The upside-down world of Hun Sen and Thaksin

GMT +07:00

Send suggestions

News » Asean Summit 2009

The upside-down world of Hun Sen and Thaksin

  • Published: 27/10/2009 at 09:21 AM
  • Newspaper section: News

The Thai government prepared to fend off a "red shirt" army at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit, mounting security measures designed to prevent a repetition of the embarrassing scenes that disrupted a similar Asean meeting in Pattaya.

This time, the red shirts behaved well, unlike Cambodia's prime minister, Hun Sen, who called the fugitive former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra his "eternal friend" and compared him to Burma's Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Hun Sen, a former Khmer Rouge commander known for his provocative remarks, said: "Many people talk about Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, why not talk about Thaksin? That cannot be referred to as interfering."

Was Hun Sen joking? Not really. The ill-considered remark from the head of the Cambodian government illustrated the quality of leadership we have in Asean.

Hun Sen's remark was not only an insult to Th ailand but also to Burma. The Cambodian prime minister should be made fully aware that Thaksin and Mrs Suu Kyi have nothing at all in common. There are thousands of reasons for ruling out any comparison. But let's look at just a few.

Mrs Suu Kyi is dedicated to the struggle for democracy and freedom in Burma. It won't matter whether Mrs Suu Kyi becomes leader of Burma or not  -  today she is a symbol of change in Burma and remains a beacon of hope in spite of the attempts to belittle her by a repressive regime that has locked her up in her own home for years.

Thaksin, a billionaire telecommunications tycoon, was ousted in a bloodless coup in 2006. He skipped bail after an indictment on corruption charges and has since been living at various locations, including Nicaragua, Montenegro and the United Arab Emirates.

During his time at the head of the Thai government, the press in Thailand was muzzled and he launched a "war on drugs", which killed more than 2,000 people who, if they had been legally dealt with and convicted, would have served prison terms.

Thaksin claimed that he and his government knew the situation in Burma very well because the two countries are immediate neighbours. Here are some facts.

Thaksin was a known friend of Burma's military regime. His government courted the junta by offering loans, improving border trade and sending numerous delegations to Rangoon.

During the Asean summit in Bali, Indonesia, in 2004, Thaksin surprised many of the delegates by giving Burma his unconditional support and praising then prime minister and feared spy chief Gen Khin Nyunt's "sincerity".  Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo later told journalists that Thaksin defended Burma throughout the entire summit.

While other governments in the region  -  and worldwide  -  were voicing increasing criticism of the junta and championing speedy democratic change in Burma, Thaksin was seen to be defending the generals, investing in the country and promising piecemeal progress.

Thailand was then Burma's third most important investment partner, exporting goods worth around US$1.26 billion (43 billion baht) annually.

Thaksin also had his own business interests in Burma. In 2003, Shin Corp, the telecoms company owned until recently by Thaksin's family, signed a deal with Bagan Cybertech, the internet service provider run by Ye Naing Win, son of disgraced prime minister Gen Khin Nyunt.

In 2004, Thaksin visited the ancient former Burmese capital Pagan to sell his Economic Cooperation Strategy, and promised Burma aid and support worth $45 million.

He also set his sights on what he called the "excellent prospects" of Burma's tourism industry, proposing the construction of a ski resort in Burma's northern Kachin State and the development of the unspoilt beaches of Arakan State.

The "Bangkok Process", hosted by Thaksin's government to advance democracy in Burma, fizzled out when Burmese representatives failed to turn up for a planned second session  -  a clear demonstration that even the Burmese generals didn't count on him.

Back home, Thaksin's administration cracked down on Burmese seeking economic and political refuge in Thailand, raising concerns about a conflict of interest and doubts about Bangkok's ability to act as an honest broker in Burma's political standoff.

Sadly, Thaksin's government, by its attitude towards Burmese migrants and refugees living in Thailand, played the nationalism card in order to boost the prime minister's popularity.

In early 2004, UN human rights envoy Hina Jilani visited Thailand and said: "Many of the Burmese human rights defenders feel very insecure with regard to their freedom of movement inside Thailand." Not surprisingly, Ms Jilani received a cool reception in Bangkok.

Just before the 2006 coup, Thaksin stayed in his heavily-guarded home for a day because of a bomb threat, likening the experience to Mrs Suu Kyi's enforced house detention.

He said he sympathised with Mrs Suu Kyi. What, for not being able to go shopping for a day?

