Former Columnist Jailed for Facebook Criticism of Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi(mmtimes.com)
mmtimes.com
Former Columnist Jailed for Facebook Criticism of Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi
https://www.mmtimes.com/news/ngar-min-swe-given-7-years-facebook-post.html
67 comments
Maybe they should just be a little more careful about who they give it to. Even back when she seemed like a saint, did she really advance the cause of world peace that much? I don’t see how.
The classic crazy example would be Obama’s prize. It was obviously just a “you're not George W. Bush” prize. Hard to take such a thing seriously. They should stop treating it as “we like your political activism” and start treating it as “you have significantly contributed to world peace.”
The classic crazy example would be Obama’s prize. It was obviously just a “you're not George W. Bush” prize. Hard to take such a thing seriously. They should stop treating it as “we like your political activism” and start treating it as “you have significantly contributed to world peace.”
> The classic crazy example would be Obama’s prize. It was obviously just a “you're not George W. Bush” prize. Hard to take such a thing seriously
Tom Lehrer, a satirical musician, once said that political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was given the Nobel Peace Prize.
Tom Lehrer, a satirical musician, once said that political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was given the Nobel Peace Prize.
That is a good example, but at least Kissinger did actually contribute to peace, even though overshadowed by his other activities.
I'm not sure it would be awarded more than once a generation if they actually required a significant contribution to creating world peace. I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing. Looking at the list of recent recipients, I would say Mikhail Gorbachev is probably the most recent individual who truly, unequivocally deserves it.
The committee saying “none of you assholes deserve it this year, try harder” might be a good statement to make.
[deleted](1)
The peace prize has been a joke for quite a while now.
Ever since they gave it to Kissinger won it in '73 it's been a joke.
Gave one to Kissinger, denied one to Gandhi!
Not just the peace prize.
I've heard of astrophysicists describing the physics award as the "No Bell" prize after Jocelyn Bell Burnell.
The peace prize was really a joke from the start though, considering the origin of the money.
I've heard of astrophysicists describing the physics award as the "No Bell" prize after Jocelyn Bell Burnell.
The peace prize was really a joke from the start though, considering the origin of the money.
There is a good case that five women have been denied the physics Prize because of their sex, including J.B.B. (although she herself disagrees). However, all the people who won did deserve it, which keeps the prize from being considered a joke, unlike literature (Bob Dylan) and peace (Obama).
> However, all the people who won did deserve it, which keeps the prize from being considered a joke, unlike literature (Bob Dylan) and peace (Obama)
Bob Dylan is one of the most influential songwriters and lyricists of the last 50+ years. The idea that "literature" is solely contained in novels and poetry compilations was abandoned decades ago. Dylan is a poet, and he's made countless contributions to literature in his lifetime.
If you're going to criticize the Nobel Prize in Literature, there are sufficient grounds to do so, given the current scandal within the Swedish Academy. But you can't claim that awarding Dylan somehow brought disrepute to the award itself.
Bob Dylan is one of the most influential songwriters and lyricists of the last 50+ years. The idea that "literature" is solely contained in novels and poetry compilations was abandoned decades ago. Dylan is a poet, and he's made countless contributions to literature in his lifetime.
If you're going to criticize the Nobel Prize in Literature, there are sufficient grounds to do so, given the current scandal within the Swedish Academy. But you can't claim that awarding Dylan somehow brought disrepute to the award itself.
Yes, I can, because I've heard and read his lyrics. As Kurt Vonnegut has said, they are gibberish.
https://lee-phillips.org/dylanreally/
https://lee-phillips.org/dylanreally/
From your blog:
>"But reflect that neither Vladimir Nabokov nor James Joyce, the best writers in English since Shakespeare, were considered worthy enough for the literature prize, and any illusion that quality is of overwhelming importance to the committee evaporates"
So let me get this straight, you think think Dylan's lyrics are gibberish but you understand Joyce just fine? This is patently absurd. Are you just trolling?
Finnegan's Wake is perhaps the most famous piece of gibberish ever published. It's widely thought to be incomprehensible even by scholars. Lets take a typical passage from Finnegan's Wake:
"Otherways wesways like that provost scoffing bedoueen the jebel and the jpysian sea. Cropherb the crunch-bracken shall decide. Then we’ll know if the feast is a flyday. She has a gift of seek on site and she allcasually ansars helpers, the dreamydeary. Heed! Heed ! It may half been a missfired brick, as some say, or it mought have been due to a collupsus of his back promises, as others looked at it."
