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

7th Anniversary Essay

Dear Burmaneters:

	Today, August 8 1995 is the 7th anniversary of people demonstration 
for democracy and basic human rights to free and open the society in Burma. I 
am sending out the following essay that I wrote in last summer for the Chinese
Politics class. It is the original version of my writing which certainly has 
weak structure of sentences and thought collecting. However, I would like to 
dedicate this essay to my immediate fellow students and people of Burma who 
have given their bloods and lives on the streets of cities in Burma during the 
demonstration in 1988. And also I dedicate this essay to my friends on the 
borders who are fervently challenging one of the most aggressive and brutal 
army in the world. It is with pride to declare that ABSDF (All Burma Student 
Democratic Front) is the biggest student army in the world that is devoting for
democracy and justice in Burma. I salute all of my fellow students of ABSDF 
with this essay. We have gained maturity and understanding toward modern world 
in the Jungle University (Ba Wa Tat Ka Thoe), and we firmly hold our hands 
together to continue the struggle for freedom of our nation and justice in our 

	And also please let me salute, and dedicate this essay to Ko Htay Win
who was arrested during our guerrilla operation in Ye township in Mon state,
and Ko Ye Htay (a) Nyi Naing who is a student poet and wrote many patriotic
poems that were printed in many of ABSDF's political pamphlets and others. Ko Ye
Htay was arrested in Bangkok and repatriated by Thai police from Ranaug
harbour. We haven't heard what exactly happened to them since their arrest in 

	Finally, I dedicate this essay to all of you whoever still stand
with strong comminments to the democratic movement in Burma. It is needless to
say that this essay is also dedicated to all Burma-Support Groups and
Individuals who are helping the movement in active role.

	Please let me salute all of you with the following essay. 

	Tun Myint.

{********The Comparison between Chinese Tiananmen Square Student Movement and 
Burmese 8.8.88 People's Democratic Movements led By Students********}
	The democracy movement that I took part in Burma in 1988 now seem to me
just like it happened one or two days ago while I am learning Chinese politics 
especially political development in China. My memory is still fresh, my thinkin
g is still hopeful, and my feeling is still in pain. The Burmese students' move
ments in 1988 for democracy and human rights had not been paid as much attentio
n as Chinese Tiananmen square student movements for democracy in 1989 by 
international community. I admit due to the fact that the lack of attention 
from international community, Burmese student movement was isolated and could 
not get to the end. The cameras from CNN and BBC had been turning around east 
European democratic movements such as Poland, and Yugoslavia in that year. 

	However, Chinese students in 1989 got the world's media attention and 
full sympathy from international community even though CNN and BBC cameras were
 busy with zooming in on the reunification of east and west Germany, and 
conflicts in eastern Europe. At this point, I realize that both economic and 
political interests in Burma were not as important as in China for western 
world and international community. 

	As a mater of fact, both students in Tiananmen square in 1989 and 
students in Burma in 1988 asked each government to practice democracy in their 
land. They asked for democracy and basic human rights by speaking in silence of
hunger strikes and sit-ins. They demanded it by peaceful actions of marching 
on roads, giving speeches in public, and posting their words on the walls. They
devoted their lives for the future generation of their homeland.  But their 
actions were brutally disrupted by Chinese communist party in China and by 
military regime in Burma. The ending were quite infamous in modern human 
society in which humans are born with equal rights under the law of nature that
respects the dignity of humans and grants the liberty of each citizen in 
whatever society. 

	Even though the basic theory in terms of the demands of students in 
China and Burma is the same, there were some practical differences between 
Chinese students movement and Burmese students movements. What are those 
differences? Why are those different? How and why could the current Chinese one
party ruler and current Burmese military regime have established a strong 
relationship after democratic movements in those countries. 

	I will present this comparison in the following sections:

I.   The background story of each movement.
II.  Students' historical soul and their goal.
III. The activities of each movement and demands.
IV.  Reactions from each government.
V.   Results of each movement and its conclusion.
VI.  Concluding this comparison.

