The BurmaNet News, September 5, 199

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------       
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"       
----------------------------------------------------------       
   
The BurmaNet News: September 5, 1997          
Issue #814
  
HEADLINES:          
==========   
BKK POST: MON NEGOTIATORS ACCUSED OF BETRAYAL
NATION: GROUP URGED TO DISCUSS BURMA'S ROLE IN ASEM 
BKK POST: MAHATHIR TONES DOWN ECONOMIC RHETORIC
HRW/ASIA: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THAI GOVT, ASEAN
THE NATION: BURMA ENDANGERS FUTURE ASEM-EUROPE
BKK POST: THAI - BURMA MOVE TO FIGHT NARCOTICS
BRC-J: INTERVIEW WITH ABYMU MONK
INDEPENDENT ESSAY: IMPRESSIONS OF BURMA
ANNOUNCEMENT: BAY AREA BENEFIT FOR DR. CYNTHIA?S
--------------------------------------------------------------------------  

BKK POST: MON NEGOTIATORS ACCUSED OF BETRAYAL
September 4, 1997

The negotiating team of the ethnic Mon rebels has been accused of siding
with Burma's ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council and will no
longer be considered their representatives in peace talks, a senior Mon
Buddhist monk said.

The monk, who refused to be identified, said the Mons felt the team was no
longer working to benefit the ethnic Mons but serving the interests of SLORC
in the last two months.

Other rebel Mons who are still active also said their leaders have been
brainwashed as they have been instructing the Mons to obey the Slorc.

The Mon negotiators headed by Nai Shwe Kyin, president of the New Mon State
Party, have entered several rounds of talks with the Slorc in the last few
years in a bid to bring a four-decade-old insurgency to an end.

"From what we gather, our peace team is having a good life in Moun-main
township under the sponsorship of Slorc which has given them houses and
other necessary items. They are enjoying life and have forgotten our
sufferings in the jungles," the monk said.

****************************************************

THE NATION: GROUP URGED TO DISCUSS BURMA'S ROLE IN ASEM MEET
September 4, 1997 [slightly abridged]
Agence France-Presse

MANILA - Southeast Asian nations should hold talks to decide what action to
take over Britain's opposition to Burma attending an Asia-Europe Meeting
(Asem) there next year, a Philippine official said yesterday.

"Let the [Asean] foreign ministers talk about that and eventually the
leaders," before the Asem summit in London in April, Philippine Foreign
Under-secretary Rodolfo Severino said.

Britain is unlikely to grant visas to allow Burmese officials to attend the
Asem summit, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said earlier this week.

Cook's comments prompted Malaysian Prime minister Mahathir Mohamad to
threaten on Tuesday to "opt out" of the summit, adding "you may find other
countries in Asean also deciding not to attend."

Severino said the Philippines had foreseen this issue arising but had not yet
reached a decision.

The problem "falls into some kind of grey area," Severino added, noting that
for Asem meetings, "Asean countries attend in their individual capacities
but certainly the matter of Myanmar's [Burma's] attendance is of importance
to Asean."

Severino said that it was questionable whether "the Asia-Europe meeting
would be credible... without the whole of Asean being there."

The Foreign under-secretary added that 'if most of Asean were to decide to
stay away, I don't think any Asean country would participate."

He added that "a basic position of Asean is that one should not discriminate
among Asean members."

John Avila, political economist of the Manila-based University of Asia and
the Pacific said that "Mahathir doesn't reflect the Asean position, but then
the Malaysian position could carry over" to the other Asean members.

He added that Mahathir's remarks could be a form of "political positioning
ahead of the summit".

"It's too early to tell. There could be ways of resolving the issue before
the summit is held," Avila said.

He added that a "precursor to the Asem summit," the Asem Forum would be held
in Manila in December.

"It is very possible that the Philippines would go along with the proposal
of Malaysia. Remember, the Philippines was one of the sponsors of the entry
of Burma into Asean,' said Artemio Palongpalong, a professor based at the
Asian Studies Centre, which is housed in the University of the Philippines.

He added however, "I don't think [Philippine President Fidel Ramos] will
decide without consulting the other leaders."

"The role of consensus is quite a very permanent role in Asean. I suppose
this is quite challenging on the part of Asean unity. Europeans are not so
familiar with the role of consensus making," he said.