How's that not gibberish? You can't have any idea what any of that means. The book was so inscrutable it came with its own glossary. You "get" that passage but you can't understand the lyrics to "Blowing in the Wind" or "Mr Tambourine Man"? Right. That's laughable.
And honestly who care's what Kurt Vonnegut said about Dylan in an interview in Hustler magazine. It's hard to think of a more disreputable source of meaningful discussion than a Larry Flynt publication.
>"But reflect that neither Vladimir Nabokov nor James Joyce, the best writers in English since Shakespeare, were considered worthy enough for the literature prize, and any illusion that quality is of overwhelming importance to the committee evaporates"
So let me get this straight, you think think Dylan's lyrics are gibberish but you understand Joyce just fine? This is patently absurd. Are you just trolling?
Finnegan's Wake is perhaps the most famous piece of gibberish ever published. It's widely thought to be incomprehensible even by scholars. Lets take a typical passage from Finnegan's Wake:
"Otherways wesways like that provost scoffing bedoueen the jebel and the jpysian sea. Cropherb the crunch-bracken shall decide. Then we’ll know if the feast is a flyday. She has a gift of seek on site and she allcasually ansars helpers, the dreamydeary. Heed! Heed ! It may half been a missfired brick, as some say, or it mought have been due to a collupsus of his back promises, as others looked at it."
How's that not gibberish? You can't have any idea what any of that means. The book was so inscrutable it came with its own glossary. You "get" that passage but you can't understand the lyrics to "Blowing in the Wind" or "Mr Tambourine Man"? Right. That's laughable.
And honestly who care's what Kurt Vonnegut said about Dylan in an interview in Hustler magazine. It's hard to think of a more disreputable source of meaningful discussion than a Larry Flynt publication.
Most of your comment is a kind of straw man. I said that Nabokov and Joyce are the best writers in English since Shakespeare. I certainly was not trolling - that is my sincere opinion. But that doesn't mean that I like everything they wrote. I don't like everything Shakespeare wrote, either. I never seriously tried to read F.W. after dipping briefly into it a couple of times (but even the your excerpt has a kind of curious charm). But you may be aware that Joyce wrote some other stuff. Why is it important to whom Vonnegut was speaking? I just happen to agree with him.
No, exactly none of my comment is strawman. To wit:
You offered up a link to a personal blog post in order to support your assertion that Dylan has brought "disrepute" to the Nobel Prize for Literature and how his lyrics could be considered gibberish.
In the same blog post you use James Joyce for contrast - as a literary figure who is worthy of the Nobel.
>"But you may be aware that Joyce wrote some other stuff."
Of course he did. We could talk about Ulysses as well. This book is only slightly more approachable than Finnegans Wake. Ulysses is considered one of the most difficult books to read and few people seem to finish it.
The overwhelming majority of Bob Dylan's lyrics could be read, pronounced and interpreted by anyone with a 7th grade reading comprehension.
I have simply pointed out the absurdity of your statements and the flimsiness of your arguments. It's fine if you don't like Dylan you are entitled to that but if you are going claim that his lyrics are "gibberish" or that he has brought "disrepute" to the Nobel Prize you should be able to convincing arguments and you have not. Not even close.
You offered up a link to a personal blog post in order to support your assertion that Dylan has brought "disrepute" to the Nobel Prize for Literature and how his lyrics could be considered gibberish.
In the same blog post you use James Joyce for contrast - as a literary figure who is worthy of the Nobel.
>"But you may be aware that Joyce wrote some other stuff."
Of course he did. We could talk about Ulysses as well. This book is only slightly more approachable than Finnegans Wake. Ulysses is considered one of the most difficult books to read and few people seem to finish it.
The overwhelming majority of Bob Dylan's lyrics could be read, pronounced and interpreted by anyone with a 7th grade reading comprehension.
I have simply pointed out the absurdity of your statements and the flimsiness of your arguments. It's fine if you don't like Dylan you are entitled to that but if you are going claim that his lyrics are "gibberish" or that he has brought "disrepute" to the Nobel Prize you should be able to convincing arguments and you have not. Not even close.
I offer no arguments at all. The worth of a body of literary work is a matter of opinion, and I offered mine. That you can't disagree without becoming upset may be something you should consider contemplating when you are feeling more relaxed.
“your assertion that Dylan has brought "disrepute" to the Nobel Prize”
That would be a strange assertion. It wasn’t Dylan’s fault that he won, and he seemed completely uninterested in the fact, to the point that the Prize committee became offended. Which was amusing to watch.
“[Ulysses] is only slightly more approachable than Finnegans Wake.”
