[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Responses of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi o (r)



Subject: Re: Responses of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on 2-7-1999



----------
> From: david guy <nldburma@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Responses of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on 2-7-1999
> Date: Thursday, 22 July 1999 12:02
> 
> Responses given by Daw Aung SanSuu Kyi, General Secretary National
> League for Democracy on 2nd July 1999.
> 
> 
> 
> Response to first question.
> 
> I cannot understand clearly. Do you mean that we should be using "sweat
and 
> blood" slogans in our fight for democracy? Don't be ambivalent. We might
as 
> well speak openly.  The word "blood" was mentioned, so we might as well
be 
> frank and open. Because we are not asking for blood to be spilt do you
mean 
> to say that our fight is not effective? The value placed on the people's 
> blood is not the same with everyone. As for us, we place a high value on
the 
> blood of the people. We believe that the people's blood must not be shed
to 
> naught.  For some it matters not if it is someone else's blood that is
shed.

((((((  The persons' blood may well be there as well - may be a worthwhile
sacrifices at this moment and condition particularly like Burma)))))))

>   Our view is different.
> 
> 
> I want to ask of those who say that we should make appropriate
> responses, what sacrifices are they making? Only yesterday one of our
> members U Kyaw Min (architect) passed away. What was the cause of his
> death?  His imprisonment and the disease he contracted then. He was
> released only when he became seriously ill and now after one year he
> died.  Can you not say that the response he made was equivalent and
> appropriate?  He did not shed blood drop by drop nor was his blood
> splattered on the streets. Yet his sacrifice was of an equivalent
> value.  I am convinced of this.
> 
> 
> The notion that only by getting out on the streets with blood dripping
> to the ground is the way to go to achieve your political goals for the
> country is something that can be compared to what is happening in Kosovo 
> now.  This notion is entirely unacceptable to us. The Serbs believed in 
> violence to achieve their political ends and as a result the country of 
> Yugoslavia has disintegrated and the Serbians are devastated to such an 
> extent that they cannot lift their heads.  We want democracy because it
will 

> be good for the people, their advancement and their happiness. Our fight
for 
> democracy is not because we want to see the people shed their blood on
the 
> streets. I personally am averse to using those big words like "blood" and

> "sweat". The word "sweat" conjures up hard labour.  To
> be bloodied too is not good.  We do not want to bring the people to the 
> stage of shedding blood and sweat.  To those people who are thinking that
we 
> are not making equivalent/appropriate responses I want to ask what 
> contributions are you making?  I suggest that by example and actions they

> should say "I am doing such and such and another is doing such and such
and 
> 
> others should do likewise."
> 
> 
> Without doing anything yourself. As for U Kyaw Min, he deserves much
> respect. He knew his days were numbered while in hospital but when I
> visited him there he thanked me for the visit despite my busy schedule.
> 
> 
> It is us who must say thank you to him. Genuine workers do not give
> credit to themselves. Those who are not participating actively are
> finding fault with others. U Kyaw Min was on the brink of death but he
> was not recounting what he had done. His thoughts were for others.  As a 
> colleague, it was normal for me to visit him.  I am not anyone special
and I 
> did not need to be thanked. He is a truly good man. Buddhism teaches us
not 
> to praise ourselves for our good works but to give praise to others. 
Saya U 
> Kyaw Min demonstrated this teaching. He was in the prime of life(not
quite 
> 66).  He never regretted his circumstances, never mentioned a thing about

