Photos Tatamawdow - Myanmar Armed Forces

A strong military needs a strong economy to back it up,so heres a brief look at Myanmarnese ecomony.


Miles to go

The new government unveils promising but vague economic plans, as the armed forces loom in the background
Aug 6th 2016 | YANGON
20160806_ASP002_1.jpg


IN AN open-plan office in a nondescript building in central Yangon, women sort through piles of brown folders. Three men try, with little success, to fix a photocopier; others organise piles of kyat, Myanmar’s currency, by denomination. Myanma Economic Holdings Limited (MEHL), a conglomerate run by the armed forces, has many workers who do very little. Being owned by men with guns has long meant being shielded from competition.

That began to change in 2011 when Thein Sein, then the country’s president, ended the military conglomerates’ tax exemptions and their import monopolies on many goods. He welcomed foreign competitors to some of their businesses. But the army, which ruled from 1962 until March of this year, when the democratically elected National League for Democracy of Aung San Suu Kyi took office, retains vast business interests. And it controls three powerful ministries, as well as a quarter of the seats in parliament, meaning it can scupper Miss Suu Kyi’s planned economic reforms, should it choose to.

That Myanmar’s economy needs reform is beyond dispute. Though foreign investment is soaring and GDP is expected to grow by at least 8% this year and next, both are from a tiny base. Before the army seized power, Myanmar had been one of the world’s leading rice exporters and one of Asia’s wealthiest countries; today it is among the poorest. Last year GDP per person was just $1,204—less than a fifth the level of neighbouring Thailand—and tax revenue, as a share of GDP, was the lowest in the region. Most of the population is poor and rural: scant access to credit, energy, seeds and fertiliser keeps agricultural productivity low. Bad roads, inefficient ports and sporadic electricity impede industrial growth: the advantage afforded by a cheap, young workforce is frittered away if they sit idle during power cuts. Transporting goods to market costs a fortune.

On July 29th in Naypyidaw, the capital, Miss Suu Kyi presented her long-awaited plan to tackle these problems. Though it pointed in the right direction—towards greater liberalisation and away from the planned economy—it was worryingly light on detail. What were described as “economic policies” were more like aspirations: more efficient public spending and taxation; better technical and vocational education; more transparent budgeting; less red tape and so on. There were vague promises about agriculture and infrastructure. Farmers will somehow get greater access to credit and more secure land tenure. Electricity generation, roads and ports will be prioritised.

The goals are laudable. But are they achievable? And when will the government get started? According to Sean Turnell, an Australian economist advising the new administration, so little economic information was handed over by its predecessor that its first four months have been spent tracking down basic facts about revenue, budgeting, the financial position of state-owned enterprises and so on.

After many years in exile fighting for democracy, Miss Suu Kyi has entered office with much goodwill, at home and abroad. But she is also burdened with high expectations, which are likely to go unfulfilled. Almost everything needs fixing, and she has shown a worrying tendency to centralise and micromanage. She still chairs her political party, while holding three positions in the new government. To build functioning financial institutions, she must learn to delegate, analysts say.

The rift over the loot

There are also worries about how the army will react once the government is ready to act. Outright resistance is unlikely: the democratic transition began in part because the army realised it was hopelessly ill-equipped to oversee a market economy. And at least some of its enterprises make money legitimately, and will make more as the country prospers. MEHL, for example, makes Myanmar Beer, the most popular brand, and Red Ruby, one of the most popular cigarettes.




Myanmar in graphics: An unfinished peace

However, the army and its cronies have also grown rich from gem and jade mines—and vast tracts of land that many contend were illegally seized. The new government says it will neither extend mining licences nor offer new ones until the laws governing the sector are tightened (it appears keener on environmental and safety rules than its predecessors). It has begun to investigate what it estimates are hundreds of thousands of land grabs, totalling millions of acres. This limited remit—the government could have plumped, instead, for a full-blown investigation into land-ownership nationally—is seen by some as a signal to the army that it will be allowed to keep past gains, but should understand that from now on, things will change.

Whether that will be enough for it remains to be seen. For Miss Suu Kyi has pledged a “just balancing” between states and regions, with the aim of “national reconciliation”. This is an old demand of ethnic insurgents against the central government: Myanmar’s civil wars have been motivated not only by politics, but by control of resources. Dividing the spoils more equitably will be essential if the fighting is to end. But Miss Suu Kyi may find that the army is none too happy about a civilian government dictating terms over conflicts in which it has spilt blood for decades.








Kira.
 
imagen.jpg


When you thought it was a fine Sunday so chill,but you remember that you are under military junta government so there are no holidays for you.