Not even close to the same league in regard to opaqueness. I’ve read it a few times with great pleasure, and so have thousands of others.
“The overwhelming majority of Bob Dylan's lyrics could be read, pronounced and interpreted by anyone with a 7th grade reading comprehension.”
I suppose that’s true. Are you saying that is the relevant criterion?
“your assertion that Dylan has brought "disrepute" to the Nobel Prize”
That would be a strange assertion. It wasn’t Dylan’s fault that he won, and he seemed completely uninterested in the fact, to the point that the Prize committee became offended. Which was amusing to watch.
“[Ulysses] is only slightly more approachable than Finnegans Wake.”
Not even close to the same league in regard to opaqueness. I’ve read it a few times with great pleasure, and so have thousands of others.
“The overwhelming majority of Bob Dylan's lyrics could be read, pronounced and interpreted by anyone with a 7th grade reading comprehension.”
I suppose that’s true. Are you saying that is the relevant criterion?
Well, the lyrics of Bob Dylan have clearly elicited a strong emotional reaction from you, if nothing else, given you have bothered to make an anti-fan page about them on your personal website. :)
I also love Vonnegut, but I wouldn't automatically trust his judgement on verse. Plus a lot of literature buffs claim Vonnegut is nonsense, so he isn't particularly good backup in that field.
Literature is nonsense really, as a definition. I feel it is just a word for people who feel they are above admitting that they love to be entertained by stories.
I also love Vonnegut, but I wouldn't automatically trust his judgement on verse. Plus a lot of literature buffs claim Vonnegut is nonsense, so he isn't particularly good backup in that field.
Literature is nonsense really, as a definition. I feel it is just a word for people who feel they are above admitting that they love to be entertained by stories.
I don't think Vonnegut is a great writer. But I like the guy, and I just happen to agree with him on this. Since he's held in high regard around here, he's a good buttress for my subjective opinion.
Of course you know this bit of doggerel verse, everyone does;
...
“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”
“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl
...
Have you ever heard it with the lines reversed though?
...
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief
“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief
...
Now you have to admit, that is not the work of someone who doesn't know what they are doing with language, irrespective of whether or not you personally like it.
...
“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”
“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl
...
Have you ever heard it with the lines reversed though?
...
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief
“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief
...
Now you have to admit, that is not the work of someone who doesn't know what they are doing with language, irrespective of whether or not you personally like it.
I think I've heard that song. Interesting what you point out, although I'm not moved to admit what you claim I have to admit. I think the lines are awkward and the writing kind of crude, like Dylan generally. For example, writing "did growl" rather than "growled" in an attempt to add more feet to the line is highschool level. Given all that, the imagery is far more interesting than in the typical rock song, which makes one perk up on first hearing.
I'd assume 'wildcat did growl' was chosen for for the use of staccato to create rhythm from the consonants, which would be absent with 'wildcat growled', rather than to add more feet to the line, but hey, we are just layering ephemera on ephemera here.
She may be extremely magnanimous about it, but didn't they give the prize for J.B.B's work to her supervisor who had told her that the signals were terrestrial?
The peace prize was corrupt from the start. I am, for an atheist, a great believer in redemption, but I do not believe it comes from sticking your own name on a big cash prize for the good works of other people, hence the (unpopular it seems, I must have missed the 'No Stairway' sign) Led Zeppelin reference I made elsewhere in this thread.
I am not sure about the Dylan thing, literature is a tricky thing to judge at the best of times and I am admittedly biased, as the second verse of Subterranean Homesick Blues is one of my favourite sentences;
Maggie comes fleet-foot, face full of black soot, talking that the heat put plants in the bed, but the phones tapped anyway, Maggie said that many say they must bust in early May, orders from the D.A.
The peace prize was corrupt from the start. I am, for an atheist, a great believer in redemption, but I do not believe it comes from sticking your own name on a big cash prize for the good works of other people, hence the (unpopular it seems, I must have missed the 'No Stairway' sign) Led Zeppelin reference I made elsewhere in this thread.
I am not sure about the Dylan thing, literature is a tricky thing to judge at the best of times and I am admittedly biased, as the second verse of Subterranean Homesick Blues is one of my favourite sentences;
Maggie comes fleet-foot, face full of black soot, talking that the heat put plants in the bed, but the phones tapped anyway, Maggie said that many say they must bust in early May, orders from the D.A.
"She may be extremely magnanimous about it, but didn't they give the prize for J.B.B's work to her supervisor who had told her that the signals were terrestrial?"
Yup. She has said that she did not deserve the Prize because she was only a student. I don't understand her position, given the circumstances. But I wouldn't want to argue with her about it. Her name seems secure in the history of the subject.