> what he suffered.  Did he not respond appropriately and adequately? Those

> who think that this is not an appropriate response give us your ideas so 
> that we might think about it and may be we can learn something.
> 
> 
> Response to the second question.
> 
> People were aware of their responsibility in 1990. I have said this
> before. Compared to countries where the people have had to struggle for 
> democracy, our people are politically more mature. Why? The
> desire for democracy was so great that they gave their wholehearted
support 
> to a political organisation that would achieve democracy for them.  They
had 
> the foresight. Many parties were formed and they all had their goals.
> 
> 
> However the people knew that if votes were scattered or spread out the
> cause for democracy would be weakened so they cast their votes for the
> NLD.  This is a very politically mature decision. This is my conviction.
> 
> 
> Despite the landslide victory with 82% of the votes power has not been
> transferred. If we had obtained only 50%, imagine how much more
> difficult it will be. Because of the landslide victory (over 80%) the
> world has acknowledged us. The NLD did not conjure up any tricks to get
the 
> peoples' support. It cannot be said that it was a narrow victory. But now

> some are trying to make excuses and saying this and that like only 60% of

> the people went to the polls. We won so decisively  and yet they are
playing 
> all sorts of tricks........ deceiving the world, deceiving the masses.

> 
> 
> I say that the people acted responsibly in voting so overwhelmingly for
the 
> NLD and that is why I say that they are very politically mature.
> 
> 
> Response to the third question.
> 
> 
> We are here really to discuss the current situation. Really to assess
> the changes taking place and what changes should be taking place in
> Burma. What they will say or what will happen I do not know.  The other 
> matter relates to the report by United Nations Human Rights Group about 
> refugees on Burma's border especially on the border with Thailand. The 
> report contains allegations about the persecutions; unjust, illegal and 
> brutal treatment of the refugees by the soldiers, which worsened after
ASEAN 
> had accepted the SPDC as a member in 1997.  We are all aware of this.
About 
> which refugees and how they are ill treated and even killed.

((((((  kill or been killed or starving, diseases,fleeing and walking
aimlessly in the night in the jungle in Thai Burma border and not knowing
the schools and universities for 10 years ( 1 decade ) in towns and cittes
have becoming way of life in 1990s Burma is very very sad for 40 odd
millions.
And I think, they deserved to try or given the alternatives)))))))

> 
> 
> 
> There is no need for me to go into details.  But this organisation
> carefully looked at the evidence, examined the victims and got their
> story from their own lips.  There was no hearsay evidence. It must be
> said that the report was written very meticulously.  But, the PDC people
who 
> are permitted to write and say things and the ambassador in London has
come 
> up with the defense that the said refugees are not genuine refugees, but 
> rebels who want to secede and that there were no such persecutions, that
all 
> this was a concoction and lies to defame the government. You all, (my 
> fathers), will have heard about this also.
> 
> 
> Before answering the last part of the question I want to make one thing 
> clear.  It is not appropriate to equate the awards in money terms. But
since 
> you (father) want to know, I will tell you.  Human rights awards are not 
> judged in terms of their money value.  The main idea is to recognize the 
> services given for humanity. I am not sure if Dr. Cynthia and Min Ko
Naing 
> received 20000 each or whether that amount was for both. The award to 
> Sayagyi U Win Tin was not a cash payment.  It was a deliberate
affirmation 
> and honor bestowed on Sayagyi for his services.
> 
> 
> There was some misunderstanding because these awards were mentioned at
> the same time and some may have thought that Sayagyi U Win Tin also
> received a cash award.  Whether or not a cash payment was included in
> the award is not the criterion. The services for democracy, for
> political achievement and humanity are the basis for the choice.
> 
> 
> Response to the fourth question
> 
> 
> Let me say something here. It is true that at the time the NLD was
> established our policy was that we would not resort to violence. In
> keeping with democratic principles and practices those who do not
> believe in violence will support us. We have already said that  we would 

> never forsake the students who had taken up arms in 1988 to fight the 
> government.  Why is that?  Because we trust and believe that they are 
> fighting for democracy in their belief that this is the only means to
obtain 
> their goal.  This is not our policy.  So we choose our policy and we
abide 
> by it.  But we cannot turn our back on those who sincerely believe in 
> democracy and choose another path. We will not take the path that they
have 
> taken.  Why?  I have given the reason over and over again and I say it 
> again. The culture that has existed in our country is to change the 
> political system through the use of violence.  If we do not change that 
> culture now, it will go one and on.  


