(Part I) Hitting Below the Belt --

[brelief@xxxxxxx]

Hitting Below the Belt  (Part I)
Principle Tactics of SLORC
by Ven. Khaymar Sarra
All Burma Young Monks' Union



FOREWORD

After reading the pamphlet distributed by the military junta, the State Law
and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), attacking the honour of Nobel Peace
Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, I felt a compelling need to write this tract.

During the pro-democracy uprising, I had the chance to meet Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi on several occasions. After the SLORC's brutal seizure of state power,
there were no more meetings. ARer leaving for the liberated area on October
30, 1988, I had never written about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, favourably or
otherwise, as I never felt any need for it.

While in Bangkok in March 1995, I came across a pamphlet in English written
and distributed by the SLORC under the assumed name of Mr. Htoon Shwe,
denouncing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. As a result, I was reminded of previous
meetings with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. At those meetings, I had observed and
admired Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's honesty, uprightness, reverence, good-will,
sense of sacrifice, humanism, perseverance, sense of responsibility, and her
capacity to differentiate between right and wrong. As this tract is based on
personal views and perspectives resulting from those brief meetings, I am
ready to admit that it is not a perfect analysis. However, this essay was
written in the belief that it can be of some value. I hope that those who
are not familiar with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will come to understand the truth
about her by reading this objective presentation, instead of being misled by
the misrepresentations presented in the SLORC's defamatory attack under the
assumed name of Mr. Htoon Shwe.

It is not only against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi that the SLORC has used this
lowly means of denunciation. The following are other examples.

In 1978, the military dictatorship previous to SLORC began its attempt to
control the Sangha (community of Buddhist monks) in the name of "purifying"
the religion. Realizing the real intent of the military clique, some members
of the Sangha desired not to participate and made excuses to attempt to stay
out of the matter. Their Holinesses the Reverend Abbot of Mahasi Yeiktha and
the Reverend Abbot of Tri-pitikadara of Minghun were among those who shunned
involvement. Knowing that its plan would not succeed without the
participation of the two Holinesses, the military junta, with the intention
of forcing the participation of the two abbots, made similar derogatory
attacks against them.

The military junta intimidated the two with power, distributing leaflets
accusing the Abbot of Mahasi of Rangoon of talking with the "nat" spirits
and the Abbot of Tri-pitikadara of Minghun of being involved in some
unfavourable occurrence two years after entering the monkhood. Many aged
members of high attainment within the Sangha were also disparaged by the
junta using this vile means of attack. According to the members of the
Sangha who were followers of the Abbot of Tri-pitikadara of Minghun, the
Abbot wept because he was so ashamed of the attacks.

Therefore, the SLORC's crude use of disparaging propaganda of the SLORC
against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is not something new or surprising. However, it
is necessary for all concerned to make an effort to bring out the truth. I
will reprint here only the excerpts from the derogatory pamphlet that I
think are necessary to make my point.


DEROGATORY ATTACK SPREAD BY MR. HTOON SHWE

Aung San Suu Kyi was born on the 19th of June, 1945. She attended St.
Francis Convent and Methodist English High School, Rangoon. In 1960 when her
mother Daw Khin Kyi was appointed Myanmar's Ambassador to India, she
accompanied her to India and continued her studies at St. Joseph's Convent,
St. Mary's Convent and Lady Shri Ram College, New Delhi. Then at St. Hugh's
College, Oxford from 1964 until 1967 and received a B.A degree from Oxford,
after which any student would automatically obtain an M.A. degree. Aung San
Suu Kyi did not really obtain an M.A. degree.

Lord and Lady Gore Booth acted as guardian of Aung San Suu Kyi when she was
studying at Oxford. Mr. and Mrs. Gore Booth became friends with her mother
Daw Khin Kyi while they were resident in Yangon when Mr. Gore Booth was
Britain's Ambassador to Myanmar. After working at the University of London,
with the help of the secretary General U Thant, she worked at the United
Nation's general office, at New York. During her stay at New York, she was
always seen in the company of a black Cuban diplomat who was her constant
companion and the couple socialised together amongst the New Yorkers and the
diplomatic circle. Eventually she married Michael Aris, a British Jew, on
the 1st of December 1971.

Before 1988 Aung San Suu Kyi had very little contact with Myanmar and the
people of Myanmar. During her twenty-seven years of absence from Myanmar,
she had only made eight short visits to Myanmar and had laid a wreath only
once at her father's tomb on a Martyr's Day in Rangoon, in 1986.