Yup. She has said that she did not deserve the Prize because she was only a student. I don't understand her position, given the circumstances. But I wouldn't want to argue with her about it. Her name seems secure in the history of the subject.
Could you explain how giving the Nobel Prize for Literature to Bob Dylan is a "joke"?
Poetry is most certainly a form of a literature.[1]
And Bob Dylan is widely considered to be a poet. Ginsberg considered him a poet. The lyrics for "Mr. Tambourine Man” are in the 10th edition of The Norton Introduction to Literature. The lyrics to "Desolation Row” are in 2006 Oxford Book of American Poetry. Dartmouth teaches a class that analyzes the poetry of Dylan.[2]
It was also not the first time the Nobel for Literature was awarded to a poet. Poet Erik Axel Karlfeldt was awarded the Nobel for Literature in 1931.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_literature
[2] https://www.dartmouth.edu/~dartlife/archives/16-4/renza.html
[3] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1931/karlfeldt/...
Poetry is most certainly a form of a literature.[1]
And Bob Dylan is widely considered to be a poet. Ginsberg considered him a poet. The lyrics for "Mr. Tambourine Man” are in the 10th edition of The Norton Introduction to Literature. The lyrics to "Desolation Row” are in 2006 Oxford Book of American Poetry. Dartmouth teaches a class that analyzes the poetry of Dylan.[2]
It was also not the first time the Nobel for Literature was awarded to a poet. Poet Erik Axel Karlfeldt was awarded the Nobel for Literature in 1931.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_literature
[2] https://www.dartmouth.edu/~dartlife/archives/16-4/renza.html
[3] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1931/karlfeldt/...
Nobody is arguing that poetry is not literature. I just happen to agree with Kurt Vonnegut that Dylan is a lousy poet.
The peace prize was really a joke from the start though, considering the origin of the money
How do you figure? Is it unreasonable for a man to look at the damage his work has done on the world and wish to atone for it?
How do you figure? Is it unreasonable for a man to look at the damage his work has done on the world and wish to atone for it?
What's the origin of the money?
alfred nobel - he invented the nobel peace prize because he didn't want his legacy to be being remembered as the inventor of dynamite and profiting from arms sales.
Like many technologies, dynamite is a two edged sword. All in all, I'd wage it had much more civilian applications than military ones. And Nobel invented it because of the large numbers of _civilian_ workers being killed or injured in nitroglycerin accidents.
IMHO, smokeless powder is, compared to dynamite, _the_ military invention of the time.
IMHO, smokeless powder is, compared to dynamite, _the_ military invention of the time.
This is why we need more ethics in engineering. If you spend all your life selling arms, you shouldn't be able to use your immense wealth just before you die to change your legacy. "Move fast and break thing". "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."
> I'm starting to think that the Nobel Peace Prize should only be awarded posthumously
That's never going to happen. Nobel Peace Prize is a political tool and has always been so. It has nothing to do with peace but advancing post-colonial european interests. Go read the history of the nobel prize and who has won. The prize was created by alfred nobel, noted for inventing dynamite and being a major war munitions manufacturer.
Why was Suu Kyi given the nobel prize? Because she loved democracy and human rights? Of course not. Lots of people love democracy and human rights and they haven't won the award. She was given the award because the british thought that they could use her to take over mynammar again and they felt that they could control her. Turns out that they couldn't since she's a nationalist, like her father. Think about it. She was given the nobel peace prize in 1991 while there was no democracy or human rights in myanmar ( it was a military dictatorship ). So her award was "forward looking". What were the british looking forward to? Gaining influence in their former colony.
Why was obama awarded the nobel peace prize before he even took office? Because europeans wanted to influence obama going forward. Funnily enough, the nobel peace prize probably influenced obama into helping france and britain by militarily attacking libya. After all, he owed the europeans.
Awards are more about influencing the future rather than celebrating the past. This is especially the case with the nobel peace prize. It's part of what we call soft power.
Guess what? The chinese are playing the same game now. That's right. They have their own "peace" prize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius_Peace_Prize
That's never going to happen. Nobel Peace Prize is a political tool and has always been so. It has nothing to do with peace but advancing post-colonial european interests. Go read the history of the nobel prize and who has won. The prize was created by alfred nobel, noted for inventing dynamite and being a major war munitions manufacturer.
