Sen.Paul Simon's speech about Daw A

[freeburma@xxxxxxx]

Subject: Sen.Paul Simon's speech about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on the Senate floor (June 13, 1996)

Attn: Burma and Burmese Activists
Re: Sen.Paul Simon's speech about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on the Senate floor
----------

       AUNG SAN SUU KYI (Senate -- June 13, 1996)

Mr. SIMON:  Mr. President, one of the most impressive political leaders in our world 
today is the courageous Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma , who has quietly, consistently but 
firmly, stood for democracy for Burma , now called Myanmar by its present leaders, but 
still called Burma by Aung San Suu Kyi. 

The military government there which still does not permit free assembly or a multiparty 
system, or other things that democracies take for granted, to its credit, has released 
Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest. 

Recently, the Los Angeles Times published an interview with her by Scott Kraft, which 
said something about her courage and her country. 

I particularly like his question `How does it feel to be a free citizen?' She replied: 
I'm a free citizen but the country is not free. So I feel like a free citizen in an 
unfree country. I appreciate the opportunity to be in touch with the people. That is 
what our work is all about. 

You know, I always felt free. I felt free when I was under house arrest because it was 
my choice. I chose to do what I'm doing and because of that, I found peace within 
myself. And I suppose that is what freedom is all about. 

I ask that the Los Angeles Times article be printed in the Record. 
The article follows: 


Aung San Suu Kyi--Striving to Build a Democracy Amid the Harsh Regime of Myanmar
                              (BY SCOTT KRAFT)

Aung San Suu Kyi had a rigid routine during the six years she spent under arrest in her 
family's lakeside home. She would rise at 4:30 a.m. for exercise and meditation, then 
spend the day reading biographies or autobiographies and listening to the radio. The 
only human being she would see was the maid. 

Though free for eight months now, she still spends most of her days in that two-story 
house. But the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner is hardly isolated. Two appointments 
secretaries, one for foreign dignitaries and the other for fellow party members, have 
guided thousands of visitors to meet her. 

`I'm afraid I can no longer keep to a strict timetable,' Suu Kyi says. `I can't get up 
at 4:30 anymore because there are times I don't get to bed until 2 a.m. If I got up 
early, I wouldn't be able to operate full-steam for 12 hours.' 

Many here hoped her release was a first step toward democracy in Myanmar. But the 
military regime, which nullified her party's victory in the 1990 elections, still runs 
the country. It is stage-managing a constitutional convention while trying to attract 
foreign investment. 

Suu Kyi is biding her time and rebuilding her party network. Her weekdays are filled 
with appointments and on weekends, hundreds of supporters gather outside the gated 
compound to hear her speak and answer their questions. Soon, she says, the government 
will come to its senses. 

Even as the government tries to ignore her, Suu Kyi, 50, remains the most-respected 
political figure in Myanmar. Her father, Aung San, is considered, even by her 
detractors, as the greatest hero of Burmese independence. He was assassinated in 1947, 
when she was 2. 

Suu Kyi left Burma in 1960, at age 15, and later received a degree from Oxford 
University. She married a Briton, Michael Aris, who is now a professor and specialist in 
Tibetan studies at Oxford. In 1988, she returned to Burma to tend to her ailing mother 
and became a leader of the pro-democracy movement. 

Aris and the couple's two sons, Kim, 18, and Alexander, 22, who are in school abroad, 
usually visit Suu Kyi at holidays, as they did during her years of house arrest, if the 
government grants them visas. Suu Kyi is prevented from leaving Myanmar only by the 
certainty that she would never be allowed to return. 

In person, Suu Kyi is low-key and polite, though her determination is evident. She 
always refers to the country as Burma and the capital as Rangoon, purposefully ignoring 
the government decree that this nation be called Myanmar and the city, Yangon. 

She meets visitors at home in a square room surrounded by 1940s-era photographs of her 
family and a wall-sized painting of her father. `The painting is a bit Andy Warhol, 
don't you think?' she says, `But it's really a very good likeness.' 

Q. How would you assess the eight months since you've been released? What are the 
positive developments and the disappointments? 

A. Well, in politics, I don't think you ever get disappointed as such. It's an 
occupational hazard that things don't always turn out as you would wish them to. You 
hope for the best and prepare for the worst. That's politics. 

The most positive aspect of things since my release is the fact that our party has 
become far more active. We've been reorganizing and reconsolidating. We've been 
subjected to a lot of restrictions. There continue to be intimidations and harassment. 
But we still have the strong support of the people and we manage to get along with our 
party building. 

Q. Many in the West thought that when you were released, everything would begin to 
improve. 

A. I don't think it's as simple as that. There are some people who say I was released 
because the government thought the National League for Democracy was dead. But in fact, 
it is far from dead. There have been miscalculations like that in the past by this 
government. 

In the 1990 elections, the government thought we might win a plurality but not an 
absolute majority. In fact, we got 82%, with the result that those elections have been 
totally ignored and our members persecuted. 

Q. So you aren't disappointed in the slow pace of change? 

A. I wouldn't say `disappointed' is the word. There is so much happening within our 
party that it does compensate for what is not happening on the other side. 
Of course, we know that the best thing for the country is national reconciliation, which 
can only take place through dialogue. And we hope that it will take place sooner rather 
than later. But that doesn't mean we just sit and hope. We have other work to do and we 
carry on. 

Q. So you aren't impatient with the pace of things? 

A. If you are very busy, you have no time to be impatient. If you ask us when do we want 
democracy, well, we want it now, of course, I feel just as strongly about that as 
anybody else. But because we are so occupied with our numerous jobs, we are not that 
impatient. 