I. The background story of each movement.

	The death of people's popular leader Hu Yaobang again woke Chinese 
intellectuals and students up to begin criticism against Chinese Communist 
Party (CCP). The former Secretary General of the CCP and Politburo member Hu 
Yaobang died of heart attack on the 15th of April 1989. His death was announced
in that afternoon. His tolerance of student demonstrations and unwillingness to
wage ideological war on Western political and cultural influences had led to 
his fall from power in 1987. Hu's sacrifice for the students, his leading role 
in supporting intellectuals, and rehabilitating people who had been unjustly 
attacked in Cultural Revolution had made him a deeply admired and respected 
figure among students and intellectuals. Thus, the reactions from a dozen of 
universities in Beijing to the death of Mr. Hu was a  switch to the Chinese 
democracy movements in 1989.

	Similar to the Chinese democratic explosion, the Burmese student 
movement for restoration of democracy and human rights was also detonated by 
the death of an ordinary citizen. Maung Phone Maw, a 23-year old engineering 
student studying in Rangoon Institute of Technology (RIT), was shot dead on the
13rd of March in 1987 by riot police (called "Lone Htein" in Burmese) near the 
university campus at a tea shop in an accident conflict between students and 
youths from the residents in the street in which the "tea shop" was located. 
Those youth in that street were the sons of local officials of Burmese 
Socialist Program Party (BSPP) led by  strong man Ne Win*1. 

	In that accidental conflict, the firing was believed to be the command 
of one of the fathers of those youths. Since students and people in Burma were 
disgusted with the party officials using public cars and houses as their own, 
and their sons' and daughters' boasting of their fathers' position and power 
in the party and using public cars and utilities as their property, that 
accidental conflict was the catalyst to begin the August 8, 1988 (8.8.88) 
quadrille 8 people revolution for democracy and human rights in Burma.

II. Students' historical soul and their goals.

	"Thinking back seventy years, we recall how president Cai Yuanpei put 
the idea of "democracy for governance of school," freedom of thought, and 
tolerance of diversity into practice, fully ensuring that there would be 
academic freedom and freedom of speech within the school wall...it is our 
belief that seeking democracy requires more than opening one's mouth and 
yelling loudly; one must begin with concrete matters." This is an excerpt from 
the big-character poster in the Beijing university posted on April 3rd, 1989 by
Wan Dang*2 and 55 other students, which aimed at university authorities. There 
is an aspect of political nature in which we always have to recall our own 
histories and make improvement. When we find there is no improvement, it is our
duty to begin a revolution or a change. That is why Chinese students are born 
with historical spirit to serve duty of their land. 

	Seventy years ago in China, on May 4th, 1919, the students movement 
called for republican revolution to establish China as a democratic state on 
earth. The spirit of May 4th still alive in Chinese students' heart. Since 
then Chinese students in famous universities such as Beijing University, 
Quinghua University, People University, and Henan University etc. are born with
democratic generation. Since China was defeated by the Chinese Communist Party 
in 1949, the 1989 Tiananmen democratic student movement is the first action 
which challenged CCP's system and CCP's leadership by young men intellectuals.  

	There had been some democratic movements after Cultural Revolution in 
China such as Democracy Wall Movement in 1978-80, and Student Democracy Protest
in 1986-87. The Democracy Wall Movement was not led by students but by 
democracy-interest groups such as authors, labours, and self-educated scholars.
Moreover, both of those movements were not as popular as 1989 democracy 
movement among international communities. The reason why the 1989 Tiananmen 
square movement was well known is that the modern world had been entering into 
the end of Cold War and establishing "Free Thinking Society" in late 1980s, 
which calls for democracy, and challenges Communism, Unjust laws, Dictatorship,
and Fettered Society. 

	At the same time, the failure of communism in Eastern Europe enlighten-
ed Chinese intellectuals and students that now might be the time to reawaken 
the spirit of May 4th movement from seventy year ago. In this way, the spontan-
eous expression of grief over the death of a Chinese liberal politician 
Hu Yaobang opened public eyes to establish more free, and more just political 
order in China in 1989.

