Thailand set to make Buddhism the state religion

Source: The Straits Times

Link to article:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/24/africa/thai.php

By Seth Mydans

International Herald Tribute

Summary:
The article is about the Thai military backed government caving in to pressure from monks in the country and their decision supporting the enshrinement of Buddhism as a state religion, the various reasons for doing so and the implications behind such a decision.

Comments:
On the 25th of April, traffic in Thailand was brought to a standstill when Buddhist monks marched to the Parliament demanding that the government enshrine Buddhism as a state religion.

The monks were unhappy that their religion was coming “under fire” from insurgents in the Thai south, with many devote Buddhists being subjected to shootings and beheadings by Muslim extremists.

They felt that enshrining Buddhism would send a strong signal to the Muslim insurgents that the Buddhists had won the battle in the south and that the government had all along considered Islam as an “alien religion”.

As over 90% of the populace are Buddhists, it would only make perfect sense to enshrine Buddhism as a national religion. Although this would instil a greater sense of nationalism amongst the population, I disagree with this trend of thought.

Though enshrining Buddhism as a national religion might result in the heightening of the conflict in the Thai south, I later realised that it had greater repercussions on Thailand and the South East Asian region.

One might remember that not too long ago, provinces in the Thai south had proposed to the Thai government for autonomy or a break away. Governmental response was swift, and more soldiers were sent into the south.

Then, the message sent to the people in the south was hazy, with the government, in a bid to reconcile them, seeking council with various community leaders.

And now, as government officials agree with a proposed plan to enshrine Buddhism as a national religion, one can see the writing on the wall.

If I were a Muslim living in the south of Thailand, that would be a signal that indeed, the only choice left is that of supporting the insurgency in their quest for independence.

Independence for the provinces in the Thai South though might result in the further straining of ties between Thailand and her neighbours, namely Malaysia and Singapore. These countries would be put in a very difficult position if such a situation arises.

Although Islam is the official religion in Malaysia and one might think that Malaysia would be inclined to take the side of the militancy, I think otherwise.

If I were the foreign minister of Malaysia or Singapore, I would not wish to offend the citizens in my country nor my close economic partner and thus would prefer to sit on the fence. Meddling in other people’s business might only lead to the destruction of the social fabric of my country.

However, as I am only a third party observer whom has had no real contact with the people involved in the conflict, I feel that I am in no position to comment, since I would not have an accurate perspective on the actual feelings of the people on the ground.

The conflict in the south also has a long history which I am not very familiar with and thus will not be able to fully understand the actions of the various parties involved.

(498 words) – Excluding the summary

The Real Reason For Indonesia's Sand Ban

Source: The Sunday Times

Link to article: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/167862.asp

By Sharon Vasoo

TODAY

Summary:
The article is about the implementation of the sand ban by Indonesia, the various reasons for the ban as well as a look at how it would affect Singapore and what Singapore would do to overcome it.

Comments:
On the 22nd of January, Indonesia made the decision of banning sand exports to all countries including that of Singapore.

The Trade Minister emphasized that the rational behind the ban was “resource conservation”. Sand mining activities erode the coastline, uprooting trees along the shore which end up in the seabed. This has decreased the supply of fish in the area which in turn affects the livelihood of the many fishermen whose trade is the rice bowl that feeds their family.

I feel that if Singapore is indeed harming the environment and the livelihood of the people of another country, she should either avoid it at all costs or find less damaging alternatives.

I thought: ‘This is new; Indonesia is finally taking steps towards protecting her natural environment and her people and should be applauded for it.’

If I were the son of a typical Indonesian fisherman and had to go to bed hungry as my dad did not bring home enough catch to sell, I would have cursed Singapore for bringing my family such misery.

I later felt however, that the supposed rational behind the ban made no sense. The sand ban would result in the closure of the sand mining industry which meant the retrenchment of its 3000 workers. Indonesia, with an unemployment rate of 11.8% certainly would not want more jobless people begging on the streets.

Indeed, the issue further unravelled itself during the course of a few weeks. The imported sand came from inland areas. This meant that Singapore had done its part in reducing the detrimental effects to the environment resulting from sand mining. Also contrary to previous claims, land reclamation projects by Singapore had not affected Indonesia’s borders.

The ban was enforced so as to put pressure on Singapore to resolve bilateral issues between the two countries. Indonesian wanted to ‘get tough’ with Singapore.

In my opinion, this is not the way to treat Singapore, especially since Singapore has been very supportive of the formation of a Special Economic Zone in Riau. Besides, she has constantly helped Indonesia in times of crises. The ban, as The Business Times chided was ‘A small act by a big nation’. Nevertheless, Singapore will continue to help Indonesia.

It has however given Singapore a wake up call that it has to strive towards self sufficiency. And as the saying goes, ‘No one owes Singapore a living’. I hope that like what we did when we came up with NEWATER, we can with sand.

However, the views I have expressed here could be tainted with biasness since I am a Singaporean and thus am naturally inclined towards the viewpoint taken up by the Singapore government. Also what I have commented on was that of politicking at the surface. I do not know and will never know what happens beneath and who to believe in since claims by the two governments contradict one another and thus may not be able to make an accurate judgement on this incident.

(497 words) – Excluding the summary