Q. Do you think the current constitutional conference, in which your party is not 
participating, is a step in the right direction? 

A: No. That constitution is not headed for democracy. In the first place, they are not 
allowing political parties to operate effectively, and without political parties 
operating effectively there can be no multiparty democracy. 
The constitution they are writing really doesn't mean anything. A constitution is just a 
piece of paper unless it has the support of the people, and many a country has gone 
through many a constitution that is unacceptable to the people. Such constitutions do 
not last. 

Q: So what can you do to get this government to change direction? 

A: It is the will of the people that the country should become a democracy, and I'm sure 
the people will join me in guiding the country to its democracy. We will do what we can 
as a legally registered party. We will use political means of reaching our goal. This is 
our constant. 

Q: So you are talking about passive resistance. 

A: We don't really believe that the way to bring about democracy is by encouraging 
popular uprisings. We believe that democracy will come through the strength of the 
political will of the people, expressed through political parties. 

Q: How does it feel to be a free citizen? 

A: I'm a free citizen but the country is not free. So I feel like a free citizen in an 
unfree country. I appreciate the opportunity to be in touch with the people. That is 
what our work is all about. 
You know, I always felt free. I felt free when I was under house arrest because it was 
my choice. I chose to do what I'm doing and because of that, I found peace within 
myself. And I suppose that is what freedom is all about. 

Q: Do you think that it is possible the government thought it could make you a nonperson 
by releasing you? 

A: Sounds likely, doesn't it? Yes, it seems likely. 

Q: The government often points out that you are married to a foreigner. How important is 
that criticism to the average Burmese? 

A: I don't think it means very much. If I were married to a Burmese, they'd probably 
attack my husband's family for other reasons than that he was foreign. Don't forget that 
they are also attacking--very, very viciously--other party leaders who are not married 
to foreigners. 

Q: Is your husband able to visit you? 

A: He came for Christmas, but last year he was refused a visa for the Easter holidays. 
So he comes if he gets a visa. 

Q: You have frequently called for dialogue with the government. 

A: Yes, we believe in dialogue and we will always believe in dialogue because that's the 
way all political problems end up. 

Q: Has the government made any overtures to you? 

A: Our party has a policy that we will make no statements about dialogue until we decide 
we are ready to bring out an official version. 

Q: So you're saying . . . ? 

A: What I'm saying is that I'm not answering your question (laughs). 

Q: If there is an election based on the government's new constitution, would your party 
participate? 

A: We don't even know whether there is going to be a constitution or what sort of 
constitution. In any case, I don't think we should be talking about the next elections 
when the issue of the last elections has not yet been resolved. 

Q: Currently, the government is promoting foreign investment, and many companies, 
including Unocal in Los Angeles, have investments here. What's your message to those 
companies? 

A: We have always said--very, very clearly--that Burma is not right for investment. The 
climate is not right because the structural changes necessary to make an investment 
really profitable are not yet in place.
We have now acquired in Burma a small group of very, very rich people. We did not have 
such people eight years ago--people who could go to a hotel and spend $1,000 on a meal. 
That was  unheard of. And the gap between the haves and the have-nots is increasing. 
That does not make for social stability. 

Q: Do you think the government's hold on power will be strengthened as it opens up the 
economy? 

A: Well, it's not a free market. Some are freer than others in their access to the 
market. The mechanism necessary for a really healthy open economy does not yet exist. 
And one of the most important parts of that is the rule of law. You have to know where 
you stand. . . . Without that, there can be neither credibility nor confidence. And 
every businessman must agree that good business cannot be done without credibility and 
confidence. 

Q: What do you do to discourage investment? 

A: It's not just what I say and it's not just the support there is abroad for the 
movement for democracy. Potential investors who really study the situation in depth, who 
don't just take a superficial view, will come to their own conclusion that the time is 
not yet right. They may want to put a little bit here so they can have a toe hold, 
waiting for the day when Burma takes off. Of course, that day will be when democracy 
comes. 

Q: In your heart, when do you think that will come? Are we talking five years? 

A: I can't really say. But certainly I don't think it will be that long. 
On the other hand, I know there will be a lot of problems to deal with once we have 
democracy. In fact, I think we'll probably have more problems after we have democracy 
than before. This is always the case when a system changes from an authoritarian system 
to an open and transparent one. 

Q: You tell the crowds that democracy is no panacea. 

A: Yes, I tell them that under a democracy, we will have to be prepared to take 
responsibility for our country's problems. Once they have democracy, they can no longer 
blame the government because they are really the government. 

Q: But won't there need to be pressure to bring about change here? 

A. There is international pressure. But of course what is more important is that there 
is pressure from within. 

The Burmese people are tired of authoritarianism, and they have seen for themselves that 
the authoritarian system has not done the country any good at all. Our standards of 
education are falling. Standards of health are falling. The face that we have new hotels 
does not make up for the fact that our children are less well-educated. 

Q: Were you surprised, after your release, that there was still strong support for you? 
Did you worry that you might have been forgotten? 

A: No, no. I was not that surprised. It's nothing to do with me. It has more to do with 
the desire of the people for a system that gives them both liberty and security. This is 
what people want, isn't it? People want to be free and at the same time they want to be 
secure. 

Q: And you personally? 

A: It's not me they are supporting in particular. The government seems to think it's me 
personally that the people are supporting. This government always gets things wrong. 
We won the election in 1990 because the people wanted democracy. It was not because of 
me. 

Q: Do you worry about your safety? 

A: No, I don't worry very much at all. It's not because I'm all that courageous or 
anything. It's just that there is no point in it. If they want to do anything to me they 
can do it any time they like.

     [End insert]

---------end.