"If there is no unanimity [in decisions among Asean] they will keep on
discussing until a common point is arrived at. If not, then they postpone
making a decision," Palongpalong said.

Meanwhile Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas said in Jakarta yesterday
that Asian countries scheduled to attend the Asem summit in London next year
have yet to discuss Burma's participation.

"The topic about Myanmar [Burma] has not been discussed," Alatas said before
attending a monthly cabinet meeting.

Alatas yesterday pointed out that representation at the scheduled Asem
meeting "is based on individual participation so it is not a meeting of
Asean on one side and EU on the other."

He said that a decision on the request of several other nations, including
Australia and New Zealand, to take part in the annual meeting has not yet
even been discussed and even the participation of Burma and Laos had not
been broached.

"I do not understand why Minister Cook continously talked about that
[Burma's participation in Asem], since the problem has not yet come up,"
Alatas said yesterday.

*******************************************************

BKK POST: MAHATHIR TONES DOWN ECONOMIC RHETORIC
September 4, 1997
Christina Toh-pantin, Reuters 

The Prime Minister says he is not a spokesman for Asean on Burma.

Kuala Lumpur -- During an hour-long programme on CNN on Tuesday night, Mr
Mahathir was calm and restrained even in the face of some tough questioning.

Political analysts saw his performance as a sign he may be paying some heed
to critics who say his sometimes heated rhetoric is damaging efforts to
resolve Malaysia's economic problems, which include a tumbling stock market
and currency.

During CNN's "Q & A programme, Mr Mahathir also took pains not to play the
role of spokesman for Asean.

Answering a question about Asean's acceptance of Burma despite Western
objections to its human rights record, Mr Mahathir reiterated Malaysia might
not attend the Asia-Europe summit in London if the European Union bars Burma
from attending.

But the prime minister then added: "I'm not speaking for Asean by the way,
I'm speaking for myself."

But Mr Mahathir's remarks on CNN were short on new economic proposals and
the rout on the stock market continued apace yesterday - the key index
plunged 5.65 percent. The ringgit notched up another record low against the
dollar.

The Southeast Asian currency selloff has wiped almost 20 percent off the
ringgit since early July. Analysts say concerns about Malaysia's huge
projects and its widening current account deficit have driven investors away
in droves.

******************************************************

HRW/ASIA: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THAI GOVT, ASEAN
July 1997

Following is excerpts from Human Rights Watch/Asia report on July 1997
(Vol.9, No.6.C); the recommendation to the Royal Thai Government and the
ASEAN. Full printed report may be available to order from the Human Rights
Watch office in UK e-mail <hrwatchuk@xxxxxxxxxx>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDATIONS:

TO THE ROYAL THAI GOVERNMENT

* Thailand should accede to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to
the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees.

* Thailand must abide by its obligations under international law and provide
safe asylum to all those fleeing from persecution inside Burma in a
consistent manner and in particular to ensure that the border is not closed
to those currently fleeing persecution. The refugees must not be
repatriated against their will and any repatriation must comply with the
obligation of non-refoulement and the Conclusions of Executive Committee of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Programme; the
UNHCR should be permitted to carry out its role in relation to any such
voluntary repatriation as elaborated in its voluntary repatriation handbook.

* Thailand should establish procedures under which nationals from Burma can
seek asylum in order to prevent refoulement occurring of people arrested,
convicted and deported for illegal entry into Thailand.

* Thailand must stop equating an absence of fighting as the sole condition
for Burma to be considered safe for the return of the refugees. Those
fleeing Burma should be treated as refugees where there is a well-founded
fear of persecution, regardless of whether or not this is experienced in
the context of fighting. An end to fighting in Burma does not in itself
mean an end to human rights abuses.

* Thailand should allow the UNHCR to carry out its mandate in relation to
the refugees from Burma on the Thai/Burmese border.

* Thailand should continue to allow access to the refugee camps on the
Thai/Burmese border to those nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who
provide assistance and relief to the refugees.

* Those camps which are vulnerable to cross-border attacks and raids by the
Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) and the SLORC should be moved to safer
site located further inside Thailand, away from the border, Thailand should
take immediate steps to provide an adequate level of security in the camps.

* The refugees housed in camps on the Thai/Burmese border must be allowed to
live in humane conditions.

* Refugees from Burma's Shan State should be allowed to establish refugee
camps at which they are able to receive humanitarian assistance.

