The hypocrisy of 'being concerned'

GMT +07:00

Send suggestions

Opinion » Opinion

The hypocrisy of 'being concerned'

  • Published: 23/05/2009 at 12:00 AM
  • Newspaper section: News

So much for being concerned! Yes, I am concerned about the "concern" and "grave concern" being expressed by world leaders concerning the plight of The Lady of Burma, who is being tried for an alleged crime that should not concern her.


I am concerned because I don't think the plethora of "concern" that is being echoed around the world will achieve anything meaningful for the lady in concern.

I am also concerned about the usually vocal members of the foreign press corps. Has one standard dropped and another popped up without us noticing? Their silence on the matter has been deafening.

This is a democratically elected leader of a severely oppressed country whose people have long suffered under the heavy boots of the military junta. A leader who was not only robbed of her election victory but of her basic human rights for decades, who is now facing a real threat of being tried unfairly and put away in jail for five more years. Where is the outcry from the foreign media? Where are the articles and high-minded opinion pieces condemning the undemocratic elements? Where are the lectures and derision?

Has the bad press been reserved for struggling democracies like Thailand? Like, if you try real hard to hold your stuff together and be compliant with Western values, you get slapped when you come up short. But if you are a fully-fledged autocracy that shuts the country off from unwanted relations (and keeps the wanted relations plus profit to yourself) who also could not care less about what the world may think, then you can be left alone. No foreign press would nag that the Burmese prime minister was not elected, that its roadmap to democracy is a coup-produced sham, or that Snr Gen Than Shwe has not been seen smiling or anything.

The Economist, for example, has been harsh on Thailand to the point that its own integrity can be called into question. In its April issue, for example, the magazine took aim at Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's mandate to govern. "He rode to office, unelected, thanks to the yellow shirts," the magazine stated.

The statement would have proven the magazine's theory about Thai democracy being usurped by undemocratic elements - had it not been factually wrong. One has one's own doubts why such an esteemed publication would opt for dispensing false information for the sake of being critical of a country.

The same magazine has this to say when it comes to Burma: "According to this view the top generals are wicked, but not everyone inside the system is. And given the state of Myanmar's economy, the choice may be between working with the government and not working with anyone."

It's probably this kind of attitude (and profit that can be made from natural resources that Burma has to offer to those who please them) which allows the Burmese dictators to feel free to oppress. They know that if they don't care about the world, then the world will have no choice but to work with and through them. They also know that if they would just come up with some absurd charges against their political opponents, the world would not put any pressure on them except to wring their hands and sing the same old global chorus of being "so concerned".

The truth is that democratically elected Aung San Suu Kyi should never have been placed under house arrest and no country should be "working" with the military junta that took power by force, save to make them relinquish their grip. It is quite puzzling how the world press is ready to heap scorn and pressure on a half-baked democracy like Thailand's and refrain from applying the same kind of heat to a fully-fledged dictatorship like Burma's. Maybe they think it is an exercise in futility because the Burmese generals won't care. But that would then be an act of hypocrisy.

And the Burmese people can't afford any more hypocrisy from a world that preaches democracy and human rights protection. The country and people have been made to put up with too much for too long. The Lady has been fighting a lonely battle for nearly two decades. She is 63 years old now. She won't be there as the best, brightest and most inspiring symbol of democracy in this wretched country forever. Her unjust and unjustified trial which will probably end in her renewed incarceration is the best chance for the democracy-loving international community to act on what they preach. China, in particular, can use the occasion to redeem itself from the bloody Tiananmen crackdown.

Stop being so concerned. Save The Lady.

  • Atiya Achakulwisut is Editorial Pages Editor, Bangkok Post.

About the author

Writer: Atiya Achakulwisut

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.

  • Farang Freak

    Discussion 28 : 23/05/2009 at 03:36 PM28

    Where have you been in the last few weeks. Atiya? Every news program on BBC and CNN have carried Burma and the Lady as the top story, international press id full of coverage every day. Your feeling that Burma is being forgotten and Thailand blasted is maybe due to your colored glasses? A journalist should show better judgement than this, but I do share your concern for The Lady!