(((((( May be this will be the last one and we can change it once and for
all once we practise the democracy. I believe we definitely will.))))
> 
> 
> When political power was assumed in 1962 it was with the use of force
> that is to say it was with the use of arms.  At that time there were no 
> economic issues but because of political issues, power was assumed by
those 
> bearing arms.  In 1988 demonstrations by the people was stamped out by
the 
> use of force.  To change the political system by the use force, to
silence 
> political dissent by the use of force - these are matters we cannot
accept, 
> we cannot condone. We want to settle political issues in a political way.
> We will set the pattern.  The country will then learn how to have
political 
> 
> change for whatever reasons in a peaceful manner.
> 
> 
> Another issue I want to talk about is this.  When the other side is
> shouting out about sweat and blood and such things do we have to respond 
> likewise? I recall the words of  Mahatma Ghandi.  He used an expression
from 
> the Christian Scriptures. It also has some relevance to Hamurabi of
ancient 
> days. Its about "an eye for an eye" principle. Ghandi said that if we
follow 
> this principle, the whole country would be left without any eyes.  For
that 
> reason he adopted the 'non violence' approach. If we think about Ghandi's

> approach and its outcome we will understand why in all the countries of 
> Asia, India is the only country that has been able to cling to the 
> democratic system despite all the many problems that they have had.
> 
> 
> I believe that a lot of thanks is due to Ghandi. This does not mean that 
> India is free from violence.  Even now they are at war with Pakistan.
> 
> 
> They do have clashes off and on.  But the principle policy of settling
> political issues in a political manner as far as possible and to resort
to 
> arms only when all else fails is evident. Political change in India has 
> never occurred through bloodshed.  After the second world war, out of all

> the countries in Asia that were granted independence and adopted
democracy 
> India is the only country that has never given up the democratic system.
> 
> 
> Of course, Japan is an exception. Japan was not granted independence.
> Japan got democracy when she lost the war.  All the other countries
> including Burma got a measure of democracy.  Most of the countries lost 
> democracy through the use of force.  We lost democracy because power was 

> assumed by use of force.  Just as U Aung Myint remarked, our NLD policy
is 
> not to resort to force.  This is contained as a fundamental policy.
> 
> 
> Those who accept our view may support us.  Those who do not support that 
> view will have to find their own way to attain democracy.
> Though it is stated in the newspapers that the establishment of a
> constitution is the concern of every one of us, all of us know that we
> really are not given the right to say anything about the constitution.
> We have stated our position quite clearly.  Only a constitution ratified
by 
> the Pyithu Hluttaw composed of the elected representatives of the people 
> will be acceptable to us. Another election is not a matter for 
> consideration.  The 1990 election results must be first implemented.
> 
> 
> I believe that they are saying these things out of jealousy. The richer 
> countries and the World Bank have declared that they would provide 
> assistance to Burma if there were a democratic government acceptable to
the 
> people.  All of us are aware of this.  They are dissatisfied because aid
is 
> not forthcoming in their present situation.
> 
> 
> As regards giving humanitarian aid to the people of Burma these
> countries and organisations have consulted us. We have always said that
that 
> we welcome humanitarian aid but it must be given in the right way which 
> means that it should not only go the those people who the authorities 
> select.  The authorities will use this aid for political means, which is 
> unacceptable to us. If the people are left out and only the authorities
and 
> 
> the civil servants benefit, this will not meet with our approval.  This
is 
> also another factor that displeases the authorities.  They are unhappy 
> because we have some say in the matter. One day when we have both the
power 
> and the authority, the country will benefit to a truly great extent.
> 
> 
> This is why they do not believe in dialogue.  But we do.  We believe and
the 
> people believe that unless we can be magnanimous our country can never 
> advance.
> 
> 
> In circumstances that call for forgiveness, we must be magnanimous.
> Thakin Soe was mentioned earlier.  I am not clear about what was meant. 
> Contact with rebels is condemned as treachery.  Similarly wanting to have

> dialogue with the other side could be considered treacherous.  Is that
the 
> inference?  We do not consider the SPDC as rebels.  We consider them as
the 
> opposition. We don't want to use the word "enemy". This struggle for 
> democracy is even harder than the struggle for independence. Then we did
not 
> have to struggle against our own countryman as we have to do now. When we

> won they had to return to their own country. Now, in our struggle for 
> democracy the conflict is among ourselves and there are some who want to 
> claim that this country is for them only.