Kira.
 
2011127143928547833_20.jpg


Armed police with mordernized rifles and whats more? ROBOCOP HELMETS!!!



Kira.
 
2017-08-28T141245Z_666008609_RC1296F80150_RTRMADP_3_MYANMAR-ROHINGYA.jpg


Lack of helmets,ancient weapons,one guy doesn't even have shoes or their standard army sandals,no armor but still cool hairstyle.


Kira.
 
22256484_10203717644377778_836627184971662575_o.jpg

They could have been given a ride on Dhaka City Corporation's garbage trucks. Atleast,they would have been more comfortable and they would feel as if they are in their own homes.


Kira.
 
DSC02215_Fotor-600x450.jpg

Myanmarnese soldiers with their standard equipment except that they are lacking their standard military grade sandals and have a helmet.

Kira.
 
Last edited:
images.jpg


The might of Myanmar Army.
Although it seems unlikely to be Myanmarnese because the soldiers ( conscripts ) have actual helmets and boots which is unlikely in the Myanmar Amred Focres.

Kira.
 
Last edited:
83EE5B26-4BD2-4487-B46D-3E01AFB0F695_cx0_cy8_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg


Myanmarnese troops doing what they are the best at - burning villages filled with unarmed innocent men,women and children.


Kira.
 
Honestly,I'm pro-Communist.Atleast they make everyone equal and focus on the state rather than private companies while capitalism which is based on personal greed and causes indifferences between people.
In both cases,the state does its best for its people,except that its for the upper ones only in capitalism.

Communist doesn't work in practice, and in theory it has many flaws. So far every nation under a communist rule has been opressive and regressive, always suffering massive social gaps, poverty and corruption. North Korea may be the only exception in regards to corruption because the center of power has such a tight grip on literaly everyone except the leader that you simply can't be corrupt and stay unnoticed, unpunished.

I have lived a part of the life at communism, and saw equalities more than under capitalism now! People had a work, free education, medicine, we were proud of the country. And the first that has occurred when communism has fallen and there has come capitalism, it is hunger, crime, ruin, instead of the power of communists with the ideas, oligarchs with thirst of a profit have come! I don't understand than the power of oligarchs or and clans of hereditary politicians, it is better than communism?

The stories alone I hear from other Soviets and my parents and grand parents, and some of them were people in higher echelons or had better luck than others, or simply went to Moscow for education and lived there for years, tell a slightly different story. When people cry after the USSR it is mostly because they were somewhat better off then than they are now in poor countries like Georgia. That doesn't mean the overall situation was better in the USSr than in Western countries. That implication is just terribly misleading. There were a lot of issues from what I gather. Lot of corruption, monopoles, crime etc. Blockade on Western goods, even music. Ppl literaly had to smuggle in anything that wasn't Russian. Money was treated basicaly the same way as in Greece. People had money and wealth simply because it was easier to steal money and enrich yourself, than say in other countries. How is that any better ? it's actualy worse. Things like that is what ultimatley lead to several crisis and try to denie the fact that it was hardline politicaly clan based. Agriculture was almost noxistent, you were literaly relying on countries like Ukraine and Georgia and partialy even the United States to avert hunger crisis. The reason why you were in almost hunger crisis is because those countries broke away and your planned economy that was in the hands of some incompetent people was being replaced by something more efficient. The only good thing that came out of Putin is that he replaced all the Oligarchs ( people who don't give a dam ) with himself ( someone who doesn't entirely not give a dam ).
That said, democracy has it's own massive flaws.

Generaly speaking there is currently no good system, only either a better or worse.
 
Communist doesn't work in practice, and in theory it has many flaws. So far every nation under a communist rule has been opressive and regressive, always suffering massive social gaps, poverty and corruption. North Korea may be the only exception in regards to corruption because the center of power has such a tight grip on literaly everyone except the leader that you simply can't be corrupt and stay unnoticed, unpunished.