* Thailand must abide by its treaty obligations as they concern refugees
under the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1966
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

TO THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH EAST ASIAN NATIONS

* ASEAN should establish a working group to promote a peaceful end to
violence and continued repression in Burma and the implementation of
measures to create conditions under which refugees could voluntarily return
to Burma in safety and dignity.

* All ASEAN member states should be encouraged to abide by international
standards for the treatment of refugees. Concern should be expressed to both
the Thai and Burmese governments where these standards are violated.

* As a means of demonstrating Burma's willingness to cooperate with the
international community as a responsible member of ASEAN, member states
should press Burma to permit the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Burma to carry
out his mandate and visit the country, especially ethnic minority areas, in
time for him to be able to report to the U.N.General Assembly in November 1997.

* ASEAN governments should also urge Burma to implement other key
recommendations in the U.N. resolutions, including the release of all
political prisoners, detained solely for the exercise of their
internationally recognized rights, ensuring full respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, opinion,
expression, association and assembly, and protecting the safety of all
political leaders including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

* ASEAN governments should agree, in advance of the next ASEAN meeting in
December in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to informally review the situation in
Burma and consider additional initiatives that might be undertaken jointly
or on a bilateral basis.

* ASEAN's dialogue partners -- including Japan, the European Union,
Australia, the United States and Canada -- should raise these concerns
during the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference in Malaysia, July 28-29, 1997.
They should also urge China, which will be represented at the conference and
gives substantial economic and military assistance to Burma, to use its
influence with the SLORC.

******************************************************

THE NATION: BURMA ENDANGERS FUTURE ASEM-EUROPE RELATIONS
September 4, 1997
Kavi Chongkittavorn

Burma is emerging as the biggest obstacle to the development of closer
relations between Asean and the European Union. And if the beleaguered
country fails to adopt political reforms it will have a direct impact on the
inter-continental ties between Asia and Europe under the framework of the
Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem).

In addition, the role of Thailand, Burma's neighbour, will be put under the
microscope because it is serving as the coordinator for Asean-EU relations
for the next three years. Bangkok, together with Tokyo, is also required to
work closely with London to prepare for the second Asia-Europe meeting
scheduled for April next year.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's comment earlier this week that
Asean might boycott the London meeting if Burmese officials are not given
visas to attend the meeting was a reminder of the existing cleavage between
the two groups. His trial balloon comment, released a bit prematurely, was a
rebuttal to British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook's comment that London will
not allow Burmese government officials to attend Asem.

At this juncture, his comment did not reflect the position of Asean and
should not be taken seriously. But it did point to the potential time bomb
related to the future enlargement of Asem and the delicate nature of
Asean-EU relations.

As host of the informal Asean summit in December, Mahathir is probably
trying to get the support of Asean and Japan, China and South Korea for
Burma and Laos to be included on the list of potential Asem members along
with Australia, New Zealand, India and Pakistan. At present, there is a
moratorium on new membership. If Asem senior officials agree to end the
moratorium, there could be new members in the year 2000 when the third Asem
will be held in Seoul, South Korea.

Both Burma and Laos have yet to apply for official Asem membership,
something which must be approved by consensus. But the Asem countries have
not yet decided if a joint consensus on new members is mandatory on Asian
and European sides or whether it can be done separately.

Obviously, the former formula would allow the European members to block the
Burmese membership. The latter one, however, would permit the Asian side to
increase its number of members from 10 to 14 or 16. But one question mark
that remains is whether Asean members would have priority over non-Asean
members. Currently, the EU has 15 countries and the EU Commission in Asem.

In the case of Asean-EU ties, future economic cooperation between the two
groupings is at stake. The EU has refused to include Burma in the Asean-EU
Cooperation accord because of its poor record on human rights while Asean
has called for non-discriminatory treatment of its members.

Never before in the history of their 20 year relationship have Asean and the
EU encountered such a large stumbling block as Burma. Although the East
Timor issue has strained Asean-EU ties, following Indonesia's annexation of
the territory in 1975, it has not reached the critical level of the Burma
problem. Apart from Portugal, EU support on East Timor is not backed by
feelings as strong as those held toward Burma's ruling junta, the State Law
and Order Restoration Council (Slorc).

After the situation in Burma was first raised in 1991 by the EU during a
meeting with Asean in Luxembourg, the rogue state has become an albatross in
the two groupings' bilateral relations.