	Unlike China, Burma had been ruled by British empire for about seven 
decades (1886-1948) since the last kingdom of Burma was occupied by British. 
The first student strike which protested British rule in Burma was in 1920. 
The second, in 1936, sought the same goal as the 1920 student strike. There 
had been successive revolutions by farmers, workers and people against British 
since 1886. But none of those had succeeded until the second student strike 
emerged to form the Burmese Independent Army (BIA) led by student leader 
Thakhin Aung San.*3

	When Burma gained independence from British empire in 1948, Burma was 
ready to form as a Parliament Democratic State similar to British political 
system. From 1948 to 1962, Burma exercised Parliamentary Democracy. On March 
2nd, 1962, the parliamentary democracy was overcome by the military coup led by
Gen. Ne Win. On the 7th July 1962, the Student Union Building in Rangoon (now 
Yangoon) university campus was bombed by the military government as retribution
for the student protest against the military coup. The military took control 
over the All Burma Student Union. Thousands of students died in the protest and
in the Union building in 7th July massacre in 1962. Since that time, the right 
to establish student union has been forbidden and the All Burmese Student Union
has been defunct. 

	The military controlled the state power from 1962 to 1973 under the 
"Revolutionary Council." The power addicted military leader Gen. Ne Win formed 
Burmese Socialist Program Party (BSPP) in 1974, and named Burma as the Union of
Socialist Republic of Burma. Since then Burma has been a one-party-ruled system
on the road of "Burmese Way to Socialism." The Burmese Socialist Program Party 
brought Burma into the Least Development Country (LDC) status by 1987. The 
inflation rate was high. Rich became richer and poor became poorer. By the 1987
, there were only two kind of people. Those were party's people and public 

	Households were short of food, school lacked books,  individuals lost 
freedom. The state was full of injustice, corruption, and inequality between 
two kinds of people in Burma. The people in Burma were disgusted with the 
political environment. In short, everyone was ready to begin a revolution. That
political environment was galvanized by the shooting death of a 23 year old 
engineering student by riot police in an accidental conflict between students 
and local residents at the Rangoon Institute of Technology on 13th March, 1987.
The mourning of students and public over the death of engineering student 
engineered the machine of democracy in Burma. The goal was set for restoration 
of democracy and human rights in Burma.

	Contrary to Chinese student, Burmese student criticized the political 
system rather than the Burmese Socialist Program Party and BSPP government. 
They recalled the wealthiest time of Burma in South East Asia during the  
parliament democracy period, and condemned the poorest time of one party 
dominated political system which ruled Burma from 1962 to 1988. Burmese 
students believed that the reason for corruption, injustice, and country's 
poverty was just because of the one party-dominated system which ignored the 
fundament, and self-centered nature of  mankind. They claimed that if there had
been multi-party competitive political system in Burma, it would not be such a 
poor and unjust state. That is why Burmese students gained immediate public 
support. On the other hand, Chinese student criticized and blamed CCP and its 
leadership. That is why Chinese students were labeled as "selfish students" by 
its public. 

III. The activities of each movement and their demands.

	The student movement in China in 1989 began without leadership or 
planning. Within hours of the announcement of Hu Yaobang's death on April 15, 
1989, political pamphlets and posters began to appear on campuses. Within days 
thousands of students were demonstrating at Tiananmen square. Soon after later,
the movement quickly distinguished itself by its organization, leadership, 
political agenda, and strategy.

	Initially, students mobilized and demonstrated within their respective 
units, Leaders emerged with courage to give voice to student sentiment, and to 
organize demonstration. Most student leaders believed that according to past 
experiences (that is,  1986-87 student protest), even righteous action cannot 
succeed without a good organization. That sentiment was quickly translated into
support for having a key organization. The Autonomous Student Union of Beijing 
Universities and Colleges firstly appeared on April 23, 1989. 

