment holders displaced by the action of the local authority, or that such provision is unnecessary or not reasonably practicable’. (Section 8)”
Source: http://www.allotmoreallotments.org.uk/legislation.htm
Probably another pipe dream of mine……but the longer term development history of the KK railway communities is still worth recording in any case.
Last orders in Bangkok
Simon it is a good point re the paying of taxes but I think there may be other factors to take into account. There are a lot of other areas that the regime needs to pay attention to in order to move into the Thailand 4.0 era. Many people do not pay tax, there is a tax threshold and low income earners pay low taxes. Inflation is kept in check making Bangkok one of the most affordable cities in the region. If everyone is paying relatively high rents prices are likely to sky rocket, and access for working class and middle class alike to affordable street food will diminish. If Thailand wishes to move out of the middle income trap they are going to depend on the tourist industry. Bangkok has often been voted the most popular city, and its street food is acclaimed as possibly the best in the world. A Singapore-type Bangkok will not attract more visitors, which Thailand seems to desperately want to increase.
As for the hygiene question it is certainly a problem, but not one that cannot be overcome through regulations enforced by the BMA. Simple hygiene and sanitation practices could control the rat problem. Yes there are a lot of rats but I have seen them in many areas where there are no food stalls. I have seen them in other major cities of the world, not usually as many though. As for intellectual property, from my observations the impact has thus far been limited, such products are still freely available in tourist and other areas. Some markets selling such goods may have been affected by closures, but I don’t think this has much to do with street food.
The generals do not have a mandate to make such sweeping changes, especially when it affects the lives of so many of those living on the margins who sell and often provide the food from local provinces for food stalls and markets. I would hate to see Isan people driven from the city, or driven into more menial and less entrepreneurial roles. Yes, many in the elite and middle classes have long called for such changes and the generals are obliging their constituency.
Last orders in Bangkok
Come on Simon. You sound like some “wanker” from the WB or ADB when you talk about tax avoidance in Thailand and how the net needs to be spread to ensure even more Thais (and others) including presumably those on less than the minimum wage should pay tax. They do already via their daily toil but perhaps you haven’t noticed that. As for rats I know of no Thai that eats sewer rats and Bangkok is not the only city in the world – including many larger Western cities – that has sewer rats. As for enclosing markets clearly you have not enjoyed some of the best street food in the world washed down with a beer or three of your own choice. The contagion you mention seems to be in your own mind and your muddled modernizing problematic. I suggest you go to the ADB website and apply for a job with the ADB or similar. As for me, while I don’t often stroll down Silom Road as I live out in the “boonies” where we have lovely snakes who like to visit us, especially during the wet season, I would be traumatized if I did not see a rat or two. Although of course you can see a rat or three gracing the areas very close to MBK. Perhaps you had better stick to Paragon where all or most of the rats nibble away at the top of the food chain.
Despotic urbanism in Thailand
Yet we mustn’t forget that the Queen, or is she the Queen Mother these days, offers up the opportunity of more delaying tactics.
Last orders in Bangkok
Thank you for interpreting the vendors as important potential contributor to state stability, hygiene and future progress by taking the carts indoors and formalizing. And for pointing out that romanticizing vendors may avoid down to earth obstacles to state management such as paying taxes. But comparing world cities like those in Germany, France and the US with Bangkok and the role of food vendors doesn’t fly at this time. Vendors make the system work. Watch the conversations starting regarding the monthly salary humans who don’t have a choice where (financially) where they get their food from other then the vendors.
The point is Bangkok is a mega-city. Meaning it has been created by the huge migration over the past 50 years of farmers from the country side ignited by huge neo-liberal projects that are the engine for job creation and progress in Thailand. The people who don’t fit into these projects make up the lion’s share of vendors and the people who partake of their services are low paid employees who really don’t have a choice. It sounds like instead of getting a decent meal outside you would rather have them go wave food at the 7-11, get in line and further tie them selves into a system that doesn’t care about them (I am speaking not only of the formalized capital system as well as the government).
Perhaps in the distant future BKK will have system like Singapore. If you ask Bangkokians what they think about the vendors your sure to get complaints about the inconvenience created on the sidewalk but most people rely on them and are happy to get a taste of home where the food sellers have to pay attention to the quality of their food in order to keep their customers.
I get great pleasure out of their mutinous movements throughout the city defying the order and primacy of privileged capital. Oh and don’t forget to watch your step on the sidewalks!
Explaining the roots of KNU power struggles
Good analysis, but you neglect to mention that the current situation dates to a power struggle in the KNU following the assassination of General Secretary Padoh Mahn Sha. At the Congress which followed, his allies maintained control. But they lost power at the next Congress four years later due to vote counting fraud. At the recent Congress there was no fraud, but the current leadership chose the senior delegates to attend, who in turn picked junior delegates who followed their voting preference. Inside the KNU, it is viewed that these junior delegates were used. The result, the entire group of leaders who proposed deliberate and careful negotiations with the Tatmadaw was purged. This has disrupted the KNU and it may well lead to a split, first by people not following HQ orders and then formally. It is notable that many KNLA officers and rank and file troops do not support the current leadership, which is also the case with local communities and civil society groups. For example, there is now not a single woman in the top leadership, which is amazing for a culture that has strong traditions of gender equality.