The EU is currently preparing to sign a protocol on the extension of the
cooperation to include Laos. This could take place before the 13th Asean-EU
Joint Cooperation Committee meeting, scheduled for November 21 to 23 in Bangkok.

As host, Thailand is trying its best to accommodate both sides. Bangkok has
already won acknowledgment from Asean and the EU that Burma will be invited
as an observer to the meeting. However, in future meetings to be held in
Europe, Burma will not be able to attend.

The EU has banned Slorc officials from entering member states. For the
foreseeable future, this is not going to change.

In addition to the Burmese problem, Asean and the EU must find ways to
engage each other as their relations could be overshadowed by the
fast-moving Asem framework. The failure to sign a new generation agreement
between Asean and the EU in Singapore last February was symptomatic of the
future uncertainties.

A report by the Asean-EU Eminent Persons Group (EPG) has warned that there
could be the risk of some overlap between Asem and the Asean-EU dialogue.
But the report was also optimistic that 'the Asean-EU relationship is
important in its own right and as an engine room for wider development of
intercourse between Asia and Europe".

It remains to be seen how the two sides will implement the recommendations
made by the EPG report, which calls for a broader and deeper Asean-EU
political dialogue that includes the private sector, universities,
think-tanks and other non-governmental organisations.

In the past, there have been very few institutional and human links between
the two continents. There have been some improvements of late. New projects
have been initiated under the Asean-EU dialogue. For instance, the Junior
EU-Asean Managers (Jem) programme involves 675 Asean and 300 EU
representatives participating in a programme to build a so-called "human
bridge" between the two regions.

In addition, there is a programme to enhance cooperation between EU and
Asian local authorities through technical assistance and technology
transfers covering the environment, infrastructure and social issues in
urban areas.

In the final analysis, the future of relations between Asia and Europe is
too important for any one country or any single issue to decide its scope
and content. While both sides are mindful of the impending crisis and
potential damage the dispute could cause, they have not seen, at least for
now, the light at the end of the tunnel.

The future economic cooperation between the two groupings is at stake. The
EU has refused to include Burma in the Asean-EU Cooperation accord because
of its poor record on human rights while Asean has called for
non-discriminatory treatment of its members.

******************************************************

BKK POST: THAI - BURMA MOVE TO FIGHT NARCOTICS
September 4, 1997

Thailand and Burma will set up a coordinating centre in Chiang Mai to wipe
out the border narcotics trade.

The move follows last week's agreement on drug suppression.

The agreement was signed by Third Army Region commander Lt-Gen Thanom
Watcharaput and his Burmese counterpart Maj-Gen Khet Sein.

The Third Army Region will next week call a meeting of anti-narcotics agents
and relevant agencies to discuss the setting up of the centre.

The centre will be responsible for liasing with concerned agencies of the
two countries to provide information about the drug trade and to map out
suppression and prevention measures.

It will also develop areas prone to drug abuse and create jobs for local people.

******************************************************

BRC-J: INTERVIEW WITH ABYMU MONK
September 4, 1997

This is an unofficial translation of the transcript of an interview of Ven.
Kumudra, a Burmese monk who was arrested, forced to serve as a porter, but
escaped and fled to the Thai border. The interview was conducted by Ven
Khemasara, Chairman of All Burma Young Monks' Union (ABYMU), on 20 April,
1996.  Ven. Kumudra is also a member of ABYMU. 

(A copy of the original taped interview (in Burmese) is available from
Buddhist Relief Mission.  To receive a copy, please send your mailing
address to: brelief@xxxxxxx  (Do not REPLY to this message, since that would
be transmitted to all recipients of BurmaNet.)  The cassette tape is free of
charge, but we would appreciate reimbursement for postage.)

Text:

