rkr@cs.washington.edu (R. K. Raj) (10/23/89)
I normally believe in the principle of "live and let live," but since nothing has been done to address the issue of name, I will take this opportunity to request people to vote NO to the group under its present name, soc.culture.asean. Two of the reasons are: (a) nearly all the original objectives of this newsgroup were POLITICAL in nature, and definitely not SOCIAL nor CULTURAL. I invite Harish Pillay, the prime mover of this newsgroup, to repost his original message. I would have done this but my site has unfortunately removed the old message. (b) During the discussion period, several folks have observed their dissatisfaction with the name for geographical reasons -- the name, soc.culture.asean, does not address these reasons adequately. Note that my opposition is to the newsgroup under the proposed name, soc.culture.asean. In short, for these reasons and others, please vote against this name by sending a message, with Subject: NO TO SOC.CULTURE.ASEAN to Harish Pillay, whose mail addresses are: Internet: harish@ece.orst.edu UUCP: uunet!ece.orst.edu!harish - R. K. Raj
the@cs.utexas.edu (Khe-Sing The) (10/27/89)
In article <9553@june.cs.washington.edu> rkr@june.cs.washington.edu (R. K. Raj) writes: >I normally believe in the principle of "live and let live," but since >nothing has been done to address the issue of name, I will take this >opportunity to request people to vote NO to the group under its present >name, soc.culture.asean. I, on the contrary, urge you all to vote YES to the proposed newsgroup. Look at the following reasons: > (a) nearly all the original objectives of this newsgroup were >POLITICAL in nature, and definitely not SOCIAL nor CULTURAL. First, I doubt whether the original objectives were political in nature. Second, even if the original objectives were political, that is not necessary the current objective of the proposed newsgroup. > (b) During the discussion period, several folks have observed their >dissatisfaction with the name for geographical reasons -- the name, >soc.culture.asean, does not address these reasons adequately. No one came up with a better name. Besides, the opponents were either (i) ignorant about the situation in ASEAN nations, or (ii) upset because not invited to join the party. Currently there are several separate mailing lists carrying the discussions of ASEAN culture, technically it will be more efficient to merge the pertinent discussions into one newsgroup. The members of the mailing lists in Canada, UK, and USA intended to set up a newsgroup, and proposing one newsgroup for each of the ASEAN nations doesn't sound economical. >Note that my opposition is to the newsgroup under the proposed name, >soc.culture.asean. In short, for these reasons and others, please vote >against this name by sending a message, with Please vote YES for soc,culture.asean by sending a message as follows: To: harish@ece.orst.edu Subject: YES to soc.culture.asean Voting NO as suggested by R. K. Raj won't help you achieve anything but creating more net.enemies. Thanks for your support. -- Casey The` the@cs.utexas.edu the@gardenia.berkeley.edu the@cis.ohio-state.edu
randall@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Randall Atkinson) (10/27/89)
I am not ignorant about SE Asia or the ASEAN countries nor have I any particular axe to grind tonight. I voted NO to soc.culture.asean and encourage others to do likewise because SEVERAL reasonable alternative names were proposed and a strong consensus became clear in the official discussion period that the name was widely thought to be a poor choice. The ad hominem attacks by Casey The in the article I'm following up to were uncalled for and unfortunate.
harish@guille.ece.orst.edu (Harish Pillay) (10/27/89)
In article <9553@june.cs.washington.edu> rkr@june.cs.washington.edu (R. K. Raj) writes:
Raj>I normally believe in the principle of "live and let live," but since
Raj>nothing has been done to address the issue of name, I will take this
Raj>opportunity to request people to vote NO to the group under its present
Raj>name, soc.culture.asean. Two of the reasons are:
Raj>
Raj> (a) nearly all the original objectives of this newsgroup were
Raj>POLITICAL in nature, and definitely not SOCIAL nor CULTURAL. I invite
Raj>Harish Pillay, the prime mover of this newsgroup, to repost his original
Raj>message. I would have done this but my site has unfortunately removed
Raj>the old message.