	Later, students set up several subcommittees such as propaganda 
committee, financial committee, liaison committee etc. However, the Autonomous 
Student Union played a critical role in the broader democratic movement; it 
served as an umbrella organization over several groups and committees; it was 
a decision making body that could work out agendas and strategy for the 
movement as a whole. The union's standing committee represented the movement to
the government.  

	In the last stage of the movement, students established organization 
appropriate to their strategy for the occupation of Tiananmen square. They set 
up the Headquarters for Defending the Square which was formed with a 
secretariat, propaganda, committee, information and communication committee, 
and goods and resource committee. Each committee served specialized functions 
such as printing and producing pamphlets, distributing foods and drinks, 
information and broadcasting station, security, and etc. 

	The demands that Chinese student set up after second week of April 1989
went directly against the CCP's administration but did not clarify what kind of
political changes should be done in the nation. Those demands are:

	1. Reevaluate Hu Yaobang and his achievement.
	2. Renounce the Anti-Bourgeois Liberalization campaign (1987) and the 
	Anti-Spiritual Pollution campaign (1983).
	3. Allow citizens to publish unofficial newspapers and end  censorship 
	of the press.
	4. Reveal the salaries and other wealth of Party and  government.
	5. Rescind the Beijing municipal government's "Ten Provisional Articles
	Relating Public Marches and Demonstration."
	6. Increase state's expenditures for higher education and
	7. Provide objective news coverage of the students'  demonstration.

	According to these demands, the Chinese student movement did not 
resolve the grand issue of democracy in China; what kind of political system 
should be installed in China? Should there be multi-party democratic election 
in China? Then, what is the role of CCP's political participation? By 
evaluating that, I conclude that the Chinese democratic movement in Tiananmen 
square in 1989 did not call for the revolution of political changes rather 
they just called changes in CCP and its government. On the other hand, it 
tried to renovate the old political building in China not to substitute the 
old political building by new building. It does not seem to me this is a 
revolution for democracy which is practiced in true democratic countries in 
western political culture. It could be regarded as a "within one party 
democratic system" revolution. 

	In Burma, as soon as students called for demonstration in universities 
campuses in very early 1988, in March and June student protests, they condemned
the Burmese Socialist Program Party (BSPP) government as a fascist regime and 
set up the following demands:

	1. To investigate Maung Phone Maw's death and reveal the truth of that 
	2. To break down BSPP's government administration and form  interim 
	3. To Restore multi-party democratic system.

	Without doubt, the BSPP leadership got angry that such young students 
were rebelling against them (some of the students who took part in demonstrati-
on were high school students, holding the signs of demands). At the same time 
the BSPP government was frightened that the public unanimously supported the 
demands made by students.

	Those demands appeared in  March, 1988 student protest for the 
anniversary of Maung Phone Maw's death. Until those demands were set up, there 
was no leading organization and were no publicized leaders. Students were doing
their activities by the so-called "UG", Under Grounds units. Those underground
activities are taken placed at "tea shops" for meeting, where most young people
enjoy spending their spare time. The pamphlets and hand written leaflets were 
produced at the dormitory rooms. One thing distinct from Chinese student 
movement is that Burmese student could not get a place such as Tiananmen 
square to establish strike center and form a student union.

	Moreover, in Burma students were afraid of MI*4 (Military Intelligence)
 . MIs are always everywhere in Burma. Therefore, students created codes and 
signals to communicate each others and to inform if there were MIs. According 
to past student protest in 1974 for the U Thant's*5 funeral service, the 
demonstration should be controlled and organized by underground activities. If 
students set up organization and publicized leaders, it will be very easy for 
the government to break down the demonstration. That was the main reason that 
Burmese student did not openly declare the student organization and its 
leaders until 28th August 1988. 