The stories alone I hear from other Soviets and my parents and grand parents, and some of them were people in higher echelons or had better luck than others, or simply went to Moscow for education and lived there for years, tell a slightly different story. When people cry after the USSR it is mostly because they were somewhat better off then than they are now in poor countries like Georgia. That doesn't mean the overall situation was better in the USSr than in Western countries. That implication is just terribly misleading. There were a lot of issues from what I gather. Lot of corruption, monopoles, crime etc. Blockade on Western goods, even music. Ppl literaly had to smuggle in anything that wasn't Russian. Money was treated basicaly the same way as in Greece. People had money and wealth simply because it was easier to steal money and enrich yourself, than say in other countries. How is that any better ? it's actualy worse. Things like that is what ultimatley lead to several crisis and try to denie the fact that it was hardline politicaly clan based. Agriculture was almost noxistent, you were literaly relying on countries like Ukraine and Georgia and partialy even the United States to avert hunger crisis. The reason why you were in almost hunger crisis is because those countries broke away and your planned economy that was in the hands of some incompetent people was being replaced by something more efficient. The only good thing that came out of Putin is that he replaced all the Oligarchs ( people who don't give a dam ) with himself ( someone who doesn't entirely not give a dam ).
That said, democracy has it's own massive flaws.

Generaly speaking there is currently no good system, only either a better or worse.


That was a well written post and I must admit,you certainly have a point!



Blockade on Western goods, even music.

Doesn't the US ban goods from North Korea,Iran,Myanmar,Yemen,Sudan etc?

People had money and wealth simply because it was easier to steal money and enrich yourself, than say in other countries.

Power was more important than money in Communist countries.And as easy as stealing money may seem,the punishment for this is much stricter than Western countries.
However,the most severe punishment is in Saudi Arabia,where you get your hands cut off for something as simple as stealing from a shop.

Agriculture was almost noxistent

Obviously because of the climate in Russia.



Putin is actually better than any of the earlier presidents. He tried to rebuild Russia back to its former glory more than all the earlier presidents combined!





We are going a little off-topic in this thread though.

Kira.
 
Doesn't the US ban goods from North Korea,Iran,Myanmar,Yemen,Sudan etc?

Yes though as far as I'm aware because of purely political, not ideological reasons. Russia banned stuff just because of ideological reasons foremost, but also partialy due to drugs afaik.

Power was more important than money in Communist countries.And as easy as stealing money may seem,the punishment for this is much stricter than Western countries.
However,the most severe punishment is in Saudi Arabia,where you get your hands cut off for something as simple as stealing from a shop.

Yes to people like Mao, Stalin, Lenin etc personal wealth and money may have mattered least or nothing, but that was decades earlier, when other matters were far more important, like the pure physical survival of peoples and nations, later and now, pure power still outweights money but corruption is very high and all those people have enriched themselves and its not just the Oligarchs. But don't want to spark a debate here.


Obviously because of the climate in Russia.

Yes, it's an old problem, but look what the United States did in just two centuries. It's nothing impossible, but the focus of Russian leadership has always been to maintain centralised power and seats, survive by antagonizing Western ambitions ( which may or may not be good ) at the cost of anyone and anything that doesn't align with Russia's interests. Realy nobody wants Russia's destruction. A destabilised Russia is even greater a concern to the US than to Russia itself.

Putin is actually better than any of the earlier presidents. He tried to rebuild Russia back to its former glory more than all the earlier presidents combined!

That is exactly why I disagree, because old glory days are gone. When you cry after old glory days - that were just greater military at the expensive of everything else and territorial expansion, then you don't deserve progress. Many things have been done yes, but could have been done 100 times better with the available intelligence, resources, influence and power.

We are going a little off-topic in this thread though.

Yeah sorry. Not my intention to turn this into a political discussion. Just had to put my word in it.
 
Yes, it's an old problem, but look what the United States did in just two centuries.

And look what China did in less than one century. Its not a matter of timeframe,but about the geography of a country. Although the harsh cold climate saved the country from being conquered more than once,the climate has a severe backlash on the economy and agriculture - especially with such vast lands with so few people to make proper use of the land.

That is exactly why I disagree, because old glory days are gone. When you cry after old glory days - that were just greater military at the expensive of everything else and territorial expansion, then you don't deserve progress. Many things have been done yes, but could have been done 100 times better with the available intelligence, resources, influence and power.

Russia needs to regain her military edge. She was once one of the two strongest and most influental countries in the world. But to get back her influental grip - especially on countries like China or India,it needs a military strong enough.
And its not about military,its about the economy too. Russia lost almost all her fertile farmland to countries like Georgia and her production facilities to countries like Ukarine.

Yes though as far as I'm aware because of purely political, not ideological reasons. Russia banned stuff just because of ideological reasons foremost, but also partialy due to drugs afaik.

It is also done for PR purposes to stop people from being fond of western stuff as some of them are of higher quality than the communists have.


Yeah sorry. Not my intention to turn this into a political discussion. Just had to put my word in it.

I understand. Now back to topic.

tatmadaw-soldiers-between-lashio-and-laukkai.jpg


Weird thing is that they actually have helmets.