Why was Suu Kyi given the nobel prize? Because she loved democracy and human rights? Of course not. Lots of people love democracy and human rights and they haven't won the award. She was given the award because the british thought that they could use her to take over mynammar again and they felt that they could control her. Turns out that they couldn't since she's a nationalist, like her father. Think about it. She was given the nobel peace prize in 1991 while there was no democracy or human rights in myanmar ( it was a military dictatorship ). So her award was "forward looking". What were the british looking forward to? Gaining influence in their former colony.
Why was obama awarded the nobel peace prize before he even took office? Because europeans wanted to influence obama going forward. Funnily enough, the nobel peace prize probably influenced obama into helping france and britain by militarily attacking libya. After all, he owed the europeans.
Awards are more about influencing the future rather than celebrating the past. This is especially the case with the nobel peace prize. It's part of what we call soft power.
Guess what? The chinese are playing the same game now. That's right. They have their own "peace" prize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius_Peace_Prize
If the Confucius Peace Prize is a genuine attempt at projecting soft power, it is a hilarious one. Candidates for the 2017 award included Bashar al-Assad, Rodrigo Duterte, and eventual winner Hun Sen. In 2015 it went to Robert Mugabe.
The candidates you listed shows that it is a genuine attempt at soft power. Just because it's soft power directed to people we don't like doesn't mean it isn't soft power.
China is using their "peace" prize as soft power to further their own interests. They are being rather blatant about it as you showed with mugabe winning it in 2015. And europe is using their "peace" prize to further their own interests. Though they do pay lip service to "peace", "human rights" and "democracy". The chinese haven't bother with that much, but if history serves as an example, it won't be long before the chinese pretend to be the champions of the "peace", "human rights" and "democracy" like europeans do.
Also, the chinese peace prize winners are suspect for sure. But so are the european peace prize list. People like woodrow wilson and henry kissinger are nobel peace laureates.
China is using their "peace" prize as soft power to further their own interests. They are being rather blatant about it as you showed with mugabe winning it in 2015. And europe is using their "peace" prize to further their own interests. Though they do pay lip service to "peace", "human rights" and "democracy". The chinese haven't bother with that much, but if history serves as an example, it won't be long before the chinese pretend to be the champions of the "peace", "human rights" and "democracy" like europeans do.
Also, the chinese peace prize winners are suspect for sure. But so are the european peace prize list. People like woodrow wilson and henry kissinger are nobel peace laureates.
It's a bunch of Norwegian academics. Of course they have their Western and liberal biases and blind spots, but the theory a prize for the incarcerated Burmese election victor was motivated less by the symbolic importance of her continuing to express a belief about democracy and nonviolence and more a ruse to flatter her in the hope she would reinstate British colonialism in Myanmar which would somehow achieve a Norwegian foreign policy goal is just bizarre. Not sure what influence the committee hoped to obtain over the likes of Mother Theresa, Malala or the International Campaign To Abolish Nuclear Weapons either
It's a bunch of Norwegian academics.
The committee is basically always split 50-50 between academics and former politicians.
The committee is basically always split 50-50 between academics and former politicians.
"It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it"
~ Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom from fear, 1991.
~ Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom from fear, 1991.
All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse Dune, Missionaria Protectiva
I feel like this comment thread needs a link to CGP Grey's excellent Rules for Rulers video, too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
I’ve read thd book this is based on—its a good book and pessimistically presents what is actually a quite optimistic model of power.
[deleted]
Looks like she was right.
Myanmar seem to have managed the elected transition of power from a military dictatorship to a civilian dictatorship, but not any steps beyond that.
It's a delicate transition even when the civilians have actual full authority over the government (see: South Africa, or worse yet, Zimbabwe). But when Myanmar transitioned to the free elections which put Suu Kyi in power, the military specifically reserved a significant minority of seats in the legislature and maintained constitutionally-guaranteed independence from the civilian government.
On top of that, the military had been the only functional institution in Myanmar for over 50 years. During that time, there was no real court system, no free media, no private industry, and no significant educational institutions. Even before the military took over, the majority of the colonial government bureaucracy consisted of Indians that the British brought in with them, the vast majority of whom left with the British, gutting civilian institutions. The military controlled every aspect of everyone's lives. Their retreat from total control left an enormous institutional vacuum, with Buddhist monasteries left as the only nearly national stable institution (which has fed tensions with minority Muslim ethnic groups).
When I was working there a few years ago, people barely knew what the laws were for creating a corporation. No one knew how to verify who owned what land. The military suddenly allowed free press for the first time since the 1960s, and immediately a plethora of dubious publications sprung up to compete with the hilariously inaccurate government-run propaganda rag, the Light of Myanmar. People just weren't equipped to evaluate journalistic quality yet. So fundamental elements of a free society just weren't in place.