During March 1988 her mother Daw Khin Kyi suffered a stroke and only when
the Minister of Home Affairs persuaded her and arranged for her air ticket
did she arrive in Yangon on the 2nd of April 1988. At that time, the
underground organizations were secretly instigating the students to create
more trouble in connection with a brawl that started at a teashop between a
few students and local people. On the other hand, Myanmar terrorists and
expatriates who had returned to Burma in 1980 under a General Amnesty had
already begun a secret movement since 1983 and were waiting for a chance to
do politics in Myanmar. The terrorist BBC Htwe Myint encouraged Suu Kyi to
take part in the politics of Myanmar. Htwe Myint was sentenced to death by a
court of law for smuggling explosives into Myanmar but he was later released
under a General Amnesty granted by the State Council in 1980. As he knew
very well that as a terrorist he would not be accepted politically, he had
to encourage Aung San Suu Kyi to enter into politics. This situation has
given British Jew Michael Aris, an unknown scholar in Tibetan art and
culture, a chance to get into the international limelight that he had not
even dreamt of before 1988. It was a well-known fact within the diplomatic
circle and the people of the neighbouring countries of Bhutan in the early
seventies that Michael Aris, who claimed to be a Tibetan expert, deceived
the Tibetans and some Tibetan monks into parting with their valuable
religious artifacts, works of art and antiques. They handed over the said
objects for the purpose of research, index and documentation. The invaluable
religious artifacts were handed over to Mr. Michael Aris and his wife Aung
San Suu Kyi who was also known then as a daughter of National Leader,
General Aung San of Myanmar. The couple left with a colossal amount of
religious artifacts and they have never returned to Bhutan. Those religious
artifacts were also never given back to their lawful owners by the couple.

With the hope of gaining fame and fortune, in August 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi
entered into politics by signing a joint statement made by her and Htwe
Myint and distributed the statement to the people

What was Aung San Suu Kyi doing before August 1988? Where was she living?
Has she ever helped or worked for the welfare of the people of Myanmar? If
she had thought in those days that the people of Myanmar were being
oppressed under the Burma Socialist Programme Party, did she do anything to
help the people of Myanmar? In fact, she was permanently resident in the
United Kingdom and was never included as a member of any household within
the Union of Myanmar. At that time she was studying and later on attempted
to get a job but she failed to do so. Later she married a British Jew,
Michael Aris and raised two children and became a frustrated housewife. She
never attempted to make friends with the Myanmarese residing in Britain nor
did she have any interest in the people of Myanmar living within or outside
Myanmar.

Aung San Suu Kyi was neither an academic nor a professional lady. She had
held no responsible job under any government or an organization. Only in
1988 did she seize the chance of getting into the political field of Myanmar
and on the band-wagon and took the opportunity of pretending to be
interested in the affairs of the country and the people. She instantly
claimed to be a patriotic person.

When Suu Kyi entered into politics in Myanmar, she made an alliance with a
former Communist Party politburo member Thakin Tin Mya who also held a high
ranking position under the Burma Socialist Programme Party and she worked
closely with him with a view of gaining a high position in the political
field of Myanmar. She had aligned herself with terrorists, communists and
others who have betrayed the army and the opportunistic ex-army officials.
Who in their right senses would believe and accept that it was for the
purpose of getting democracy for Myanmar? Only those foreigners who know
nothing about her background would probably believe in her.

Until 1991, when Aung San Suu Kyi gained a Nobel Peace prize, no person in
the world had said or claimed that she had worked or participated in
bringing peace in the world. She had not even written a single letter about
world peace. It was a big surprise to the people of the world to see such a
person like Aung San Suu Kyi being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
Does Aung San Suu Kyi deserve to be known as a Nobel Peace Prize winner? It
is amazing to see that some foreign countries have lobbied for her release
on the basis of her being a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Those countries, in
other words, were being deceived into believing that she was a deserving
candidate. Those countries should not be deceived again in the future. Will
it be acceptable to the people of the United Kingdom if the Queen of England
was to be married to a black West Indian or the President of the United
States of American was to be married to a black Muslim lady? It that was the
position, would the people of the United Kingdom accept Queen Elizabeth as
their Queen? Or would Mr. Clinton ever be elected as the President of the
United States of America? If Suu Kyi were not married to a British Jew
Michael Aris would she have received the Nobel peace prize and other prizes?

It will be a shame if some people in the world and some countries were being
made to believe the deceiving words of Michael Aris on his visits to
different countries around the world. The United Nations should also be
cautious and not be deceived into it by Michael Aris.