IV. Reactions from each government.

	It would be surprising if the number of people who were killed by BSPP 
government in 1988 student demonstration in Burma is much higher than the 
number of students killed by CCP government in 1989 Tiananmen massacre in China
 . As soon as Burmese student demonstration was begun, the riot police were 
commanded to break down the student demonstration by any means. Beginning from 
the conflict in March in 1987, in which a 23 year old engineering student Maung
Phone Maw was shot dead, every demonstrations in university campuses until the 
current military government state power on 18th September 1988 ended with 
killing, beating, arresting, and cruel treatment by the riot police and the 

	Even though reaction from the government was brutal and inhumane, 
student did not give up their goal and did not change the strategy of believing
in non-violent power. Finally BSPP top leaders were frightened and began to 
confess their brutality to people. The first political reaction from the party 
and government top leader military strong man Ne Win was addressed in the 
extraordinary Congress*6 section on the 23rd of June 1988. He made the 
following major points on the student demonstration:

	participants in the disturbances and those supporting them have lost 
	confidence in the government and its guiding party.

	It is necessary to ascertain whether a majority of entire population 
	or just a minority have lost faith in this way. I believe that this can
	be done by holding a nation wide referendum on whether a one or multi-
	party is desired; hence I proposed this to the congress.

	Since I feel that I am indirectly responsible for the distressing 
	incidents of March and June, and also because of my advancing age, I 
	would request Party members to allow me to retire from the Chairmanship
	and membership...This time not only do my immediate colleagues consent 
	to my retirement, they too have expressed their wish to accompany me 
	into retirement. They are U San Yu, U Aye Ko, U Sein Lwin, U Tun Tin, 
	and U Kyaw Htin [i.e. the top five in the party and government 

  	The next day more and more people joined demonstration and supported 
students. Students posted posters and political criticism against one party 
system and BSPP government's disloyalty for the nation. Students set up a 
specific date to call for general public strike on the 8th of August 1988 as a 
whole nation strike to overthrown the one party system and establish the multi-
party democratic system. Since then all the demonstraters and people are 
demanding democracy, denouncing BSPP fascist party, calling for multi-party 

	Looking back to China, the government violent reaction began on the 
fourth of June 1989 even though the student movement had began in April. This 
fact explains Chinese students failure to denounce the Chinese Communist Party 
as a fascist regime and demand that CCP be broken down as the Burmese students 
had done in the early days of their demonstration.  However, in the middle of 
May 1989, CCP top leaders began to take action against student demonstration. 
The first political reaction from premier Li Peng was on the 19th of May 1989 
at the special meeting of Central and Beijing Municipal Party. The following is
Premier Li Peng's response to student demonstration:

	As our party and government have stated many times, the intentions of 
	the great majority of the students are good and honest that students 
	themselves do not wish to create turmoil. They are patriotic; they hope
	to advance democracy, to fight corruption in the government. These 
	desires are consistent  with the objectives that the party and 
	government want to try their hardest to achieve.

	It is becoming clearer and clearer that an extremely small number of 
	people want to achieve through turmoil  their political goals, which 
	are to negate the leadership of CCP and to negate socialist system. 
	They openly come out with slogans negating opposition to bourgeois 
	liberalization. The goal is to achieve an absolute freedom which 
	brazenly opposes the Four Cardinal Principles*7.
	Comrades! our party is the governing party; our government is the 
	people's government. To fulfill our responsibilities to our sacred 
	motherland and to the entire people, we must take firm, decisive 
	measures to put a swift end to the turmoil, protect the leadership of 
	the Party and protect the socialist system.

	This reaction conveys the student movement in Tiananmen square in 1989 
was politically (practically) not strong enough to break the one party 
dominated political system in China and lacking the ability to call for the 
grand issue of true democracy. This is the main difference from Burmese 
student movement in 1988.