  • Peter Greenleaf

    Discussion 27 : 23/05/2009 at 03:23 PM27

    I think Ms Atiya should do some deeper research. The Western press has written hundreds of articles about the problems in Burma and the Burmese Junta over a period of many years. The recent political problems in Thailand represent something ' new ' in the region so they have attracted the attention of the foreign media who are concerned about what appears to be Thailands slide away from democracy.

  • back2bkk

    Discussion 26 : 23/05/2009 at 02:33 PM26

    "A democratically elected leader and her country are under a military junta. Stop being "concerned”! I thought as I read this lead-in that it all sounded so familiar. Who else remembers the Thai media singing the praise of the 2006 Thai Coup Leaders? Who else remembers pictures of beflowered tanks splashed all over the front page? "Stop being concerned" we were told.

    But K. Atiya was just making a funny, getting our attention for what really has her fuming – the international media. Singled out for special mention was the Economist who has it in for "struggling democracies like Thailand”. Few of us got to read those articles though because they were censured from the country. I guess that must be one of the ‘democratic struggles’ she was speaking of.

    As long as we can continue to be driven around by cheap Burmese servants on cheap Burmese Gas, resplendent in shiny Burmese rubies, Ms Suu Kyi will stay where she is. Without action from Thailand and other neighbours, the demonising of the Military government is all the media can do. Thus some Juntas are okay while others are not. I guess K. Atiya would have us look to publications like Bangkok Post to let us know who is who.

  • DAVID HARRISON

    Discussion 25 : 23/05/2009 at 02:29 PM25

    What the Thai Politicians don't want to say is that they are powerless to pressure the Military Government of Myanmar because Thailand is dependant on it's Neighbour for massive supplies of Natural Gas and other business interests. Nothing talks louder in Thailand (and elsewhere)than money.

    No amount of political change in Thailand will change that.

    The best hope for Myanmar will probably come from China, who, when the moment is right, will gently push the Generals into retirement. But that moment will not take place until their Chinese Industry has firmly entrenched itself and that includes ejecting the troubelsome Indians and Koreans. As for democracy, there are just too many Tribes and Factions for that to work, however well intentioned the Good Lady is!

  • Sai Wansai

    Discussion 24 : 23/05/2009 at 02:06 PM24

    Being concerned, whether it has a prefix of "most", "gravely" or any other adjective one could think of in formulating the condemnation, is in itself not a bad thing.

    But the "concern" should be coupled with "political will" to be able to help change Burma into a just and civil society.

    The foreign press crops, especially Atiya's beloved The Economist, might still has to struggle to be objective and neutral, which is a daily, ongoing moral struggle for all media men, women and establishments in their fight to adhere to ethical-reporting and avoid bias-reporting.

    In Burma, as it is, the political power still grows out from gun barrel. And it is on this hard reality that the international community would need to formulate and implement its strategy, if ever it is sincere to pull the people of Burma out from this sinking hole of tyrannical oppression.

    And so again, it boils down to the fact whether there is a "political will" to act in the fashion of Allied forces rescuing the German people from Hitler's tyranny, during second World War.

    Of course, I'm not advocating that the international stakeholders to go into Burma with blazing guns.

    There is also the China and Russia veto factor to consider, when it comes to UNSC deliberation on Burma.

    All I'm suggesting here is that all like-minded international players formed a "coalition of the willing" to use co-ordinated efforts, combined with political will to help Burma in democratisation process, with whatever diplomatic tools available and far beyond, if it is necessary.

    I completely agree with Khun Atiya that concern alone will not work and concrete undertakings will have to follow.

  • Peter

    Discussion 23 : 23/05/2009 at 01:42 PM23

    Khun Atiya, I fully share your sentiments regarding the plight of "The Lady of Burma" and your call for the international community, particularily China, to do more about it.

    However, I think you should treat the foreign media's criticism of Thailand's "half-baked democracy" - your description, as in some way a back-handed compliment, since it implies not only higher expectations of your country than other countries such as Burma and probably also China, together with a desire to see Thailand advance more rapidly to, okay, western style democracy, but also a perception that that goal is achievable here.