(((((((  I believe it honestly that Burma is politically very inmature
,well,in some way. But it is understandable because it had been through
only kingdom,colonised,war of world and struggles for independence led by
Bogyoke Aung san and 30 comrades.Independance and U Nu,Ba swe,Kyaw

Nyein,Pro  Moscow Red Flag and pro-- Peking white Flag etc. so colourful so
call parliamentary democracy system of big money spending and fierce
internal fighting both arms and votes.Most of them have been in violence
struggles and applied often by way of "  the laws of the gengle ".Power by
violence.As same as the rest of the world those days.Unfortunately this
practice has being stuck with Burma until now since general Ne Win took
country power by coup d'etat and stopped all the clocks in the country. 
These people should not be allowed to even think that "this country is for
them only and the rest of us felt powerless to do anything.,left alone
ruling the country like now, if we have been politically mature enough then
of course.Somehow we are stil in clock dead era which we inheritted 
)))))))   


Only they have the right to live 
> here and that others do not have that right.  These people are very petty

> minded and mean.  All citizens of this country have the right to live
here 
> and enjoy equal rights. This is our goal.  If we do not settle these 
> animosities what do we do?  Kill off all the people?  This is
meaningless. 
> It is like what the Serbs are saying. The Serbs killed the Albanians one
by 
> one and now the Albanians are out to kill the Serbs. What benefit is that
to 
> the  country? I have no time for violent methods (killing and shedding 
> blood).  It is the lowest method, the lowest road to take the lowest path
to 
> follow.
> 
> 
> No matter what, we want our country to take the highest road. This
> country has had to resort to violence.  We had to resort to arms when
> the fight was for independence.  My father spoke about this point. "We
> either get it or we fight for it" is what he said.  He meant that
> fighting and shedding blood would be as a last resort.  That is the
> lowest road and we do not wish to start by taking the lowest road.  If
> we start that way we will be belittling our own country. It will be like 
> declaring that our country deserves the worst.  This is not my view.  I 
> admit that there are many things to be rectified.  We are not familiar
with 
> democratic political ideology.  Many are immature in political matters.
But 
> to say that we deserve the worst route, the lowest path to achieve
democracy 
> is something I will not accept.

((((( May be the lowest road is for not all the way that was like in
Vietnam War where blood,guts,bodies and human fleshes and Vietcom victoryon
Saigon-but just a effective pressure point to make the military rulers of
burma listen.Just ANC's arm struggle against apartheid regime of South
Africa)))))
> 
> 
> Section 17  -- that is something that we are very familiar with because
this 
> is the section applied to most of our comrades who are now in prison.
This 
> section is in relation to association with rebels. But it really applies
to 
> assisting the rebels with money and the like or taking part in their 
> meetings and deliberating with them.  Our party is not supporting any
rebel 
> group in cash or kind.
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a hope of deliberating with them.  Just try to visit them
> -  we will never be allowed. Politically mature people are prepared to

> talk as equals.  Look at the Serbs. They did not want to talk.  They
> attacked and killed. Blood flowed like streams.  Who benefited? Neither
the 
> Serbs nor the Albanians. The animosity they harbored for five hundred
years 
> will go on for another one thousand years. What hope is there for that 
> country? Do we want to follow that path?  What
> encouragement is there to follow that path?
> 
> 
> Rangoon
> July 13, 1999
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com