-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Aung Suu Kyi IS THE PROBLEM-SM GOH
- Thread starter Nice-Gook
- Start date
Who hates him? Mostly the Burmese peasants and farmers and commoners. Not the Burmese elite or even the Burmese junta. And what can the former classes do about it?
If the students protest, their study passes would be revoked and they can kiss their tertiary education here goodbye, so don't be an idiot please.
We all know how Leegime feels for the Burmese Junta.Both are birds of feathers and scratch each other backs.But must wooden Goh tell the whole world about his bleeding heart for the brutal military junta?---how stupid
SM Goh is being practical indeed
As long as the junta doesn't cause too much trouble for the rest of ASEAN (never mind the poor Burmese) and everyone gets to make some nice $$$, no need for the PAP types to get too pushy over Burma.
Yup! that is the bottom line.But Goh had gone further.He had taken Aung Suu Kyi to task...why would he do that,unless he wanted the status quo in Burma to remain...That begets another question..Why?....do Leegime has a huge investment in Burma which needs their junta's protection?....
i think this is a simple defensive posture.
Lau Goh spilled the beans. Surely there are something there the PAP is involved and that includes big sum of money.
Lau Goh visited Mynmar and taught Myanmar Democrazy (though it is laugh), he did it.
WE can only hope Ms Aung becomes the govt again next Elections, and the truth will be out.
But unlikely Ms Aung will helm the bridge.
lau Goh has just sent out a message--Ms Aung must be stopped at all costs , she is a problem.
Lau Goh spilled the beans. Surely there are something there the PAP is involved and that includes big sum of money.
Lau Goh visited Mynmar and taught Myanmar Democrazy (though it is laugh), he did it.
WE can only hope Ms Aung becomes the govt again next Elections, and the truth will be out.
But unlikely Ms Aung will helm the bridge.
lau Goh has just sent out a message--Ms Aung must be stopped at all costs , she is a problem.
Good try by GCT to attempt to read minds but he appears to think he really has a crystal ball. Whatever ASSK thinks, the ball is in the junta's court and they had been delaying the new election. I don't recall ASSK wanted only to be head of the govt. She has several options, all denied.
Lau goh knew that suki is a gone case, but junta is not, supporting junta is the best solution to sg problem. GET IT?? he is the wise man in politic but not in private life.
The biggest investors in Burma are companies from China, Thailand, Singapore, and India (in that order). These are govt linked companies and private investors who got involved through close relationships with you know who. Singapore's bilateral trade with Burma is estimated at US$2 billion annually. So the "Leegime" and their good friends have a lot vested in Burma. I don't think a messy "peoples' revolution type" change of govt is the kind of scenario they want. SM Goh and Co prefer a nice happy transition where the junta starts to share power (a little bit of democracy + a lot of control = sounds familiar right? hint: PAP style politics).
I think SM Goh is realistic enough to see that the current status quo is unsustainable. So, you do begin to see why he singled out ASSK for a little comment. He is suggesting that ASSK and her supporters should start to PLAY BALL with the junta before things get really messy and the world gets another Marcos and Suharto type debacle.
Dear London
I would rate India China above Singapore simply because these countries buy and supply the foreign exchange necessary for the survival of the regime. Gas Teak Oil and Gems above all else.
My discussions even ten years ago with my Profs came to the conclusion that well a) the US would not intervene like in Iraq, b) That the Burmese Military will continue to shoot and oppress its own people and do it well ensuring its survivability though in the process improverishing the very people that it claims to protect. and thus GCT is suggesting that the NLD should play ball because they have no other realistic option.
We did discuss in detail the possibility of another Marcos or Suharto style action and we ruled that out because the structure of the dictatorship was more like that of North Korea and Iraq with the Burmese Military being perfectly happy to shoot students and monks :_)))
Locke
I would rate India China above Singapore simply because these countries buy and supply the foreign exchange necessary for the survival of the regime. Gas Teak Oil and Gems above all else.
My discussions even ten years ago with my Profs came to the conclusion that well a) the US would not intervene like in Iraq, b) That the Burmese Military will continue to shoot and oppress its own people and do it well ensuring its survivability though in the process improverishing the very people that it claims to protect. and thus GCT is suggesting that the NLD should play ball because they have no other realistic option.