Despotic urbanism in Thailand
Yet, interestingly, he lacks any real awareness of his own limitations and of those with whom he has surrounded himself.
Which might (to a less charitable person imply stupidity as well as the ubiquitous poor quality Thai education.
The only reliable way to quantify power is to count the number of people who are prepared to do what you tell them. In this sense Prayuth’s ability to alienate people by imposing rules which have no particular merit but which may appeal to a widespread conceit about the (in my view largely non-existent) beauty of Thailand or its people, without any sense of an approaching day of reckoning.
I would not be at all surprised if that day of reckoning were not to closely follow a certain fiery conflagration planned for later this year. there have been some indications in the past few months that people are beginning to test the boundaries of the good general’s dictats (and perhaps patience). It has seemed to me for a long time that the coup-mongers share a sense of their own importance with those who believe in the “Divine Right of Kings”. it’s not always sensible to swim against the tide of history.
Kingdom of fear (and favour)
New Mandala publishes ‘comment after comment’ because that’s what it does – it is a forum which invites and publishes comments. You might be surprised to be aware that nowhere in its rules does it say that comments must comply with your opinion, in fact nowhere in its rules does it mention Michael Wilson at all.
You mention that some posts are ‘agonisingly long’and I venture to suggest, because you appear not to have thought of it, is that some posts need a certain length in order to effectively make their point, Whether or not that point is correct, widely held, or even sensible, however it is your comment about ill-informed that is more important, because it is more pernicious, in my opinion.
Scholars, and those people with academic qualifications, rarely accuse other contributors of being ill-informed, and that is because a part of their education is to teach them better approaches and greater tolerance of ideas and opinionsthat may not agree with their own. Almost always, people who accuse others of being ill-informed without stating where the information is wrong, and without proposing different information which is demonstrably right and not just mere opinion, are usually only interested in implying that they themselves are better informed, which is sometimes true but more often than not, untrue. It’s also calculatedly offensive, but expressed in a pseudo-polite fashion in order to avoid the post not seeing the light of day at all courtesy of the moderators.
So, Michael, how about instead of just slagging off other people (a technique which is a barely disguised ad-hominem attack), you actually say what is wrong with what is said (that is not just a difference of opinion) and suggest an alternative, better knowledge.
The purpose of training to be an academic, very often trains people to be very un-academic, and sometimes even un-scholarly. An outstanding example of this is Prof Richard Dawkins, who although qualified as an academic, is widely perceived to be closed-minded, bigoted, and tolerant only of those people and opinions which agree with him and his. It is a mistake to believe that the effectiveness of training to be an academic is proved by a bunch of pieces of paper, because in most cases, those pieces of paper have been awarded because they comply with rules or opinions by academics whose qualifications may well be arguable. Advanced learning is not a perfect science, not even a perfect politics, (though it normally is highly political), but even so I have rarely heard a real academic call somebody ill-informed, and not actually mean that they’ve said something which does not comply with their own views but which can’t really be argued with sensibly, since it is after all, just another opinion.
In conclusion Michael I think this was one of the less useful posts that I have seen on New Mandala, and it is my opinion (my qualified opinion by the way), that you should feel embarrassed by it, since the psychology behind it shines through bright and clear.
Last orders in Bangkok
‘Would he apply the same analysis to UK Germany France or USA?’ This statement makes no sense. Thailand has its faults, but they are mostly our Western faults, made obvious by the amateurish Thai elites. The notion that the West is superior to Thailand or any other country is a fantasy, they are simply different.
‘It may be fun to take home fake rolexes for yr mates at 3000 bt a pop. But its illegal.’ Ha, ha, ha…seriously?
‘So in socialist countries is tax evasion tolerated?’ It’s certainly tolerated in the West, but only for wealthy individuals and corporations.
In the UK many nurses feed themselves from foodbanks, and due to government cuts the streets are overrun with rats. So your characterisation is inaccurate as well as offensive. Thais or any other type of foreigner are not more corrupt or unhygienic than Westerners, unless you happen to be peering through a monocle whilst wearing a pith helmet.
Dr. Sopranzetti is an accomplished scholar, and his articles are always interesting and a pleasure to read. Antonio Gramsci was a marxist not an anarchist.
Last orders in Bangkok
Simon – let me assure, you need have no fear of rats. I’ve been eating Thai street food since 1963, and the ONLY times I’ve developed stomach trouble was after too much delicious som tam. I’ve NEVER suffered Well’s disease.