OK, Mr R. K. Raj, for what its worth, here is my original call for
discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first call for discussion about a proposal to create a newsgroup
possibly called SOC.CULTURE.ASEAN.
#####################
### Brief History ###
#####################
ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) was formed in 1967 as a
regional grouping to help the nations of South East Asia climb the economic
ladder and to foster regional peace, stability and cultural harmony. There
were 5 original countries - Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and
Thailand. In 1984, when Brunei gained her independence, ASEAN admitted her
as the 6th nation. Currently, Papua New Guniea has an observer status in
the organization.
ASEAN has been instrumental in disproving the "domino effect theory" popular
among many political commentators of the Vietnam war/Nixon era. The turmoil
and strife seen in the Indochinese countries of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos
pretty much ended there after the Vietnam War. The nations of ASEAN continued
on the path of economic progress with the result of Singapore emerging as a
Newly Industrialized Economy with Malaysia and Thailand on the threshold of
becoming a NIE.
The last 10 years have seen the problem of the Vietnamese occupation of
Cambodia occupy the center stage in ASEAN's concerns. There was an ill-fated
Cambodia Peace Conference earlier this year in the light of the Vietnamese
withdrawal from Cambodia. However, with the withdrawal almost completed,
there is a lot of uncertainty in the future of Cambodia as a nation. In any
case, the ASEAN countries are poised to assist any government freely elected
in Cambodia solve basic bread and butter problems and help the country get
back on its feet.
Apart from this, ASEAN is viewed as the most dynamic regional economic
grouping with approximately 300 million people (almost the size of Europe 92)
and exceeding the USA. The vast endowment of natural resources and dynamic
and pragmatic governments of ASEAN have attracted large investments in
industry by multinational companies based in the US, Canada, Europe and Japan.
Lately there have been some concerns being expressed with regards to the
Philippine "Marshall Plan" and the proposal by Singapore to offer naval
facilities to the US Navy. This offer is seen as a blow to ASEAN's concept
of ZOPFAN (Zone of Peace, Freedom And Neutrality).
#################
### Objective ###
#################
This newsgroup will serve as a discussion forum for the issues that face
the citizens of ASEAN. It can also serve as a place where free and frank
discussion of so-called "sensitive" issues can be made. It should be kept
unmoderated. By removing the perceived fear of speaking up and discussing
issues that matter without the "government-led" "responsible" journalism
so pervasive in some of the ASEAN countries, it is hoped that this newsgroup
will help foster ASEAN solidarity and understanding.
The newsgroup can be a channel where specific country related issues to be
discussed. If in the future, the traffic for a specific country becomes
dominating in this group, a newsgroup for that country can be spawned off
off this group, for example, soc.culture.asean-singapore or whatever.
One other aspect worth considering would also be future membership of the
3 Indochinese nations - Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.
There has been a lot of work being done to heighten the awareness of the
ASEAN amongst the constituent citizenry. The bulk of which has been done
at the official, governmental level. This newsgroup should foster people to
people contact at a totally participatory and voluntary manner.
If you have any questions or comments, it is preferred that you post them to
news.groups. If you want to address them to me specifically, the following
should bring it to me:
Internet: harish@ece.orst.edu
UUCP: uunet!ece.orst.edu!harish
Please post your comments to news.groups
Thank you.
Harish Pillay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look under my statement of objectives, I've indicated that this shall
serve as a discussion forum for the issues that face the citizens of ASEAN.
I left it sufficiently wide open to interpretation, to which I had to post
clarifications, specifically, that the group shall be discussing the culture
and customs of the nations making up ASEAN.
Raj> (b) During the discussion period, several folks have observed their
Raj>dissatisfaction with the name for geographical reasons -- the name,
Raj>soc.culture.asean, does not address these reasons adequately.
Raj>
Raj> [...deleted...]