We did discuss in detail the possibility of another Marcos or Suharto style action and we ruled that out because the structure of the dictatorship was more like that of North Korea and Iraq with the Burmese Military being perfectly happy to shoot students and monks :_)))
Locke
<style></style>You have to look beyond and further.Agreed trade and business plays a big part in G to G relations.US has been the biggest culprit.Iraq is an example and even in Indonesia.It is now confirmed CIA engineered Sukarno's fall in the 60s because Ford and other American company had huge investments there.And Sukarno was leaning towards the now defunct communist USSR.
Now country to country wise.Only China wants the Burmese Junta to stay.Not because of its natural resources but for strategic reason.Because only through Burma China can project itself to the Indian Ocean.
But Leegime cosying up to the Burmese Junta goes beyond G to G business interests.It is sort of personal.Why?..Because countries like Singapore and especially Thailand would want to plunder Burmese natural resources in cahoots with its junta.But the ultimate market for Burmese goods are US & Europe.So Singapore and Thailand are only playing middleman for Burmese natural resources....But US and Europe must respect its public opinion and goods of Burmese origin are in its black list....
Simply putting if you want benefit by buying and selling stolen goods than you risk fooling around with law enforcement agencies.Its only a question of time before you count bars.I am sure Leegime knows that well.So that begets the question ; what's the difference to Leegime if its trades with Burmese Junta or Aung in the governance?....I would speculate that Leegime has personal interest in the survival of Myanmar military junta.It spells $$$$$ in their pockets.
Wrong !
Leegime relations with Junta spells $$$$$..That does not apply to China or India relations with Burmese Junta.Here is why.
<style></style>China wants mynmmar as its strategic pawn China and Burma had many border disputes, long before British annexation of Burma. The last border dispute culminated in 1956, when the People's Liberation Army invaded northern Burma, but were repulsed. A border agreement was reached in 1960.
There after Ne Win blamedt the Chinese for crop failures, because ethnic Chinese students were supporting Mao Zedong .China and Burma than had war of words.Anti-Chinese riots in Burma and it continued till the early 1970s.However, after 1986, China withdrew support for Communist insurgents and began supplying the military junta with the majority of its arms in exchange for a naval base on Coco Islands in the Andaman Sea. China is to have an intelligence gathering station on the Great Coco Island to monitor Indian naval activity as well as ISRO & DRDO missile and space launch activities.
The influx of Chinese arms turned the tide in Burma favour against the ethnic insurgencies, many of which had relied indirectly on Chinese complicity. As a result the military junta of Burma is highly reliant on the Chinese for their currently high level of power.
India has a 1670 km long land border with Myanmar along the strategic eastern frontier.The recent upsurge in violent insurgent activities in the Northeast has made it urgent for India to take action to clear Indian insurgent groups camps across the borders of Bangladesh and Burma.
India’s moral support to the struggle for democracy under Aung San Suu Kyi’s leadership led to souring of relations between the two countries. The Indian government awarded the Jawaharlal Nehru Peace Prize in 1995 to Aung San Suu Kyi as a token of its appreciation of her contribution to democracy in Myanmar.
The need to counter the Chinese influence in Myanmar and the national security interest of northeast have compelled India to have a re-think on its attitude to the military regime. As a result of increased Chinese influence in Burma as well as the safe haven and arms trafficking occurring along the Indo-Burmese border, India has sought in recent years to shore up ties with the military junta
Last edited:
Dear Locke,
China's position as the largest and most influential investor in Burma is pretty clear. The last presentation I attended had Singapore's overall contribution a tad higher than India's. The key point I took away from that was how much Singapore facilitated the smooth flow of foreign exchange from all that trade in natural resources.
The low probability of a Marcos or Suharto style debacle assumes that the Burmese military continues to stand firmly behind their leaders (can't take that for granted). I would also point out that Burma isn't quite like North Korea or Iraq. Just imagine what would have happened to ASSK if she had faced a North Korean type dictatorship. These Burmese generals are more interested in securing a nice safe haven to retire and spend all that $ they looted.
GCT was suggesting that the NLD take the pragmatic route that rational PAP types have pondered over. Imagine what the world would have been like if the likes of Nelson Mandala etc. had taken the pragmatic route.