V. Results of each movement and its conclusion.

	It is clear that the same theoretical revolution in Burma and China 
experienced very different practical revolution under similar political 
disruption by CCP in China and by the military regime in Burma. The different 
practices in revolution in both China and Burma  gained political different 

	In Burma, the demonstration that student began in March 1988 by holding
the slogans; "Down with the fascist regime," "Down with BSPP administration," 
"Call for multi-party election"  lasted until 18th of September 1988. On that 
day the military took over the state's power by brutal disruption against 
democratic movements. The year 1988 in Burma is covered with the blood of young
students and innocent people who demanded natural rights of humankind. That 
year had been dedicated for democracy in Burma. It is true that the interest 
paid for democracy in Burma in 1988 is the highest in Burmese revolutionary 

	In practice, some major political changes resulted from the 
demonstration: the one party system was broken down; the BSPP's administration 
was ceased; the multi-party election was celebrated on 27 May 1990 under the 
current military regime. However, the  military regime refuse to transfer power
and has put the opposition leaders into jail including the leaders of National 
League for Democracy (NLD) which won the election in a landslide victory. The 
prominent leader of NLD, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who won 1991 Nobel Peace Prize 
has been under house arrest for five years. 

	I feel very sad to say that it is unclear and unpredictable how the 
major changes gained from student demonstration will be practiced by citizens 
of Burma since the military regime refuse to transfer power to the elected 
party in 1990 election.

	It is clear that when the demonstration was brutally ended by military 
coup, the political competition was automatically transferred to politicians' 
hands. Students continue to make revolution and to fight back military fascist
regime. About fifteen thousand student activists, according to The Nation and 
Bangkok Post newspapers published in October 1988 in Bangkok, fled to 
Thai-Burma border area in hope of revenging back to military government and 
restoring democracy in Burma by arm struggle against current military regime. 
Thousands of students left for India and Bangladesh borderline area. Hundreds 
of thousands of students were killed during the demonstrations as a whole 
country. Many left their families and class rooms. The generation has lost at 
least three academic years from 1987 to 1990. The nation has lost many 
educators and intellectuals. The process of "brain drain" continue in third 
countries where many young students and educators resettle their life.  These
are fundamental results of student demonstration followed bloody coup in Burma. 

	In China, the Chinese student movement became serious when many 
students joined Hunger Strikes in Tiananmen square in the middle of May. Five 
days after hunger strike had begun, the Chinese Premier Li Peng met some 
student leaders on 18th May, 1989. Even though from my point of view this 
seemed to be a great opportunity to make clear demands and to present the 
student's sharp point of view for why they are doing revolution, how democracy 
should be installed in Chinese politics, and what the main purpose of hunger 
strike is, in fact,  students leader failed to make clear and practical 
demands for their actions. Instead they made the following two demands, 
proposed by a student leader Wan Dang, to the CCP government; 

	1. To declare the current student movement as a patriotic democratic 
	2. To conduct as soon as possible a real dialogue which will be 
	telecast live. 	

	Finally, that meeting just turned into the shouting between a student 
leader Wu'er Kaixi*8 and premier Li Peng.  It is clear that the Chinese 
Communist Party decided to break down student movement "the following day"*9 
after meeting with student leaders.  

	As in Burma, China in 1989 experienced a tragic massacre in Tiananmen 
on the 4th of June. The actions of peacefulness, the demands of simple and 
honest desires for freedom of natural humankind, and the truth were 
overwhelmed by the bloody minded decision of CCP and cruel treatment by black 
hand of CCP government. There were no positive political changes toward 
democracy except the leadership of CCP were alarmed by democracy and the 
outside world's situation. Many of dissidents were ousted from the mainland 
China. Student leaders were detained. Democracy in China was kidnapped. The 
world's media and international have seen the magic show of Deng Xiaopeng in 
the night of June 4th, 1989.