The international organizations should realise that Michael Aris was an
unsuccessful Tibetan scholar who is trying to gain fame and fortune by
marrying a daughter of a Myanmar National Leader. He is clearly a British
National with a view of personal gain and receiving prizes who is meddling
in the internal affairs of Myanmar. He had deceived his foreign contacts and
had managed to get honorary degrees and academic posts for himself.
The BBC and the VOA and other foreign media had recently criticised the
house arrest and lobbied for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. What they did
not realise was that she was permitted to see her husband and her children
and to live freely with them. She could watch television and listen to the
radio and read the newspapers and periodicals. I also gather that she could
also send letters abroad. With all these privileges given to her it could be
said that she was not under proper house arrest.

The only restriction that the Government had imposed upon her was not to go
outside her compound. I believe that such a measure was taken upon her so as
to maintain law and order, peace and tranquillity within the country. If
some politicians would come and join her for political gain and instigate a
political movement and create trouble in the country it would jeopardise the
growing economy and the peace and tranquillity in the present day Myanmar.
We firmly believe that the acts of instigating Aung San Suu Kyi by some
foreign countries and the United Nations were with a view of disturbing the
economic growth and political stability of the Union of Myanmar. I hope this
would convince all the people of the true situation.

Mr. Htoon Shwe 
International Correspondent
Myanmar 
Tele- Fax- News- Agency 
P. O. Box 1187

"OPPORTUNIST DAW SUU, ATTEMPTING TO GAIN POSITION"

I am writing in order to clarify the allegations contained above in the
distributed pamphlet. The first time I met Daw Suu was in the month of
August 1988. I found that at that time Daw Suu weighed carefully every word
she spoke in discussion. Daw Suu's primary position was to endeavour
peacefully without any resort to violence. She promised to do her best for
mediation within the limits of the given circumstances.

Though in the beginning, I did not fully understand the position of Daw Suu,
I felt it was better to try to understand and forgive her, for she was a
person who arrived during the pro-democracy uprising and not an originator
of it. In point of fact, not many people knew her. Most people knew U Aung
San Oo, the elder brother of Daw Suu, because information from other
propaganda leaflets had instigated rumours that he had arrived at the border
to lead the (8-8-88) uprising. Daw Suu arrived back in her own country on
May 26, 1988, without fanfare, because of the ill health of her mother.
Actually, the 1988 uprising for human rights and democracy started in March,
two months prior to the time of the arrival of Daw Suu. In May the momentum
of the uprising was already very high. On the day of 8-8-88, the people were
already embroiled in the nation-wide demonstrations.

On account of the circumstances, Daw Suu proposed on August 15, 1988, the
formation of a "People's Consultative Committee" in order to mediate between
the people and the government.

Though it could be said that Daw Suu entered into the world of Burmese
politics when she made this proposal, she did so only after the uprising had
raged continually for nearly eight months, and there had been exactly
nineteen incidents of violent confrontation. The proposal paper by Daw Suu
contained no bias for either side; rather, it was just a request to have
permission for mediation.

( The titles to each section written in inverted commas or quotation marks
are taken from the complete original text of the pamphlet.)

Though I and colleagues had several discussions with Daw Suu, they could not
win her over to their side. On those occasions, priority was given to
discussions concerning the following requests made to her:

(a) To lead the uprising;
(b) To participate in the interim government;
(c) To take the lead for the holding of an election;
(d) To give advice with regard to measures that should be taken for the
developing situation of the uprising.

Usually, she responded by expressing her unwillingness at that point to be
involved in the uprising and consistently insisted on the need for
appeasement and mediation.

I had noticed one weakness of Daw Suu. It concerned the "matter relating to
the armed forces." When I unexpectedly criticised the armed forces, it was
seen that she became suddenly distressed. She appeared to be dissatisfied.

Of course, I understood the sentiment. After all, it was Daw Suu's father
General Aung San who had midwifed the birth of the armed forces. Moreover,
he was the leader who had laid down the basic moral requirements of the
armed forces. When Gen Aung San was assassinated, Daw Suu was very young,
and she must have felt that her father was a legend.  (It should also be
noted that General Aung San, after rising to glory as the leader of the
military struggle for independence, purposefully stepped down from his
position in the Burma Independence Army to serve as a civilian in the
government, because of his firm belief that military affairs and state
governance should be kept separate.)  I had no reason to be astonished to
see Daw Suu admire and value the armed forces, as after all, they were the
handiwork of her father.

"Sister Suu will hold a mass meeting. I think it would be necessary for the
monks to keep the congregation in order. I am reverently informing your
Holiness."