Cheers
China's position as the largest and most influential investor in Burma is pretty clear. The last presentation I attended had Singapore's overall contribution a tad higher than India's. The key point I took away from that was how much Singapore facilitated the smooth flow of foreign exchange from all that trade in natural resources.
The low probability of a Marcos or Suharto style debacle assumes that the Burmese military continues to stand firmly behind their leaders (can't take that for granted). I would also point out that Burma isn't quite like North Korea or Iraq. Just imagine what would have happened to ASSK if she had faced a North Korean type dictatorship. These Burmese generals are more interested in securing a nice safe haven to retire and spend all that $ they looted.
GCT was suggesting that the NLD take the pragmatic route that rational PAP types have pondered over. Imagine what the world would have been like if the likes of Nelson Mandala etc. had taken the pragmatic route.
Cheers
I see your point about:
"Leegime has personal interest in the survival of Myanmar military junta.It spells $$$$$ in their pockets."
Unfortunately, I haven't come across any evidence to support such an assertion of a PERSONAL LINK. Do you have any information to share?
"Leegime has personal interest in the survival of Myanmar military junta.It spells $$$$$ in their pockets."
Unfortunately, I haven't come across any evidence to support such an assertion of a PERSONAL LINK. Do you have any information to share?
Wasn't asking for definitive proof
Was asking for any pertinent information to share
You got anything worth contributing?
Was asking for any pertinent information to share
You got anything worth contributing?
Ya got anything worthwhile to contribute?
it's Burmese politics we're talking about here
If not, go study some geography kid
Dear London
Alas Mandela dealt with a civillian white government, the whites in SA whilst being perfectly willing to suppress the political rights of the black were not stupid enough to place themselves under white military rule. Both sides had to move in S Africa but the military were out of the equation
How monolithic or stable is the Burmese Military ? That I suspect is the million dollar question.
Locke
Alas Mandela dealt with a civillian white government, the whites in SA whilst being perfectly willing to suppress the political rights of the black were not stupid enough to place themselves under white military rule. Both sides had to move in S Africa but the military were out of the equation
How monolithic or stable is the Burmese Military ? That I suspect is the million dollar question.
Locke
SM Goh was kind enough not to sue the folllowing people:
1. the supplier of ink to the printer be sued
2. the owner of the van which transports the newspaper for the delivery man
3. the hawker stall which sells the delivery man the drink and fried mee hoon so that the delivery man has the energy to carry the newspaper up so many floors of the HDB flat.
Anyway SM Goh is most kind because the money obtained from his winnings are donated to charity in Singapore. He doesn't pocket even a cent because it is simply peanuts to him
Dear locke,
yes, that is the million dollar question!
I've been part of a team evaluating "frontier" investment opps in Burma (quite a shocking amount of $ for a country supposedly blacklisted). We managed to talk to a couple of "risk mgt types" (sound like mercenaries to me!) and their Burmese contacts. My takeaway is that this junta is more an early Suharto style military than North Korean. They are trigger happy but not suicidal (politically speaking). They could possibly be persuaded to share power if the right "personal" incentives are offered. That was the point that SM Goh was trying to make with his ASSK remark. Alas, this lady is not for turning. Personally, I think that as long as the chinese are not part of the solution, this softly softly approach (favoured by SM Goh) isn't going to work anytime soon.
You're quite correct about South Africa. My point was that Mandela had a choice just like Aung San. If he had taken the pragmatic route, South Africa would look a lot different today.
rgds
yes, that is the million dollar question!
I've been part of a team evaluating "frontier" investment opps in Burma (quite a shocking amount of $ for a country supposedly blacklisted). We managed to talk to a couple of "risk mgt types" (sound like mercenaries to me!) and their Burmese contacts. My takeaway is that this junta is more an early Suharto style military than North Korean. They are trigger happy but not suicidal (politically speaking). They could possibly be persuaded to share power if the right "personal" incentives are offered. That was the point that SM Goh was trying to make with his ASSK remark. Alas, this lady is not for turning. Personally, I think that as long as the chinese are not part of the solution, this softly softly approach (favoured by SM Goh) isn't going to work anytime soon.
You're quite correct about South Africa. My point was that Mandela had a choice just like Aung San. If he had taken the pragmatic route, South Africa would look a lot different today.
rgds
Similar threads