Q:   Where are you from?
A:   Yitkan Village, Sa ku Township, Magwe Division.
Q:   Are your parents still living?
A:   Yes, they are.
Q:   What was your name as a layman?
A:   Kyaw Win 
Q :   And your monk's name?
A:   U Kumudra
Q:   When were you born?
A:   I was born on Tankhu, Fifth full moon day, 1323 (1961, April)
Q:   How old are you?
A:   Thirty-five years old.
Q:   When did you ordain as a novice?
A:   At the age of 17.
Q:   Did you study formally?
A:   Yes, until the eighth grade.  After I failed the exam, I ordained as a
novice.
Q:   Did you ordain to be a monk at the age of 20?
A:   Yes I did.
Q:   Did you start studying Dhamma as a novice?
A:   I studied at the Thu-kha-wadi Monastery (which is devoted to Dhamma
teaching), Kyauk Pa Daung, for four years.
Q:   After that? 
A:   After that I studied at Maha-ta-ni-kar Yame Monastery (Magwe Division)
under Sayadaw U Than Thar-wara, Elementary, intermediate, and advanced levels.
Q:   Who is your Au pyit je (ordination teacher)?
A:   Sayadaw U Nandiya (Yit Kan Village, Pegu)
Q:   Who sponsored you in your monk's ordination?
A:   My uncle, U Ba Ohm, and Daw Shwe Thauk.
Q:   Did you study Dhamma anywhere else?
A:   I studied advanced level Dhamma under Sayadaw U Kon Ta La of Prome
Lawtikayon Monastery.
Q:   Did you study anywhere else?
A:   In Magwe Division, at Pwint Phya, Magwe and in Pegu Division, at Prome
Zaw Ti Ka Yon.
Q:   How many wasa (rainy seasons) did you study?
A:   Ten wasa as a monk.
Q:   Until 1988?
A:   That's right.
Q:   Why do you think you were arrested?
A:   Because I was active with the All Burma Young Monks' Union.
Q:   What was your responsibility?
A:   As the third line leader responsible for administration of the
organization.  
Q:   When were you arrested?
A:   At the end of December 1989.[1990?, ed.]
Q:   After the Sangha's boycott?
A:   Yes.
Q:   Do you think you were arrested because you were involved in struggles
for human rights, democracy and peace in Burma?
A:   No, not really.  We saw the atrocities the military regime committed on
the people and we knew how they mismanaged governing the country.  We, the
monks coordinated our efforts with the movement and tried to create a
situation in accordance with the teachings of Buddha.  Our good intentions
were ignored, our movement was blamed for creating unrest among the people,
we were accused, and arrested. 
Q:   Before 1988, did you take part in any political action?
A:   Only in 1988.  Then 400,000 monks united and coordinated for the good
of the people.
Q:   Do you mean that you were not at all involved in politics before 1988.
A:   Yes, that is right.  Not at all.
[section missing]
A:   Forty, or fifty, or maybe sixty monks.
Q:   In Prome?
A:   Yes.  The SLORC planned to imprison six leading monks including me.
Tike-tar Sayadaw got four monks released from jail but two of us remained in
another prison because Sayadaw could not find us.
Q:   Who arrested you?
A:   Police officer Khin Maung Zaw of No. 1 Police Station and LORC member
Saw Yan Naing.
Q:   Were you put in jail?
A:   Yes, for 28 days.
Q:   How were you interrogated?
A:   We were beaten whenever we were interrogated.  Of course, we were
afraid of interrogations.
Q:   Were you in monks' robes or laymen's clothes?
A:   At first I was in robes, but later I was forced to disrobe, but I
stayed in accordance with the vinaya (monks' discipline).  We were forced
against our will to disrobe.
Q:   Were you in prison at that time?
A:   Yes, but I was in monks robes for 28 days at the police station jail.
Q:   Were you beaten even though you were in robes?
A:   Yes, I was.
Q:   What happened in the prison?
A:   I was told I would be put on trial.  Finally I was tried by the
military tribunal.
Q:   Did you have a lawyer?
A:   No.  They accused me and gave me a sentence.
Q:   What was the sentence?  How many years imprisonment?
A:   Eleven years.
Q:   What were the charges?
A:   Creating unrest during the uprising and using narcotics.  They charged
us and sentenced us by themselves.
Q:   How long were you in prison?
A:   I was in prison until 1994.
Q:   Were you the only monk or were there other monks with you also?
A:   The other monks were sent to Taungyi, Meik-Hti-la, and Myin-chan jails.
Q:   Were they also charged with involvement in the 1988 uprising?
A:   Yes, the same charges.
Q:   Were you beaten in prison?
A:   Yes, I was.
Q:   Daily?
A:   Yes, daily.  Even oxen have time to rest.  We were treated even worse
than oxen.  Because I was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, I was
shackled, with an iron rod rather than a chain between my ankles. 
Q:   Can you tell me about other tortures you were subjected to?
A:   We were beaten with solid bamboo staves.
Q:   On the head?
A:   On both the head and the back.
Q:   Individually?
A:   Yes.
Q:   How many times a day were you beaten?
A:   Twice a day--once in the morning and once in the evening.
Q:   Why did they beat you?  Was it because they could not get answers from you?
A:   Even if we gave them the right answers, they beat us, saying that they
were not the answers they wanted.
Q:   Were you sent to any work sites?  If so, where and when?
A:   In 1992 I was sent to Be Lu Chaung Hydro-electric Power Plant Project
near Loi Kaw in Kayah (Karenni) State.  There we had to work for a Japanese
company. 
Q:   A hydroelectric power project?
A:   Yes.  We were forced to work like oxen.
Q:   How many hours a day did you work?
A:   We started at six o'clock in the morning and worked until four-thirty
in the afternoon.
Q:   How about food?
A:   There was never enough food and what there was like pig's slop, not fit
for human beings.
Q:   What kinds of dishes did you get?
A:   Only Ta-la-paw (a Karen staple porridge made of rice powder, boiled in
