Oooppp...
Here, let me continue what is misiing.....
The BIG concenr is the MANNER of the Laos's plan to receive these
returnees and HOW to reseetlle them. Judging nform the part experience
of the Hmongnrefugees who were repatriated in the 80's/90's of the Vue
Mai;s group at Ban Na Sa=Sart, south of Pakse and the Ban Phathao
north of Vangvieng. More than a decade later these two groups seem to
do reasonable well, even though there is still problem with population
movement and land ownership. For example, the Vue Mai group of Ban Na
Sa= Art. after beeing in that settement for more than on decade, the
returnees can NOT claim for land ownership. the entire settlement
remain as communial land and the residents can not own any land in
that settlement - even tho they are Lao citizen. HENCE, would Ban
Phathana Phalak will be similar to Ban Na Sa=Art?
Secondly, witout the outsider to assist in that Ban Phalak, that Hmong
community WILL not be viable settement as Hmong cannot live in
ISOLATION like other ethnic group.
So, if the LPDR plan to settlement more peopel from Heuy Nam Khao, it
is imperative that a network of hmon support need to be establish as
quickly as possible with the assistance of overseas Hmong.
Do not think that the LPDR can do it alone without outside/third party
participation. Thinking in nthis way, Ban Phalak is plan to fail -
it is doom already.
Just some thought for the day..
Havzoov
On Mar 1, 12:09 am, havz...@
gmail.com wrote:
> After all said and done, we will see that the Lao mongn in Thailand
> will fall into three groups - some will be settle in Thailand, one
> group will be resttled in thrid countries and the larger group will
> have to return to Laos. So, it is inevitable that the bulk will have
> to return to Loas.
>
> And it is good to know that the Lao goverement have come accept that
> these people in Heuy Nal Kha are indee Lao citizen and Laos gas agree
> to accepth them back - thisis a positive step on the part of Loas as
> being responsible to take care of her people.
>
> The BIG concenr is the MANNER of the Laos's plan to receive these
> returnees and HOW to reseetlle them. Judging nform the part experience
> of the Hmongnrefugees who were repatriated in the 80's/90's of the Vue
> Mai;s group at Ban Na Sa=Sart, south of Pakse and the Ban Phathoa
> onorth of Vangvieng. More than a decade laret these two groups seem
> to do reasonable well, even though there is still problem with
>
> Thailandne must marvel the confidence of the LPDR Thanouxay that the
> settlement of the illigal migrants from Thailand back to Laos but the
> reality is that Laos is no island and Laos cannot and will not be able
> to settle these porple who were fore to return to Laos here they do
> not want to stay in the first place.
>
> Any resettlement does not simple involve sending them to isolated
> settlment location, being a best political strategy, and the LPDR hope
> that the people will live there happily there after. This is not so.
>
> What is needed is a well planned rehabilition program to intergrate
> the new returnees - a program hat the LPDR does not has yet, the
> current progrm is doom to fail. The hmong is only thrive and be happy
> if they can live around their network of kin, clan members and family
> support. Without the network of kin and family support, the current
> LPDR program of remote settlement is doom to fail. Furthermore, the
> hmong are now a global community and they have members living around
> the four corners of the globe, and many people are ready to play their
> right in their new host countries that have interet in Laos, so
> WITHOUT the participatuon of their Hmong relatives who live onverseas,
> the LPDR has alraedy fail to settle these returnees because those
> returnees will listen more to ntheir overesae relatives than the LPDR.
>
> Hence, the LPDR will have a honeymoon success to mresettle the new
> returnees but it is only a mattre of time that these returnees will
> began to cause more headache for the LPDR because the LPDR lack the
> understanding of the dynamic of the hmong way of life and the LPDR
> continue to hold the illusion that byt given ablock of land a bamboo
> house and some hosuehold utensils to the retuenees then thoe people
> will be happy and build their new lives in those remote villages. But
> the bottomline is that the success of the settlement of those people
> is depending on the genuine accaptance, love, respect and that the new
> people MUST find fulfilment in life BY HAVING THEIR KINS AND FAMILIES
> TO LIVE AROUND THEM TO GIVE THEM SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL
> SUPPORT IN TIME OF CRISIS, SICKNESS AND MORE IMPORATNTLY IN TIME OF
> DEATH OF A MEMBER OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. Without these later
> support, NO amount of money, material or gadgets wil be able to keeep
> the Hmong in Laos. One just have to look at the settlement of the
> failure of the Hmong settelement in the Usa IN THE 70' AND 80'S. The
> Hmong community began to improve and become successful ONLY foloowing
> the secondary migration of the Hmogn popuation to live closer to their
> kins and clan members in California, Minesota, Wiaconcin and
> elsewhere.
>
> So, the arrogance of Thanouxay to sya that Lao can do it without the
> third party involvemeny is a formula of failure and it is an idication
> of total ingnorance on the part of the LPDR. Laos is no longer an
> isolated country and NOTHING can happen in Laos in isolation. Any
> change in the outside world can have a drastic effect in Laos, just as
> thanouxay has personally mexperinece that any change in the US dollar
> has an adversy drop in his business profit! So, any change in the
> Hmong community in the US, Australor or France will automaticaplly
> affect the Hmong in Laos and this cannot be prevented so by having the
> arrogance that the LPDR can solve the Hmong problem in Laos without a
> thurd party is an illusionary policy to fail even before it has began.
>
> havzoov
>
> On Feb 29, 9:53 pm, thanouxay
hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
