Do we have a third choice ?

[Valkyriely@xxxxxxx]

    I have yet to see democracy exist in S.E. Asia.
    Thailand,Malaysia,Indonesia,Philippines,Cambodia,Laos had so many
governments changed  hand or under form military control. (It is like the
musical chair game. The music keeps playing,the participant politicians keep
on changing chairs.)
    In Burma  currently there are 2 main participants competing for the
little musical
 chair.
    The anti-SLORC supporters claim SLORC is illegitimate. SLORC generals are
a bunch of shameless,atrocious,sleazy,uneducated,psychologically imbalanced
power-hunger stupid  idiots. (Boy, used up all my adjectives)
    I agree that they are stupid.
    A dictator should not try to pretend that they are democratic by holding
election.
    Communist China never did that. Soviet Union never did that. Indonesia
did that with one candidate. Maybe SLORC should immitate Iraq next time by
asking voters to openly write down whom they would vote for in front of the
poll officials. And it is subject to approval before counting the ballots.
    But I am not sure if they are illegitimate.
    Even though they are the continuation of the Ne Win's  BSPP regime,if one
wants to cry foul he /she should call BSPP as illegitimate. Because BSPP came
to power via coup d'etet. SLORC is just a care-taker government for the
"stability" of the country.
 (Maybe that's one of the reasons other nations find it difficult to justify
servering
 relationship with SLORC)
    The SLORC was never defeated. BSPP is dead . (They are called SLORC now).
One will find it quite common in business. A corporation went under. The
owners start a new one  with another name. Hey,it is legitimate.
    The SLORC-supporters believed ASSK is politically motivated.
    I agreed with that claim. (even though I don't see anything wrong with
that)
    Regardless of the fact that she may care more about the Burmese people as
compared to SLORC, (that does not necessarily mean she can do anything better
for the Burmese people as compared to SLORC) I would say she has political
ambition.
    My reasoning :
    She went back to Burma in 1988 to take care of her ailing mother. If that
were her sole purpose she would have left the country afterwards.
    O.K. if one argues that "well,after she saw the suffering of the Burmese
people she  decided todo something to help them."
    Fine. then why did not she do anything for the Burmese people for the
past 15-20 years prior to 1988. (BSPP  era was certainly not better than
SLORC era )
    I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me that she or someone saw the
benefit of
 her "named brand asset" to participate in politics.
    Regardless of whether she voluntarily or involuntarily got into the depth
of politics, her political ambition was clearly reflected in her saying .
    " One has no other life when one is in the politics" ( not an exact
quotation)
    Theoretically politics is for the benefit of the people of a nation. If
ASSK really
 had no political motives and jus t for the good of the Burmese people,she
could have
 just come up with plans that she thought would help the Burmese people,let
 whichever government try it while announcing that she would not seek any
position in any Burmese government,whichever it might be. I don't think
anyone in the world can force her to assume a government position if she does
not want to accept.
    ( I can almost hear it from the "activist" side saying " you are full of
sh... Clearly you don't know about politics. Certainly not the Burmese
politics !! "  Fine. I am just trying to prove my point.)
     Since both sides claim they are for the people of Burma, (one maybe more
or less than the other side. But that's insignificant. Pot can't justify to
call Kettle black)
which side will serve the Burmese people better ?
     Sadly,neither.
 
 (1) Given the fact that there is a high degree of mistrust between the
various ethnic
     groups and the majority Burman.
     (which did not start from BSPP time,by the way. It started way before
that.)
 
 (2)  Given the fact that neither party (SLORC or NLD) has anyone that has a
good 
      understanding of how to build and maintain a healthy economic and
democratic
      society. ( ASSK herself only knows the democracy in theory,let alone
the world-
      isolated  NLD members. As for the SLORC, democratic economy  means guns
  
      and power and my swiss account )
 
 (3)  Given the fact that no one single person in Burma is powerful enough to
make all 
      politicians listen to him/her.
      ( Ne Win used to be in that position. But that SOB blew it. He could
have made
      Burma one  of the most enviable nations in  S.E. Asia.
 
 (4)  Given the fact that Burma has nothing but some natural resources.
      ( modern day economy put emphasis on knowledge-based industry rather
than 
      on natural resources. The most a nation  with natural resources,but not
much 
      brain power,can do is surviving.)
      I pointed this out because I am sick and tired of some "activists"
netters  c
      claiming  SLORC is selling off the Burmese natural resources. With no
other 
      more valuable resources,what else can SLORC do ? If ASSK came to
power,her 
      party would just as well do the same thing. What else can NLD do ?
Educate 
      people can't be done in 1 or 2 years time. Is NLD going to starve
people to death  
      waiting for the first batch of Ph.D. to come back and rebuild the
country ? Or we 
      just stretch out our hands and beg for donation (with string attached)
from Japan 
      and the West ?
      Some "activists" may naively hope that the West is going to help us
overthrow
      SLORC. Or maybe that's the only remaining hope for them.
      "Burma is the S. Africa of the '90s" they wish. But is that true ?
Let's see :
      S. Africa had the  OBVIOUS apartheid problem between the blacks and the

      whites.
      The West would like to eliminate that to avoid the  negative image of "
you  
      people are the same as the white S. African ". In order to continue
doing 
      business in S. Africa,they had to force the white S. African government
to make 
      changes.
      (prior to abolishing the apartheid ,S. Africa already had a decent
establishment
      of multi-national economy. Mor on this week's issue of The Economist )
      Most importantly, people are sensitive about the discrimination of skin
color
      becuase one can feel it immediately,whereas human right abuses may not
be 
      that obvious right away.
      The situation in Burma is the ideology struggle within the same race.
      ( It is more difficult for the West to answer the question " Tell me
which 
      nation does not have human right violation ?" as compared to the
obvious
      apartheid question. Besides, the issue in Burma is not directly
affecting them.
      The West may protest or give warning as gestures of support for
democracy. But
      not much more.
 
  Bottom line is the country is so f..... up no one single party can fix it
overnight
  or in a short period of time ( I am talking about 5,10 years or more )
  Do you think all the ethnic minority groups and the military will wait that
long and 
  let NLD stay in power ? ( If NLD came to power the end result most likely
will be
  similar to the Philippines. Ramos must have calculated that when he stepped
away 
  from Marcos. ) Look at all the S.E. Asian nations, which one has true
democracy ?  
  Which nation is not ruled by groups that has strong military connection. In
science
  and engineering there are things called  forced response and natural
response.  
  The result of the forced response to democracy is the intervention by the
military
  in S.E. Asia.
  Democracy is like love. When you are hungry you don't think of love. You
think of 
  food,pal.
  As much as I like to think of Singapore's Lee Kwan-yu as a dictator,I can't
help
  but agreeing with his saying  " In Burma only the military can hold it
together."
  At least until the military people are better educated,I think what he said
is true.
 
 
  
   Valkyriely