water, salt and available vegetables) and fish paste.
Q:   How about prison food?
A:   No better than pig swill.  I could not eat it for a month.
Q:   Did you get two meals a day?
A:   That's right.  One in the morning and one in the evening.
Q:   Did they feed you as a monk or as a layman?
A:   As a layman, but all the prison staff called me "pongyi" (which means
monk, but is never used as a form of address; to do so is rude).  
Q:   How long were you in Loi Kaw?
A:   For 1992, 1993, 1994, for more than three years.  At the ceremony
inaugurating work on the power plant, the Second Secretary of the SLORC,
General Tin Oo came and gave a speech.  He announced that we, all prisoners,
will be released at the end of the project.  Because of that prisoners
worked happily.  The prison warden said that such high authorities never
lie.  At the end of the project, instead of being released as promised, we
were taken by Kaya (Karenni) State Regional Military Commander for forced
labor and made to work as porters. 
Q:   When was that?
A:   In December of 1994.  We served as porters from Pa Saung (Kayah State)
to Karen State.  At first they said only seven days.  On the way back, we
were handed over to the Light Infantry Regiment #428.
Q:   How many months were you there?
A:   We spent over three months as porters in the jungle.  Many died of
malaria and starvation.  The rest of us expected that we too would die.
Q:   How many porters were there?
A:   There were between seven hundred and eight hundred porters there.
Q:   Were there any other monks?
A:   Yes, there were many monks who had been forcibly disrobed.  They were
not disrobed according to the proper disrobing procedures.  They were
tortured and forced to sign a paper stating they had disrobed.  They were
tortured, so they signed.
Q:   Who were they? 
A:   Together with me was a monk whose lay name was Maung Myint Shwe, from
Irrawaddy Division.  He was forced to disrobe, not disrobed properly. He was
also imprisoned for involvement in the 1988 uprising.
Q:   Were there other monks there?  Where were they from?
A:   Yes.  Some were from Meik-Hti-La and Bassein prisons.  All of them had
been arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned for participating in the 1988
pro-democracy movement.  Some were older than us.  Even some senior monks
were porters with us.
Q:   What was the difference between porters' food and soldiers' rations?
A:   We were only given a lid-full of rice from a "hango" (army rice
cooker). That amounted to only  half of a tin plate of rice.  The soldiers
had tinned fish, meat, and beans.  We heard that there was a ration for
porters, but we never received it.  We were given only 10 condensed milk
tins of rice (about 2.5 kilograms) for fifty people.
Q:   Did you get any money for your labor?
A:   No, we didn't. Actually they confiscated any money we had.
Q:   Were there women porters?
A:   Yes, there were about 25 women.  Karen women of different ages, from
the small villages from the Pa-pon area. 
Q:   Let's change the subject back to the jail.  Did you have to do hard
labor in prison?
A:   Yes.  We had to dig drainage canals, dig out rocks, and carry dirt. We
were forced to work like oxen with insufficient food.
Q:   What work did you do at the hydroelectric power project.
A:   Early in the morning we were taken by truck to the work site.  There we
had to dig, carry travel, mix cement, and carry iron bars.  We could not say
no.  The soldiers guarding us used to say, "It doesn't matter about the hole
in the canteen.  What we want is water!"
Q:   How did you reach the border? 
A:   We ran away.
Q:   How many of you ran away together?
A:   Three of us.  Ga Maw (a Kachin), Po Wa (a Po Karen), and myself.  When
we were asked to fetch water, we crossed the river, using an empty plastic
canteen as a flotation device.  Before we escaped, 14 or 15 others had
already run away.
Q:   Did the escapees include soldiers?
A:   Yes.  One soldier, Hla Maung Thein (an Arakanese) from LIR#429 escaped
with his gun, 200 bullets, 3 tins of meat, and 2 tins of beans.  He escaped
at a place near the Htee-mu-hta pagoda.
Q:   Did soldiers follow and try to capture him?
A:   Yes and they did shoot at him too, but because he had his gun, the
others dared not follow.
Q:   Are the SLORC soldiers depressed?
A:   Yes.  Because we had to stay at the top of a very high mountain, called
"Monkey Cry Hill" they used to complain that their orders caused them a lot
of troubles.  Water was difficult to get; the weather was terrible; supplies
were not sufficient; and they could easily be attacked.  I remember Sergeant
Aye Myint and Ko Myint Thein.  They also said they wanted to quit the army,
but they were not allowed to resign.
Q:   Do you want to say anything about the military junta which has
controlled the country since 1988?
A:   We know that it is a regime that took government power by arms and by
oppressing the people.  They force the people to work.  They repatriate
villagers.  We don't like them.  None of the people like them.  It is an
unfair government.
Q:   Do you think the revolution, including the students' struggle, will be
successful some day?
A:   I believe it will succeed.  As long as the military regime is in power,
I have decided to continue the struggle against their injustices with diligence.
Q:   What did you do when you first arrived here?
A:   I first stayed in a Karen village in laymen's clothing, but I still
believed that I was a monk.  The only thing was that they (SLORC) beat me
and forced me to disrobe.  Then I met the students and ordained to be a monk
again.
Q:   According to vinaya, you are still a monk.  Beating and torturing by
SLORC is their akusala (evil and unskillful) deeds.

