Daw Suu's Letter from Burma #31

[carol@xxxxxxx]

Mainichi Daily News, Monday, June 24, 1996

LIFE IS SELDOM DULL FOR THOSE WHO DISAGREE

"A Dissident's Life"

Letter from Burma (No. 31) by Aung San Suu Kyi

	Life is seldom dull for dissidents in Burma.  I just looked up "dissident"
in three different dictionaries and the definition I like best is "one who
disagrees with the aims and procedures of the government."  That about sums
up the position of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and others
working for democracy in Burma: We disagree with the present aims and
procedures of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC).  Agreeing
to disagree is a prerogative only of those who live under a democratic
system.  Under an authoritarian regime, disagreeing can be seen as a crime.
This makes life for us rather difficult.  Sometimes dangerous.  But
certainly not dull.
	The main issue on which we disagree with SLORC is the matter of promises.
We hold that a promise given to the nation should be honored, not cast aside
with a shrug and a sneer when "it no longer suits" them.  When the military
regime took over power in September 1988 it announced that it had no
intention of governing the country for a long period.  It would assume the
responsibility of bringing genuine multiparty democracy to Burma and power
would be transferred to the party that proved victorious in "free and fair
elections." The elections of May 1990 were hailed as one of the freest and
fairest ever and the NLD won 82 percent of the seats.  As this was not the
result SLORC had expected it decided to forget its earlier promise and
brought out Notification 1/90 (another nice Orwellian touch), according to
which the job of the elected representatives was merely to draw up a state
constitution.  But once the NLD and other political parties had been made to
sign an undertaking to abide by this notification, SLORC proceeded to
organize a National Convention in which less than one fifth of the delegates
were elected representatives of the people.  The duty of the convention was
to endorse the basic principles of the state constitution which had been
laid down by the authorities without reference to public sentiment.
	It has been recognized by successive resolutions of the United Nations
General Assembly that the will of the people of Burma expressed through the
elections of 1990 remains valid.  In May, on the sixth anniversary of the
elections, the NLD decided to organize a conference of its elected
representatives.  This would have been a simple enough matter in countries
where political parties are allowed to operate as genuine political
organizations.  Not so in Burma.  Even the day to day running of an NLD
office requires perseverance, patience, ingenuity and cool nerves.  To begin
with, a landlord who rents out office space to the NLD is told that his
house or apartment could be sealed off or confiscated at any time the
authorities consider that the activities of the party justify such a move.
Thus finding a place to use as a party office is the first hurdle that has
to be overcome, giving members of the NLD much practice in political
education and friendly persuasion.  In some places the NLD was obliged to
move its office several times because of pressure exerted on landlords.  In
others the NLD was made to shift its office from a main road to a back
street so its presence would not be so obvious.
	The presence of an NLD office is generally made known by its signboard.
When political parties were allowed to register with the Multi-Party
Elections Commission in 1988 they were also allowed to put up party
signboards on the exterior walls or perimeter of their offices.  But after a
few months during which bright red and white NLD signboards blossomed all
over Burma from big cities to forgotten little hamlets deep in the
countryside, it was announced that no party signboards should be put up in
offices at the village and ward level.  The reason given was that a
multiplicity of party signs in small villages and wards would lead to
clashes among members of the respective parties.  This was unconvincing as
no such clashes had taken place and in many little villages and wards the
NLD was the only party with an office and a signboard.  We discussed the
matter with the commission and a compromise was reached.  Signboards would
be allowed in village and ward offices which had already put them up, or
sent in applications to put them up before, if I remember the date
correctly, Dec. 16, 1988. 
	But there are still villages and wards where the decision of the commission
has been ignored by the local authorities and NLD offices are still
continuing the struggle to be allowed to put up signboards outside their
usually very modest premises.  There are places where NLD offices have been
told to reduce the size of their signboards.  There have been cases where
local authorities have objected to NLD offices putting back signboards that
had been temporarily removed for renovation.  There have been instances of
local authorities forcing NLD offices to remove their signboards; recently
in some towns in the Irrawaddy Division, members of the local Red Cross and
the Union Solidarity and Development Association have joined in these
operations.  Where else in the world has the matter of a party signboard
turned into an open-ended saga?

* * *
(This article is one of a yearlong series of letter.  The Japanese
translation appears in the Mainichi Shimbun the same day, or the previous
day in some areas.)