I was very much surprised when I heard the above words spoken by a youth
leader who was closely associated with me. It was impossible for me not to
be surprised by the great change of heart undertaken by Daw Suu, who
previously had constantly refused to be involved in the uprising. It
appeared that she made the decision to stand boldly on the side of the
people because she had become much troubled by the excesses the armed forces
were committing. She had come to realize, it seemed, bit by bit, that the
armed forces had deviated far from the basic principles and objectives laid
down for them by her father. On the days of August 20, 21, 22 and 23, had
not the armed forces carried out brutal suppression?  By August 24, the
administration of Rangoon had passed into the hands of the people. When Daw
Suu made the move to stand on the side of the people, they became much
encouraged. Unlike other mass meetings, the attendance of millions of people
at the mass meeting held by Daw Suu on August 26, 1988 was an affirmation of
the democracy movement.

Twenty-three days after Daw Suu had entered into the world of politics, the
military clique seized state power by force. However, Daw Suu was no longer
hesitant. Together with the people who were demanding democratic rights,
human rights and peace, she formed the National League for Democracy (OLD)
and dec~ded to unflinchingly carry out the tasks thrust upon her by history.
At that time, the belief of Daw Suu was that:

(1) The SLORC would hold an election;
(2) There would be permission to form political parties;
(3) Power would be transferred to the winning party;
(4) Effort must be made to win in the election;
(5) After forming a government, democratic administration, human rights and
peace must be realized;
(6) Attaining victory through violence must be avoided.

I, at that point, disputed the views of Daw Suu on the military dictatorship
and pointed out that they were inaccurate.  Throughout the history of the
military dictatorship, promises have been made only to be broken. Belief in
these promises has resulted in many losses.

I said there would be no permission to form political parties. There would
be a sham election. The military would continue to hold on to power, winning
the election by ensuring it was rigged. After conveying this to the
students, I left for the liberated area on October 31, 1988, without meeting
Daw Suu again.

In reality, things did not turn out as Daw Suu had expected, and she did not
even get a chance to stand in the election, as she was soon incarcerated
under various pretexts.

That is why it cannot be said that Daw Suu's passage through Burmese
politics was smooth. She cannot be found to have enjoyed any privileges, as
the military dictatorship has claimed. So what is meant by the position that
she was to have gained? It is clear that sacrifices and a life of
imprisonment are the only privileges and position she has earned.  (end of
part I)

(Hitting Below The Belt -- To be continued)
			
In a Nut Shell

It is hoped that this short account of the my experience and personal views
resulting from my brief contact with DawAung San Sun Kyi will help throw
light on the extraordinary nature, sagacity, courage and mental power of Daw
Suu. Moreover, since the international community, in addition to the people
of Burma, has accorded various kinds of awards and honours to her, it will
be clear before long, as in the Mahawthada story of Buddhist scriptures, who
is the real mother and who is the ogre.* 

The attempt to suppress true events in the historical development of the
people's struggle by the use of personal attacks can only bring adversity.
In accordance with the saying in the Buddhist doctrine "Hatred begets
detriment", the handful of SLORC officials who have been using this cowardly
method of vilification are bound to be at the receiving end, sooner or
later. It will be a case of being "a victim of one's own doing", a good
lesson for us to learn, and from it, become enlightened.

Thuh-attaman Paviha-randu (May everyone have peace and joy)

Ashin Khaymar Sarra 
All Burma Young Monks' Union

* In the Buddhist story referred to, Mahawthada is one of the (last) ten
rebirths of the Buddha before He achieved enlightenment. When a woman and a
demon disguised as a woman both lay claim to an infant, it falls to
Mahawthada to determine who is the real mother of the child.  He does so and
restores the infant to the rightful parent. 

A SHORT BIOGRAPHY OF THE VENERABLE ASHIN KHAYMAR SARRA
Venerable Ashin Khaymar Sarra was born on September 10, 1956, in an Arakan
village on the far western side of Burma. After finishing his schooling in
the village primary school, he became a novice in 1964 through the support
of his parents.

He studied Buddhist literature, in both Burmese and Pall, in Arakan State,
Pegu, Rangoon, and Mandalay, in Buddhist monasteries renowned for scriptural
scholarship. In 1971 and 1972, he taught Buddhist literature at a monastery
in a remote area of Karen State. Since 1974, he has produced numerous
articles for monthly papers and journals.

In the 1988 democracy uprising and human rights movements, he participated
in the formation of the All Burma Young Monks' Union and joined in the
struggle with other workers and students. He left Rangoon for the liberated
area on October 30, 1988, following the regime's shameless seizure of power
on September 18, 1988.

He has subsequently visited Asian and European countries to share his
experience and knowledge of the human rights situation in Burma. He
continues his work as a writer and in the movement, as the Chairman of the
All Burma Young Monks' Union in the liberated area, endeavouring to achieve
the harmony of democracy, human rights, and peace in Burma.


http://www2.gol.com/users/brelief/Index.htm