--End of text
http://www2.gol.com/users/brelief/Index.htm

***************************************************

INDEPENDENT ESSAY: IMPRESSIONS OF BURMA
September 3, 1997

	In Burma I was made uncomfortably aware that at times I was 
?Visiting Myanmar?, compliantly participating in the government-
sponsored ?Visit Myanmar Year 1996?.  The opposition called for a boycott 
of ?Visit Myanmar Year?, as many of the beautification projects were 
completed with forced labour and also resulted in forced relocations to 
remove the more unsightly (impoverished and potentially politicised) 
inhabitants from officially approved tourist destinations.  The junta 
benefits from the presence of tourists as it improves Myanmar?s reputation 
as an ?open, developing country? and tourists are also a source of 
desperately needed foreign currency.  

	Myanmar, the nation state invented by SLORC (the State Law and 
Order Restoration Council), is brutal, with a thin veneer of legitimacy 
applied for the sake of tourists and investors.  ?Visiting Myanmar? is 
official, often extraordinarily frustrating, and usually gives you the feeling 
that you are being cheated but since you came there is nothing you can do 
about it.  It is like being forced to ?donate? US$5.00 to the military junta
(not the monastery) in order to enter a pagoda which is free to all those
who don?t look foreign.  In contrast, ?traveling in Burma? is like being in
the pagoda.  

	In Rangoon, reminders that one is ?Visiting Myanmar? abound.  
Enormous, concrete ?Visit Myanmar Year? dolls leer at you from traffic 
islands.  Mould is growing on their faces and their hair is missing in 
patches, causing them to resemble rancid cake decorations, or the sinister 
doll of a low budget horror flick.  In one hand the doll is gripping a 
menacing black attaché case.  What does it contain?  Number 4 heroin 
according to Rangoon dwellers.

	Although many Burmese people seemed to have no qualms about 
littering in the streets, rivers, and fields the very poverty of the country 
means that an ethic of disposability is not yet prevalent.  Comic books and 
novels which cost between 50-150 kyats are rented out of small wooden 
shacks for 5-8 kyats.  The pages are torn and dirty.  Disposable lighters are 
carefully refilled with precious lighter fluid.  Small children stay up all
night hollering at passing trains; they earn their keep by collecting empty
water bottles from train passengers.

