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

SLORC'S PROPAGANDA-GANG AT WORK




/* Posted 22 May 10:30pm 1997 by drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* -------------" SLORC propaganda-gang at work "---------------- */

SLORC'S PROPAGANDA-GANG AT WORK
-------------------------------
I have noticed two letters published in the Bangkok Post recently:
Omar Farouk (Canberra) of 10/5/97 and the reply to that letter by
Janathan Nations on 13/5/97. I have made inquiries about Omar Farouk
to my contacts in Canberra. Mr Farouk is a Burma-born expatriate who
migrated Australia in the 60s; is reportedly been writing pro-SLORC
propaganda around print journals for some times, I am told. It appears
that his collaboration with the Burmese Embassy is more than the reason
of "Old man wanted to get Burma visit visa". Let's us all keep aware of
that.

Throughout the years, and as of today, the Thai print media - Bangkok Post
and the Nations news papers and also Thailand Times - have contributed
many articles to our movement for democracy. We are in no doubt of these
Thai print media's pro-democracy stand: Editors as well as the
staff-reporters write 'just-as-the-way-we-like-it'. As for the letters,
anybody can write what they like: either pro-SLORC or pro-democracy.

These two recent letters printed in Bangkok Post appears to be from the
pro-SLORC camp. It appears that since the SLORC cannot get a proper column
in anyway at the Thai print media, its propaganda men resorted to writing
their own letters-in-debate to get their views printed (How clever are
they all!!). Post Editor probably knows it, and the informed readers won't
be fooled by it and we are certainly 'amused' by it.  --- U Ne Oo.

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

BURMESE CAN FIGHT THEIR OWN BATTLES
10.5.97/BANGKOK POST

On the eve of independence half a century ago, Burmese
nationalist leader Gen Aung San bluntly asserted that "reliance
on alien support could only make Burma a prostitute nation".
Prophetic words, indeed.

The general must be turning in his grave today. Little did Aung
San know that his daughter, Suu Kyi, would grow up to become the
nation's "chief procurer". Using seductive words like "democracy
and human rights", she has compromised the country's neutrality
by soliciting the West to meddle in Burma's internal affairs.

If Suu Kyi is so popular in Burma, as Western governments would
like us to believe, shouldn't she be relying on the masses for
support "a la Algeria"? After all, without any foreign
assistance, the Burmese toppled the almost-totalitarian socialist
dictatorship of Gen Ne Win in 1988 and won economic freedom. I
believe the West should stop treating the Burmese like children
for they can fight their own battles, thank you very much.

While Burma today is not a democracy, the road the country is
travelling gives much hope for the future. The ruling State Law
and Order Restoration Council (Slorc), which is a caretaker
government, has chosen, correctly so, to place economics higher
on the agenda than immediate political freedom. See the results
of the opposite in the former Soviet Union.

Suu Kyi should know better than to beg the West to impose trade
sanctions on Burma for the proud Burmese, like teak trees, do not
bend with the wind.

Meanwhile, its pathetic to see the Karen rebels, who first took
up arms against the democratically elected government of U Nu in
1949, today being treated as heroes. In fact, they are cowards
who hide behind women and children. Civil wars are a nasty
business, and the rebellion in Burma is no exception. If ethnic
minorities are persecuted in Burma, then Suu Kyi, who is
half-Karen, would not be where she is today.

Omar Farouk
Canberra

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

SHINY NEW SUIT
13.5.97/BANGKOK POST

I had an amusing time reading Omar Farouk's letter from Ganberra
(May 10) explaining to the world at large that Burma can fight
her own battles, thank you very much.

Omar is obviously not a student of  Burma's history. He should
remember  that before the British occupation of j that region,
there was no single country of "Burma". More importantly when the
British finally did grant independence to the real estate now
known as Burma, they did not turn over the entire region to the
ethnic Burmans. This was the Burmans' own idea; none of the other
ethnic states agreed with their Burman neighbour's grandiose
military annexations. Hence, the decades of 4 what Omar would
have us believe is a "civil war". I invite Omar and others to
read the historic British document for themselves if they have
any remaining doubts.

No doubt it is much easier to want to call Burma's conflict a
civil war, otherwise how could one refer to the Karen and Shan
and other ethnic peoples as "rebels"? In fact, the ethnic Burmans
have been pursuing the violent subjugation of their neighbouring
states since 1949, and they have been pursuing it in the same
unlawful manner that today's illegitimate Slorc dictatorship is.

But perhaps life in Canberra has become too comfortable for Omar,
and he no longer remembers the treachery and religious
persecution  that prompted him and other members of his family to
flee Burma some approximately 30 years ago. Omar's new suit of
clothes is ill-fitting in the extreme. How regret table. How sad.

Jonathan Nations

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