VI. Concluding this comparison.

	The phrase "Tiananmen Square Massacre" is now firmly fixed in the 
political vocabulary of the late 20th century. To explain the entire meaning of
it, we have to explore not only the political history of China but the cultural
activities and traditional beliefs of Chinese people. The democracy in China is
not for all individual citizens, according to conservative leaders, but for 
the people who govern those individuals. The old generation translate democracy
as the system which grows between a passionate father as a governor and his 
children as citizens that individual freedom should be restricted. However, if 
we, especially Chinese themselves who took part in 1989 democracy movement, can
explain the true meaning of the phrase "Tiananmen Square Massacre" to the next 
generation, it will be meaningful and effective vocabulary to translate the 
meaning of democracy in China. That is the duty of the 1989 Tiananmen square  

	Looking back in the Chinese democratic movement and Burmese student 
movement, I feel sad and ashamed that the Chinese in China and Burmese in Burma
have committed suicide themselves. They have killed people who share the same 
feeling, the same heritage, and not different intentions for people. The 
soldiers who killed the students who took part in demonstration shared the same
doctrine for the nation that both soldiers and students love their nation. Why 
are those soldiers killing? This question gives me a clear point that politics 
in both China and Burma have been beeing played by a person or a gang of 
clever people. One person dominated or one group dominated politics is still 
popular in those two countries. 

	One day, when the entire population find that the politics is the case 
of every individuals, there will be no longer personal politics, no longer 
dictatorship in those two countries.  There is a historical evidence that the 
heritage of American democracy has rooted when George Washington refused to 
accpet to act as a king of America after independence.    

1. Ne Win took Burmese political stage by military coup in 1962 and was 
believed that he still controlling current military regime behind the screen. 
Currently he is Deng Xiaopeng of Burma.

2. Wan Dang is Student leader from Beijing university. He was arrested 
following the June 4 massacre. Currently he is released, but according to 
Daily Center News published (in Chinese) in Taiwan in last week of May, he was
not permitted to stay in Beijing during the first week of June.

3. Thakhin Aung San (1915-1947, was assassinated) was father of Burmese 
independence. The current prominent democratic leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, 
who have been under house arrest since 1989, is the daughter of Thakhin Aung 
4. MI, the short form of Military Intelligence, is the most powerful 
institution in Burmese politics. It holds biographies of all the members of 
party and government officials. The party Chairman and the president of state
directly control the military intelligence. The current powerful figure Gen. 
Khin Nyunt, after Ne Win, is the chief of MI.

5. U Thant was a former UN general secretary from 1962-71. Students disagreed 
with the government that government decided to bury U Thant's body at a 
civilian grave yard. Students demanded to buried his body at the honorable 
6. BSPP extraordinary Congress was announced on 7th July 1988 to be held on the
23rd of July 1988.

7. The Four Cardinal Principles are (1). criticize as long as uphold socialist 
production (2). Up hold dictatorship of proletariat (3). Up hold the leadership
of party (4). Up hold Marxism, Leninism, and Mao Zedong's thoughts. 

8. Wu'er Kaixi is 1989 student leader from Beijing Normal University and a 
founding member of Democratic China in Paris. He is now at Harvard University. 

9. After premier Li Peng had met student leaders on 18 May, 1989, he gave a 
speech at the Special Meeting of Central and Beijing Municipal Party on "19th 
of May 1989." That speech conveys that the CCP decided to take what premier 
mentioned "a firm and decisive action against turmoil."


1. Black, George and Munro, Robin, "Black Hand of Beijing." 1993, published by 
John Wiley & Sons Inc.

2. Cherrington, Ruth, "China's Students" (The struggle for 1989 Chinese 
democracy movement. 1991, Published in New York by Routledge.

3. Francis, Corinna-Barbara, "The Progress of Protest In China" Asian Survey, 
VOL XXIX, No. 9, September 1989.

4. Han Minzhu, "Cries For Democracy" (Writing and speeches from the 1989 
Democracy Movement) 1990 by Princeton University Press.

5. Lintner, Bertil, "OUTRAGE" (Burma's struggle for for democracy). First 
published in 1989 in Hong Kong by Review Publishing.

6. Yi Mu & Thompson, Mark V. "Crisis AT Tiananmen" (Reform and Reality in 
Modern China). 1989, by China Books abd Periodicals Inc.

7. Yitri, Moksha, The Crisis in Burma. Asian Survey, VOL. XXIX, # 6, June 1989.