So, once and for all, let's make it clear to Hun Sen that Thaksin is no Suu Kyi.

Mrs Suu Kyi may have her shortcomings, but she has sacrificed much in her fight for democratic change in Burma. Her sacrifices include separation from her family and her enforced absence from the funeral of her beloved husband Michael Aris, who died of cancer in 1999 in London.

The fiasco caused by Hun Sen's remarks at the Asean summit should have been an embarrassment to the Burmese delegation and Prime Minister Gen Thein Sein, who told his Japanese counterpart that the military regime would consider relaxing Mrs Suu Kyi's house arrest terms, if she "maintains a good attitude".

Thein Sein's cynicism matches that of his boss, junta leader Snr Gen Than Shwe, who said in a letter published after Mrs Suu Kyi's farcical trial in August that if she behaved "well" at her Inya Lake home under the restrictions imposed on her, she would be granted amnesty before her suspended sentence expired.

Astonishingly, Singapore's foreign ministry reacted positively to Than Shwe's gesture, saying that while it was disappointed at the guilty verdict it was nonetheless "happy that the Myanmar government has exercised its sovereign prerogative to grant amnesty by halving her [Mrs Suu Kyi's] sentence and that she will be placed under house arrest rather than imprisoned".

The world must be upside down, if not flat.

What does Than Shwe mean, for instance, by requiring Mrs Suu Kyi to behave well under house arrest? Did Mrs Suu Kyi mismanage the economy and lead the resource-rich country into poverty?

Did Mrs Suu Kyi order the troops to kill Buddhist monks and activists on the streets or throw them into prison? Did Mrs Suu Kyi order soldiers to kill or rape ethnic minorities?

At least, Hun Sen and Thein Sein can be credited with livening up the Asean summit, even though the grouping has no shortage of clowns.

Aung Zaw is founder and editor of the Irrawaddy magazine. http://www.irrawaddy.org

About the author

columnist
Writer: Aung Zaw
Position: Founder and editor of the Irrawaddy Magazine

Share your thoughts

For more candid, lengthy, conversational and open discussion between one another, use our Forum

Report objectionable comments click here. Include: discussion #, commenter name, comment date / time as it looks on the page. Example: discussion 15: 09/01/2009 at 10:00 AM.

  • Suku

    Discussion 16 : 03/11/2009 at 05:47 PM16

    Hi..if you read again, what Hun Sen had said, in the above article, he has not compared Taksin to Aung San Suu Kyi.

  • Lu

    Discussion 15 : 28/10/2009 at 04:58 AM15

    Aung Saw,
    No wonder this piece of writing is in the opinion page because it is one sided opinion and full of temper.

    How is calling someone an eternal friend becoming "not behaving well?" Based on Burmese law, isn't Su kyi a prisoner? Can you call her your friend? I guess you do, and if so.... are you not behaving well based on your own law? My point is that how you see a person is depend on where you live and when it is. For example, Su Kyi can be a suspect, a criminal, a prisoner, or a human right champion depend on who says it.

    I don't support Hun Sen, but I don't think Hun Sen tries to insult the Burmese in anyway. He's trying to make a point that Thaksin is also an elected leader who was ousted by the military coup. He's saying that Thaksin was also a leader of a country, why he or other leaders can't talk about a former leader as much as they do talk about Su Kyi.

    After all Burma is still living under dictatorship. It's up to her people to stand up against the regime, and I don't think your frustration and anger at Hun Sen will liberate your country from the Junta. Better use your energy to fight your own leaders.

  • Peuv

    Discussion 14 : 28/10/2009 at 02:09 AM14

    I think the editor of Irrawaddy Magazine Aung Zaw should learn how to communicate a little bit more effectively. How can you compare the Red-shirt crowd to a remark made by Hun Sen? One is “physical” and the other is “abstract”. It is all about “action” and “expression”. Now we have Hun Sen who does not understand the world politics and we have the editor who does not know how to communicate. We know Hun Sen’s remark is grotesque and not acceptable. But, Hun Sen’s remark did not cause a cancellation of the event, just as the Red-shirt crowd did to the Pattaya summit, or send frightened world leaders scrambling and flying away in mid-air like crazy. I think Aung Zaw shuold learn how to put the lid on such a temper as a professional editor.