Raj>
Raj>- R. K. Raj
I've stated and restated ad nauseum why the name was chosen. The peoples
of the 6 nations share a lot in common - culture, history, language and
economy. If you want specifics, e-mail me and I shall oblige. If you aren't
from there [and ALL of my objectioners aren't :-(], you'll probably have
a hard time realizing the truth to this.
If the group was to be s.c.se-asia, we'll be bringing in the 3 Indochinese
states and Myanmar (Burma). My only reservation is that I fear that the
group will degenerate to one of mud-slinging between Vietnam and the rest
of SE Asia. If the 3 Indochinese states want to have a newsgroup, someone
should propose and get the process going. You can count on my YES vote to
it. I don't want to open a pandora's box, but, it is perfectly legitimate
to have 2 separate newsgroup for Southeast Asia for there is precedence
already, viz., s.c.china, .taiwan, .hongkong. IMHO, it would have been
sufficient to have s.c.chinese, but, nonetheless, I'd have voted in favor of
each separate group in any case. I'm sure they've valid reasons for having
separate groups.
Once again let me put this out. I am willing to get into ANY discussion with
anyone who is KNOWLEDGEABLE of ASEAN. If, as a result, I'm convinced that
ASEAN is PURELY a political entity, I'll shall stand corrected.
We've already completed the discussion period and the voting is in progress.
I believe the Usenet rules call for ceasation of discussion while the voting
is in progress. Please e-mail me your votes - either No or YES.
Please mail your votes to:
Internet: harish@ece.orst.edu
UUCP: uunet!ece.orst.edu!harish
Thank you.
Harish Pillay harish@ece.orst.edutale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/27/89)
In <128@qt.cs.utexas.edu> the@cs.utexas.edu (Khe-Sing The) writes:
Casey> Voting NO as suggested by R. K. Raj won't help you
Casey> achieve anything but creating more net.enemies.
Aw, but heck, what's a few more net.enemies in the face of a misnamed
group?
The ASEAN is a political organisation. The common culture that might
be found among member nations is not a result of the organisation.
My NO vote went in on the first day of the call. Thank you for your
rancor; ask the receptionist for a receipt on the way out.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))khai@amara.uucp (S. Khai Mong) (10/27/89)
In article <128@qt.cs.utexas.edu> the@cs.utexas.edu (Khe-Sing The) writes:
No one came up with a better name. Besides, the
opponents were either (i) ignorant about the situation
in ASEAN nations, or (ii) upset because not invited
to join the party.
Upset may be be the right word, but not because of not being invited
to the party. If it is going to be soc.culture, I would find it hard
to discuss many comparative cultural aspects without referring to
neighboring non-ASEAN nations. If we had a properly named group, I
certainly would be interesting in discussing many cross-cultural
topics of the region.
Somebody claimed that ASEAN is unlike any other organization save the
EEC. Then why hasn't soc.culture.eec been created so far despite
the fact that there are a lot more EEC users on the net that Asean users?
Answer: Because it is such a dumb, stupid and brain-damaged idea.
--
Sao Khai Mong: Applied Dynamics, 3800 Stone School Road, Ann Arbor, Mi48108
(313)973-1300 (uunet|sharkey)!amara!khai khai%amara.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.eduvictor@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Victor Menayang) (10/28/89)
In article <KHAI.89Oct27080834@babar.uucp> khai@amara.uucp (S. Khai Mong) writes: > >Somebody claimed that ASEAN is unlike any other organization save the >EEC. Then why hasn't soc.culture.eec been created so far despite >the fact that there are a lot more EEC users on the net that Asean users? > >Answer: Because it is such a dumb, stupid and brain-damaged idea. ^^^^ ^^^^^^ Why do you have to use such a very unkind language. I'm new to USENET and don't really know what the ethics is but it seems like you're more trying to express your frustration rather than making a point. I do not know why the EEC-ans don't see the need to create their soc.culture.eec, I cannot empathize with them to answer that question and I'll let them decide what's best for them. All I can say to you is, Why don't you just create your "soc.culture.Khai&friends"? At least this will save you from having to speak for others. Victor Menayang [a citizen of the ASEAN]