SSA-N-soliders2.jpg




Kira.
 
off-topic

Communist doesn't work in practice, and in theory it has many flaws. So far every nation under a communist rule has been opressive and regressive, always suffering massive social gaps, poverty and corruption. North Korea may be the only exception in regards to corruption because the center of power has such a tight grip on literaly everyone except the leader that you simply can't be corrupt and stay unnoticed, unpunished.



The stories alone I hear from other Soviets and my parents and grand parents, and some of them were people in higher echelons or had better luck than others, or simply went to Moscow for education and lived there for years, tell a slightly different story. When people cry after the USSR it is mostly because they were somewhat better off then than they are now in poor countries like Georgia. That doesn't mean the overall situation was better in the USSr than in Western countries. That implication is just terribly misleading. There were a lot of issues from what I gather. Lot of corruption, monopoles, crime etc. Blockade on Western goods, even music. Ppl literaly had to smuggle in anything that wasn't Russian. Money was treated basicaly the same way as in Greece. People had money and wealth simply because it was easier to steal money and enrich yourself, than say in other countries. How is that any better ? it's actualy worse. Things like that is what ultimatley lead to several crisis and try to denie the fact that it was hardline politicaly clan based. Agriculture was almost noxistent, you were literaly relying on countries like Ukraine and Georgia and partialy even the United States to avert hunger crisis. The reason why you were in almost hunger crisis is because those countries broke away and your planned economy that was in the hands of some incompetent people was being replaced by something more efficient. The only good thing that came out of Putin is that he replaced all the Oligarchs ( people who don't give a dam ) with himself ( someone who doesn't entirely not give a dam ).
That said, democracy has it's own massive flaws.

Generaly speaking there is currently no good system, only either a better or worse.

As it is fine to listen to it about life subtleties in my country from the foreigner)))
about stealing and corruption
in the USSR it was impossible to spend stolen money in large quantities
After the collapse of the USSR, thousands of people died of starvation, and waves of crime, and hundreds became multimillionaires, those who died in poverty could console themselves by being able to listen to Western music and see on the windows foreign goods

Yes to people like Mao, Stalin, Lenin etc personal wealth and money may have mattered least or nothing, but that was decades earlier, when other matters were far more important, like the pure physical survival of peoples and nations, later and now, pure power still outweights money but corruption is very high and all those people have enriched themselves and its not just the Oligarchs. But don't want to spark a debate here.
DO1qEQBX4AABweb.jpg

DO1qEyPXUAAeTPn.jpg

DO1qFA4W0AAzpp5.jpg


The West didn't love us when we were, the principality, the kingdom, the empire, the Soviet Union, Russia
rulersof a role didn't play
 
Last edited:
And look what China did in less than one century. Its not a matter of timeframe,but about the geography of a country. Although the harsh cold climate saved the country from being conquered more than once,the climate has a severe backlash on the economy and agriculture - especially with such vast lands with so few people to make proper use of the land.

......

Kira.

It is the fools road to demand the return of what isn't supposed to belong to you in the first place. Crying after "lost lands" and greatness is exactly the problematic political approach that causes so much conflict between Russia and its neighbours. It won't happen. Any such rhetoric is base aggression. Leave such ambitions be and focus entirely on what you have and improve, and not at the expense of other countries. Something Russia should have been doing for decades. Literaly none of the useless saber rattling has achieved anything for Russia. Russia had all the military might but where did it lead to ? Where is Russia right now ? put that into perspective for a moment and think about how much more Russia would have gained if it built on partnership, friendship, cooperation and alliances like the United States, especialy with such massive resources. Instead Russia is feared and despised by many countries and most of its neighbours. You must be smart with your ambitions and power not just blunt.

off-topic
As it is fine to listen to it about life subtleties in my country from the foreigner)))
about stealing and corruption
in the USSR it was impossible to spend stolen money in large quantities
After the collapse of the USSR, thousands of people died of starvation, and waves of crime, and hundreds became multimillionaires, those who died in poverty could console themselves by being able to listen to Western music and see on the windows foreign goods

But how much have you seen of it ? no offense diman but I take the word of many people I've spoken to who spent most or a good portion of their lives in the Soviet Union from the 30-40s on and withnessed all the changes over the decades over the perception and perspective of just one or two persons who are probably much younger ( sorry if I assume to much ).

Propaganda has been used by all antagonizing nations / peoples against .... all antagonizing nations / peoples Diman .... that is a practice we humans are used to for millenia.

We all have a point, let's agree to that.

Sorry again, for oftp, this is my last.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top