	In Rangoon the enormous modern hotels and buildings under 
construction have signs with catchphrases about progress and development, 
words belied by the steady stream of women who walk below transporting 
7-11 bricks painstakingly stacked on their head. Porters wait at boat docks, 
leaping to action every time a cargo needs to be loaded or unloaded.  The 
men carry loads which appear to rival their size and weight.  Bent over, 
they stagger almost blindly back and forth.  I was surprised to see them 
still working at 8 o?clock at night, disappointed to see them still at their 
task at 10 p.m.  

Voices from Burma

	One day, as I was being jostled around on a tiny, overflowing bus 
a woman struck up a conversation with me.  She told me that she was 
going to the hospital to see her husband.  ?He is very sick, vomiting a lot.  I 
am worried for him because he is very old, 44 years old already!?  I 
remarked that 44 is still very young.  She told me, ?In your country that is 
young, but for us it is very old.  We only have very short lives.?

	I asked a guide/trishaw driver how he felt about the current 
economic situation.  He immediately became nervous.  ?Tourists always 
want to know about politics.  They don?t understand how dangerous that is 
for me.  If someone [an intelligence agent] heard me talking about that to a 
foreigner they would put me in jail for 8 years.? I apologized, and told him 
that I didn?t want him to tell me about the political situation, but only 
about the economic situation. ?Eight years!!?, he repeated, not responding 
to my question.  

	The guide told me that he had once aspired to be a soldier, but had 
changed his mind after speaking with several soldiers who he drove around 
in his trishaw.  Each of the soldiers pleaded with him not to join the 
Tatmadaw, saying ?Please don?t do it.  Listen to me.  Once you start they 
won?t let you leave.  You only earn 750 kyats a month.? [750 kyats is less 
than US$3.50]

	An immigration officer in Rangoon told me that he makes 1,000 
kyats a month as a civil servant.  He said that it was an impossible salary, 
as a person needs at least 50 kyats (15-25 cents) a day to survive.  His
ambition is to eventually gain a post along the Thai border, where he will
have the opportunity to cross into Thailand to earn 70 baht ($2.00) a day.
Clearly, the insufficient salary of average ranking government employees is
largely responsible for the pervasive corruption of civil servants and the
brutal robberies committed by members of the armed forces.  While the 
government provides a pay which is insufficient for basic subsistence, 
government employment does bestow the power to rob and extort in order 
to survive.  

	An accountant, unable to return $1.00 change from a $10.00 bill I 
used to pay for a ticket, patiently explained that he, as a civil servant, was 
not allowed to have foreign currency, even though he might be called upon 
to dispense it in cases like mine.  ?The government does not trust me with 
your currency.  They only like themselves.  Do you know that we live 
under a military dictatorship here??  He frightened me a little with his 
uncharacteristic openness and disdain for SLORC.

	The accountant asked me rather sharply,  ?Do you know that the 
US and other European countries have put economic sanctions on us??  I 
nodded.  ?So now all we get is this low quality stuff from China,? he 
continued, pointing at his radio.  ?But I don?t mind because I think that if 
they create the economic problems for our government it will be very good.  
Your Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright is very good, very intelligent. 
We are pleased because we want democracy.?  I could not help glancing 
around after he clearly pronounced the word democracy, but no one within 
earshot betrayed any reaction.  ?I find out the news from VOA, BBC, and 
RFA every day on this Chinese radio.  The government would like to leave 
us in darkness.  But now you must excuse me.  It is time for me to go listen 
to VOA.?  I pictured him sitting cross legged on his grass mat in his tiny, 
dark office, clutching his white plastic radio which connects him to 
information on Burma,  brushing away the dark ignorance and heavy 
propaganda which SLORC would have rule in Myanmar.  

********************************************

ANNOUNCEMENT: BAY AREA BENEFIT FOR DR. CYNTHIA?S CLINIC 
September 3, 1997

The Burmese Refugee Care Project invites you to a benefit for Dr. Cynthia 
Maung's Thai-Burma border refugee clinic.  Come see a slide presentation 
and to hear Dr. Ben Brown and artist Jim Robbins talk about their medical 
mission over the past seven years in the war-torn jungles of the 
Burma-Thailand border.  Food, music, slide show, and discussion for a 
suggested donation of $10. Sunday September 7 from 4:30 to 7:30, slide 
show at 6:00.  Dance Palace Community Center, Point Reyes Station, CA 
(Corner of 5th and B Streets).  For more information call 415-663-8666 or 
707-522-9701. Sponsored by the BRCP, P.O. Box 1774, Sebastopol, CA  
95473. 
 
************************************