And the population was in many ways unprepared for democracy. Atrocious education and decades of propaganda make it difficult to rationally exercise democratic authority. Particularly when there are strong ethnic tensions, because the majority tends to abuse their authority to the detriment of the minority. Hence the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya.
So Suu Kyi is left in a tenuous position. She can't allow dissent within her own party without risking fragmentation and a loss to a military-centric coalition. She can't let her own party run wild without risking unfettered ethnic cleansing and a military backlash/coup if their special privileges are revoked.
This latest move is disheartening for many reasons, but more than anything it is evidence of just how desperate the situation in Myanmar really is, despite whatever brief optimism grew out of the nation's partial democratization.
On top of that, the military had been the only functional institution in Myanmar for over 50 years. During that time, there was no real court system, no free media, no private industry, and no significant educational institutions. Even before the military took over, the majority of the colonial government bureaucracy consisted of Indians that the British brought in with them, the vast majority of whom left with the British, gutting civilian institutions. The military controlled every aspect of everyone's lives. Their retreat from total control left an enormous institutional vacuum, with Buddhist monasteries left as the only nearly national stable institution (which has fed tensions with minority Muslim ethnic groups).
When I was working there a few years ago, people barely knew what the laws were for creating a corporation. No one knew how to verify who owned what land. The military suddenly allowed free press for the first time since the 1960s, and immediately a plethora of dubious publications sprung up to compete with the hilariously inaccurate government-run propaganda rag, the Light of Myanmar. People just weren't equipped to evaluate journalistic quality yet. So fundamental elements of a free society just weren't in place.
And the population was in many ways unprepared for democracy. Atrocious education and decades of propaganda make it difficult to rationally exercise democratic authority. Particularly when there are strong ethnic tensions, because the majority tends to abuse their authority to the detriment of the minority. Hence the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya.
So Suu Kyi is left in a tenuous position. She can't allow dissent within her own party without risking fragmentation and a loss to a military-centric coalition. She can't let her own party run wild without risking unfettered ethnic cleansing and a military backlash/coup if their special privileges are revoked.
This latest move is disheartening for many reasons, but more than anything it is evidence of just how desperate the situation in Myanmar really is, despite whatever brief optimism grew out of the nation's partial democratization.
I can acknowledge that Suu Kyi's position forces ugly compromises, but I don't see how she her or her party really needs to jail journalists. Especially when 1. this article claims that the offense is criticism of her, and 2. as you mention, public trust in journalism seems low anyway.
At any rate, are we even sure that this is the work of Suu Kyi's faction? It would be a pretty fiendish move for the military to suppress free speech and make it look like Suu Kyi's work, since (as we see here) it would weaken her status with the west. But I have no idea how to verify something like that.
At any rate, are we even sure that this is the work of Suu Kyi's faction? It would be a pretty fiendish move for the military to suppress free speech and make it look like Suu Kyi's work, since (as we see here) it would weaken her status with the west. But I have no idea how to verify something like that.
Those things take time.
If you don't execute everyone from the old regime, there are tons of rich people, executives, special interests, influential families, etc, that remain in place and are still important after the transition.
(The post-WWII Germany was full of ex-nazi hardcore sympathizers, and nazi executives and officials in all kinds of positions of power until the 80s or so). De-nazification (not the half-arsed, soon abandoned program of the same name [1]) was a big demand of younger germans in the 60s and 70s.
Now, if you do execute all important people from the old regime, on the other hand, you have now had yourself a taste of big corrupting power over others. And unless you kill every relative, friend, etc as well, you have a recipe for civil war and further bad blood between you and those that remained.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
If you don't execute everyone from the old regime, there are tons of rich people, executives, special interests, influential families, etc, that remain in place and are still important after the transition.
(The post-WWII Germany was full of ex-nazi hardcore sympathizers, and nazi executives and officials in all kinds of positions of power until the 80s or so). De-nazification (not the half-arsed, soon abandoned program of the same name [1]) was a big demand of younger germans in the 60s and 70s.
Now, if you do execute all important people from the old regime, on the other hand, you have now had yourself a taste of big corrupting power over others. And unless you kill every relative, friend, etc as well, you have a recipe for civil war and further bad blood between you and those that remained.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
This fed into the "de-Baathification" of Iraq, where simply firing people in a purge of the regime resulted in a situation of both ineffective governance and a huge pool of excluded people who could form a resistance movement against the occupying coalition. Plenty of people and weapons from that have ended up in the Syrian civil war.