    I agree the Economist over-stated its case by claiming PM Abhisit came to office "unelected" on the back of the yellow shirts. That is not true, he came to power as the leader of the largest partner in a coalition able to muster a majority in Parliament.

    However there are questions about whether the Thai court followed due process in its ruling on dissolution of the PPP and banning of that party's executives. That ruling, without which Abhisit would not have become PM, was rushed through after the yellow shirts seizure of Bangkok's airports, without allowing normal rights of statement of case for the defence or appeal for the accused and therefore, arguably, can be seen as merely a ruling by a "kangaroo court".

    Such a perception can only be enhanced by the recent court decision to throw out the case against the PAD leaders for their seizure by force and prolonged occupation of Government House on the grounds that the occupation was now over and the PAD had vacated the premises.

    What sort of a legal opinion is that? Where does it leave PM Abhisit's promise shortly after he took office and repeated many times since, that the PAD are not above the law and, like anybody else, must be held accountable in court when they break it. For that promise to be upheld, there has to be a proper court in place first!

    I detect an element of hypocrisy of "being concerned" to promote democracy in their own country in the Thai media in their failure to condemn the recent court decision to throw out the prosecution case against the PAD.

  • SPICEMAN

    Discussion 22 : 23/05/2009 at 12:47 PM22

    Let face it, this is a job for UN or US, not for a poor and broken country like Thailand. We can bark at the Burmese junta all day & night and nothing will ever change without China's cooperation. To intervene militarily only means confrontation with China, a nuclear power, so I guess Suu Kyi is screwed, victim of geopolitics.

  • Bubba

    Discussion 21 : 23/05/2009 at 12:13 PM21

    to Pointman #2: As you are from the USA I will spare you the humiliation of insult.

    But...The USA has set up far more dictatorships than it has saved. To name a few: Chile; Viet-Nam (until the people finally thrashed you and threw you out); Iran during the Shah; Nicaragua; Columbia ad half a dozen other puppet dictatorships that have crushed the people and kept them in abject poverty for the sake of US companies.

    The list goes on and through a historical analysis the USA can be seen for what is it.

    The basic problem with the American people is they have been led by the nose to believe that "freedom" and "free market economy" are one and the same thing.

    In fact free market economy is anarchy where the biggest brutes win and crush all competition.

    Inside the USA there are 35 million people living below the poverty line. And that is according to government statistics. So maybe you should, rightly as you indirectly suggest, clean up your own house before forcing your way into the homes of others.

    Few are thankful except those dictators who have benefitted from your setting them up in power. Do not believe that while those that end up scrounging through garbage heaps eke out a living they will think about thanking you.

  • Bubba

    Discussion 20 : 23/05/2009 at 12:05 PM20

    PS You should mention that as long as Burnese gas is being pumped to Thailand for HUGE profits nobody in Thailand will bother about it.

    Thailand may have Burma in mind as a future model anyway. Suppression of democracy, freedom of speech and assembly and the constant, constant threat of military intervention every time election do not go according to their wishes...

  • Bubba

    Discussion 19 : 23/05/2009 at 11:59 AM19

    surely khun Atiya your are joking.

    When The Economist writes (I quote from your article) :

    'In its April issue, for example, the magazine took aim at Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's mandate to govern. "He rode to office, unelected, thanks to the yellow shirts," the magazine stated.'

    That is fact. He did ride to power on the backs of the yellow shorts, who had a free hand given them by the boys in heavy boots who refused to support the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government!

    But do not worry, the Economist of frequently banned in Thailand so probably those few that have any interest in reading this newspaper may not have had access anyway.

    You suggest the foreign media are treating Thailand harshly but, in fact they are treating it with kid gloves. The military in September 2006 overthrew a democratically elected government.

    Just because you like "The Lady Of Burma" (and who does does not?) and dislike Taksin does not make your military intervention more acceptable than that of Burma.

    And BTW, I assure you, beyond any doubt, The Lady Of Burma would without hesitation condemn the military intervention in Thailand of September 2006.

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