Response to "Sai Wunna" and "Khun H

[dohrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Response to "Sai Wunna" and "Khun Htoo Thar"  

Response to "Sai Wunna" and "Khun Htoo Thar"

By Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe

	It is a good sign that someone in the SLORC hierarchy has taken
the trouble to respond to my article in The Nation (Bangkok), using the
Shan pseudonyms or getting two of my Shan compatriots to "reply", very
thoughtfully. This gesture is very much appreciated.  Before I respond to
whoever they are presently, as below, such communication, although
politically adversative, is what "dialogue" is all about.  And "dialogue"
is precisely what is needed in Burma.  It is the key to political harmony. 
Dialogue -- serious, meaningful communication -- is what Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi has been proposing all along. 
	In response to the contention that what I wrote about Generals
Khin Nyunt, Maung Aye, and so on, are fabrications and speculative, let me
say that there are no "secrets" in politics.  It suffices to say that if
one knows what to look for, asks the right questions, and is willing to
listen (and is trusted), it is possible to learn about what appears to be
very confidential matters.  Indeed, one can even learn alot from what is
not said, or by reading between the lines -- and it is these clues that
enable one to ask the right people the right questions.  I am sure General
Khin Nyunt is very familiar with such techniques. 
	Secondly, in this age of lightening electronic communication,
information, especially political, can not be "locked up", not for long
anyway. Besides, there now exist electronic devices --illegal but quite
easily available (at the right price) -- which enables one to tap into
phone conversations.  These devices are now quite widely used by, shall we
say, quasi-criminal "investment syndicates" operating in Burma, Thailand,
Cambodia, and I am sure, elsewhere as well.  In the final analysis,
"secrets" are safe only from those who are not curious or are
disinterested. 
	In regard to the contention that my opposition to the present
junta is personal and emotional, and the suggestion that I should realize
that 1962 is long gone, I disagree with the first, but agree with the
second -- that one should forgive, if not forget. 
	I am, or have long been, a political animal, and was involved in
politics before general Khin Nyunt was, as mutual friends will testify. 
As such, I view the loss of my brother, Mee Mee (aged 17 years when he was
killed), and the death of my father, the first Union President, as a price
which politics extracts from those involved in politics.  Personal losses
of all kinds are built into politics, one might say.  As such, because I
am not emotional about what happened, I can -- personally speaking --
forgive. 
	However, what bothers me is the many thousands, much more
unfortunate than I, who lost their lives, and many more thousands, who
lost their loved ones and also lost everything they owned.  These were
mostly quite nonpolitical, or were only incidentally political.  The
perpetrators were, metaphorically, the "horse" General Khin Nyunt and
colleagues, the "new jockeys", are now riding. 
	What bothers me is the usurpation of the role of rulers by those
whose real and only duty is to defend the constitution, and have sworn to
obey the commands of those chosen by the people to represent them and/or
to rule, make decisions, exercise power, and so on. 
	The sloganeering and billboards around Rangoon, and statements
made to the effect that the armed forces -- i.e. the top brass -- is
entitled to hold political power in perpetuity, to decide what is right
for the country, or know, in a God-like way, what is good for everyone,
these are the kind of actions and words that turn most people and ordinary
soldiers off.  That is why military-supported NUP candidates did not win
seats, even in military districts, in 1990 elections. 
	A country is made up of millions of people.  I am, frankly,
bothered by the claim that only soldiers -- a small segment of the general
populace -- are to be entrusted with the welfare and well-being of the
country.  The claim implies that millions of Burmese citizens are either
hopeless mental retards or are downright unpatriotic. 
	Further, the monopolization of power, and its unaccountable and
arbitrary exercise by soldiers not only contradicts slogans trumpeted
daily by the "tatmadaw" that it serves the people and is at one with them,
but also arouse in the people a strong resentment and contempt for those
they see as shamelessly dishonoring and abusing patriotism, and
dishonoring the Tatmadaw as well. 
	It would be sensible at this juncture in our troubled history for
all thinking and thoughtful men, in uniform and mufti, to put aside
slogans and come to grips with the question of what the people want.  We
all know that people are not "sacks of potatoes", though a majority of
them might be peasants.  There is no doubt in my mind, that an average
Burman, Karen, Kachin, etc., is as intelligent and informed as an average
Malaysian, Thai, Singaporean, or even an average North American. 
	The question we have to tackle is not which elite group or leader
is more patriotic, more qualified to hold and exercise power.  This kind
of dispute is and unending one, and occurs everywhere.  At issue is the
question of what can sincere patriots do, or should do, to give back to
the people the right -- which is theirs -- to choose who they want as
leaders and rulers, and their right to evict from power those who do them
harm. 
	Soldiers who are patriotic, qualified, and possess the Òright
stuffÓ should have no problem with respecting the right of the people to
choose between claimants for power.  Those who are qualified may get to
become -- like Generals Aung San, Washington, Grant Eisenhower, Kemal
Attaturk -- national leaders-heroes, i.e., if they have the guts, like
civilians, to compete on a level playing field. 
	There are some within the military -- men like Khin Nyunt for
example -- who are what one could describe as excellent politicians and
potential national leaders, in the real sense of the word.  There are also
many sit-bos who are bona-fide soldiers, and quite a few are -- I am sure
-- personally decent, and they include those within the military
intelligence directorate as well.  Rather than expending their energies on
holding on to power that does not belong to them, they should instead
focus their energies on reforming the Tatmadaw, making it into a force
envisioned by its founding father, Aung San.  The people will then have
something solid to be really grateful to the Tatmadaw and the men and/or
women serving in it for. 
	I hope that good men and women will be able to transcend immediate
loyalties, interests -- and yes, enmity -- and talk frankly, without all
the accrued emotional baggages or false pride, with one another.  The
world is changing very rapidly, and if we all are to avoid falling victims
to powerful expansionist forces, political and otherwise, we must get our
acts together.  Posturing and sloganeering will not get us anywhere, but
real dialogue -- the meeting of caring, patriotic minds -- will.