Conversely the South African "truth and reconciliation commission" seems to have played a part in the healing of that country - but at the cost of leaving crimes unpunished. Northern Ireland has opted for an intermediate approach of trying to draw a line under everything as quietly as possible - no truth, no justice, but no more killing.
Arguably many of the US's current problems stem from inadequately addressing the pro-slavery faction. At least now the question of "what is the significance of all these statues from the losing side of the civil war?" is back in the public consciousness.
Conversely the South African "truth and reconciliation commission" seems to have played a part in the healing of that country - but at the cost of leaving crimes unpunished. Northern Ireland has opted for an intermediate approach of trying to draw a line under everything as quietly as possible - no truth, no justice, but no more killing.
Arguably many of the US's current problems stem from inadequately addressing the pro-slavery faction. At least now the question of "what is the significance of all these statues from the losing side of the civil war?" is back in the public consciousness.
> Conversely the South African "truth and reconciliation commission" seems to have played a part in the healing of that country - but at the cost of leaving crimes unpunished.
You punish people to deter others for committing the same crime. The other benefit, revenge, has a scope that is too narrow to benefit the masses. So, if you are replacing an evil regime with a new regime and there is no possibility that the old regime will come back (apartheid has run by a small minority of the population) then there is no benefit from punishing past crimes. This is why the "truth and reconciliation commission" was so successful.
Very few countries can boast to such a peaceful political turnaround.
You punish people to deter others for committing the same crime. The other benefit, revenge, has a scope that is too narrow to benefit the masses. So, if you are replacing an evil regime with a new regime and there is no possibility that the old regime will come back (apartheid has run by a small minority of the population) then there is no benefit from punishing past crimes. This is why the "truth and reconciliation commission" was so successful.
Very few countries can boast to such a peaceful political turnaround.
> Very few countries can boast to such a peaceful political turnaround.
Or such a slow descent into tyranny. Let's see when Julius Malema and his supporters eventually do call for the eradication of white people.
Or such a slow descent into tyranny. Let's see when Julius Malema and his supporters eventually do call for the eradication of white people.
>> Very few countries can boast to such a peaceful political turnaround.
I'd say most countries in Eastern Europe and some in South America certainly can boast that. Political changes don't nessecarily have to be bloody, violent affairs.
I'd say most countries in Eastern Europe and some in South America certainly can boast that. Political changes don't nessecarily have to be bloody, violent affairs.
De-Baathification is arguably one of the primary driving factors in the birth of ISIS. It was such a terrible policy, and set the USA up to fail from the beginning in their mission to implement a stable, functioning government.
No one expected a miracle, but she was a Nobel Peace Prize recipient! She could have done much more to prevent the atrocities happening to the Rohingya.
>but she was a Nobel Peace Prize recipient
Wasn't Obama as well? And he maintained a torture camp, occupying forces, and tons of bombings.
The "Nobel Peace Prize" is a political tool, not some valuable metric.
Someone mentioned Kissinger having one as well...
Wasn't Obama as well? And he maintained a torture camp, occupying forces, and tons of bombings.
The "Nobel Peace Prize" is a political tool, not some valuable metric.
Someone mentioned Kissinger having one as well...
Obama was the first Nobel peace price recipient to bomb another Nobel prize recipient after getting the award, after an airstrike on an MSF hospital.
Kissinger is also responsible for bombing of another Nobel Peace prize winner, however he ordered the secret bombing in Laos and Cambodia that destroyed Red Cross facilities shortly before getting his, rather than shortly after.
Kissinger is also responsible for bombing of another Nobel Peace prize winner, however he ordered the secret bombing in Laos and Cambodia that destroyed Red Cross facilities shortly before getting his, rather than shortly after.
>Obama was the first Nobel peace price recipient to bomb another Nobel prize recipient after getting the award, after an airstrike on an MSF hospital.
Yeah, it would have been awkward in the subsequent Nobel alumni meeting...
Yeah, it would have been awkward in the subsequent Nobel alumni meeting...
So was Henry Kissinger.
I don't really understand the detail of the situation of her release and taking power but I'm starting to suspect we may have been lied to, or at least given a drastically oversimplified version of events.
I don't really understand the detail of the situation of her release and taking power but I'm starting to suspect we may have been lied to, or at least given a drastically oversimplified version of events.
She could have done much more to prevent the atrocities happening to the Rohingya.
Such as?
Such as?
Actually using the name Rohingya, for a start¹.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people#Denial_of_the_...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people#Denial_of_the_...
>Such as?
I'm no policing expert, but I think a start might be arresting the assailants. I mean in a lot of cases, the videos are being posted to the assailant's Facebook. Now again, I'm no crack detective, but that seems like some evidence you could use to me.