  • FreeThinker

    Discussion 13 : 28/10/2009 at 12:52 AM13

    I think Hun Sen basically meant that if Thailand feels that they can talk about a figure like San Suu Kyi even though it offends the Burmese government, then why does Cambodia need to be considerate about talking about Thaksin. Both figures are considered a threat to the governing body, but yet outsiders voice their opinions about the matter. Opinions about who is good or bad is relative to who you ask. If Thailand feels that talking about Thaksin was improper, than maybe it would be safe to say that Thailand has no right to talk about San Suu Kyi either? Also, regarding the handling of drug dealers...you're living in a dream world if you think you can quickly and efficiently eradicate the drug problem by using the courts. These drug dealers pay off the judges, the cops, the prosecuters, etc. The only way to deal with them is to NOT deal with them. How about those that are victims of the drug dealers? Where are their rights? The harsh executions carried out by the hands of the drug dealers. Do you think the drug dealers feel remorse for their victims? Would they show you the kind of mercy you are asking the govt to show them?

  • Bubba

    Discussion 12 : 27/10/2009 at 10:10 PM12

    I read this: "The Thai government prepared to fend off a "red shirt" army..."

    And that was abut as much as I needed to read, or anyone else, to know what stance the writer was taking.

    The red shirts are an army...The PAD freedom protestors, I suppose.

    Odd though the red shirts want their democratic votes back, but the PAD, backed by the military brought down two more elected governments, and have as part of their stated platform the idea that only 30% of government should be elected.

    The obvious intention of subconscious fear manipulation is by referring to "the red army" and knowing that unaware readers will read "red army" and all the negative connotations that has for Thais.

    The rest of the article is the same mishmash of throwing Taksin into every situation to keep the people from thinking about the fact the current government is the result of three governments having been toppled for the benefit of a few.

    Referring to one bloodless coup also expects the reader to pay particular attention to the word "bloodless", as if that justifies a military coup.

    It is also misleading because not one elected government was bought down but three, as the military backed PAD managed to topple two more.

    The other fact is this whole situation is not about Taksin whom I have never had a great liking for or trust of. This is about democracy.

    Democracy can never evolve if the military can interfere at will as it has almost twenty times now in six decades.

    And that is the hypocrisy of such writing as in this article.

    Democracy can not even be waited for a few years and fresh elections. But military intervention, for six decades is acceptable.

    Is it not evident that military coups do NOT bring about a better form of governance?

  • CHIU

    Discussion 11 : 27/10/2009 at 09:29 PM11

    chalk and chalk
    Hun Sen
    More recent political opponents outside the country know him, his family and CPP for being a corrupt dictator who controls the country by force.

    Hun Sen's government has also been known for carrying out a fire sale of land to foreign investors in 2007-08 and the eviction of thousands of residents from their homes.

    Hun Sen was implicated in corruption related to Cambodia's oil wealth and mineral resources in Global Witness 2009 report on Cambodia. He and his close associates were accused of carrying out secret negotiations with interested private parties and taking money from those who he would grant rights to exploit the resources.However, the prime minister and his government have denied this accusation and called it groundless.

    Thaksin
    hUMAN RIGHTS WATCH branded him "A human rights abuser of the worst kind." I abhor drug pushers but the estimated killing of 2000 under his stewardship, of course not a single one innocent !!!!!!

  • cor verhoef

    Discussion 10 : 27/10/2009 at 09:28 PM10

    Discussion 1:
    If Thaksin wasn't so mindboggling wealthy, he would have been erased from everybody's mind a long time ago.

  • chiu

    Discussion 9 : 27/10/2009 at 09:02 PM9

    chalk and cheese
    Ones actions are for the benefit of her country regardless of the consequences to herself.
    The others actions are for the benefit of himself regardless of the consequences to his country.

  • Sirikoon

    Discussion 8 : 27/10/2009 at 07:59 PM8

    This article seems to be pretty much one-sided instead of neutral. I wish I can count on news media, such as Bangkok Post, to adopt the position of impartial reporting. But what can you expect!!

    I think if news media can just report and let the readers decide, it would be better.

  • lalida

    Discussion 7 : 27/10/2009 at 07:41 PM7

    Nope, you got it wrong, Hun Sen wasn't insulting Thailand, he's insulting Abhisat and Suthep and the majority that support the Clown Government...I don't feel being insulted. I felt great when Mr. Hun Sen made a fool out of all you guys....ha ha ha ha ha

Reply

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  • As a courtesy to our readers, please use proper punctuation and correct spelling.

back to top