I'm no policing expert, but I think a start might be arresting the assailants. I mean in a lot of cases, the videos are being posted to the assailant's Facebook. Now again, I'm no crack detective, but that seems like some evidence you could use to me.
Truthfully address the crisis:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/20/fact-check-aun...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/20/fact-check-aun...
What doesn't take time though is speaking out about the ethnic cleansing operations being carried out by the military. Her comments at the World Economic Forum on ASEAN were beyond pathetic:
"There are of course ways in which, with hindsight, the situation could’ve been handled better,"
“But we believe that in order to have long-term security and stability we have to be fair to all sides. We can’t choose who should be protected by rule of law,” she said."[1]
In the same speech she addressed the two recently jailed journalists with the following:
>"The judgement … had nothing to do with freedom of expression at all, it had to do with the Official Secrets Act,” she said. “I don’t think anybody has actually bothered to read it."[1]
There's a difference between playing the long game and being complicit.
[1] http://time.com/5394791/aung-san-suu-kyi-rohingya-crisis-han...
"There are of course ways in which, with hindsight, the situation could’ve been handled better,"
“But we believe that in order to have long-term security and stability we have to be fair to all sides. We can’t choose who should be protected by rule of law,” she said."[1]
In the same speech she addressed the two recently jailed journalists with the following:
>"The judgement … had nothing to do with freedom of expression at all, it had to do with the Official Secrets Act,” she said. “I don’t think anybody has actually bothered to read it."[1]
There's a difference between playing the long game and being complicit.
[1] http://time.com/5394791/aung-san-suu-kyi-rohingya-crisis-han...
Civilian dictatorship, such an euphemism for "democracy"
Democracy is not a dictatorship. If you'd ever lived under both, you'd understand the difference.
In a dictatorship, only one person's vote counts.
In a democracy, there are a lot of people whose votes count.
It may seem the same to you, but if you have to experience it you'd almost immediately see that it feels very different. I was a WHOLE lot more careful when I was living in a nation with a dictatorship. One slip up could throw away a lot of your life in a dirty developing nation prison cell.
In a dictatorship, only one person's vote counts.
In a democracy, there are a lot of people whose votes count.
It may seem the same to you, but if you have to experience it you'd almost immediately see that it feels very different. I was a WHOLE lot more careful when I was living in a nation with a dictatorship. One slip up could throw away a lot of your life in a dirty developing nation prison cell.
Aung San Suu Kyii's contempt for human rights is nothing new. I referenced this behavior in 2013 in fr.wikipedia :
« How can Aung San Suu Kyi – a Nobel Peace Prize winner – fail to condemn anti-Muslim violence? », The Daily Telegraph, 2013-10-24, http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.tel...
« Aung San Suu Kyi is turning a blind eye to human rights in the name of politics », The Guardian, 2013-11-26 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/27/aung-s...
I had to "fight" to add these to wikipedia. My first edits were revoked. When the first accusation of genocide appeared in 2016,there was a editing conflict because I added a paragraph about the Rohingya in the top summary. I finally was allowed to put a single sentence about it, which was preceded by another sentenced explaining that Suu Kyi was powerless against the army. I certainly wasn't very tactful, and I lack experience on such conflicts, but that made me extremely distrustful of every Wikipedia article.
« How can Aung San Suu Kyi – a Nobel Peace Prize winner – fail to condemn anti-Muslim violence? », The Daily Telegraph, 2013-10-24, http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.tel...
« Aung San Suu Kyi is turning a blind eye to human rights in the name of politics », The Guardian, 2013-11-26 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/27/aung-s...
I had to "fight" to add these to wikipedia. My first edits were revoked. When the first accusation of genocide appeared in 2016,there was a editing conflict because I added a paragraph about the Rohingya in the top summary. I finally was allowed to put a single sentence about it, which was preceded by another sentenced explaining that Suu Kyi was powerless against the army. I certainly wasn't very tactful, and I lack experience on such conflicts, but that made me extremely distrustful of every Wikipedia article.
"Myanmar has detained at least 38 journalists since Suu Kyi came to power in 2016, according to Athan, a freedom of expression activist organization. These include two Reuters reporters who are on trial accused of breaching the Official Secrets Act."
I'm starting to think that the Nobel Peace Prize should only be awarded posthumously, or perhaps once a person steps down from power (though this would be hard to quantify). Scientific contributions are rarely undone, but a person's overall contribution to world peace can vary quite a bit over the course of their life.
[1] https://reut.rs/2KVsJq7