[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
Did U Aung San make this law? And t (r)
- Subject: Did U Aung San make this law? And t (r)
- From: nin@xxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 06:09:00
Please let me get into this discussion.
(1) Litner said:
> Just to clarify the matter. Chapter V: 49 of Burma's first constitution
> states that "No person shall be eligible for the election to the office
> of the President unless he (i) is a citizen of the Union who was, or
> both of whose parents, were born in any of the territories included
> within the Union, and (ii) is qualified for election to the Union
> Parliament." This was clearly aimed at keeping Inod-Burmese and Sino-
> Burmese, whose parents were often not born in Burma, out of the office.
> The law says nothing about spouses. Please note that U Ne Win, while
> President of the Union, married June Rose Bellamy, a British citizen,
> and this did not disqualify him from the position as President.
Yes, we have to interpret this law as a justification for Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi to be elected if WE(Burmese) wish. She has given up herself
totally and completely for our cause. She did answer our call to
lead the democratic struggle. Since then she never ever fails to
undertake the duty under all circumstances_ against all odds_not to
mention being at gun point and being under house arrest for six years
being taken away the best part of her life__etc. etc. (more details
can be found in Burma related webs). Indeed this proof alone shall
make her be eligible in its own right.
Point (2) Litner said:
> Further, V: (ii) refers to Chapter VI:74 (i) of the same constitution
> and you have quoted it correctly, and, as you may see for yourself, it
> says nothing about spouses. Being married to a foreigner does not under
> international law mean that person "is under acknowledgment of
> allegiance or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or citizen
> or is entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject or citizen of a
> foreign power is not eligible to contest for a seat in the country's
> elections." In this particular case, why don't you ask the British
> embassy in Rangoon if Daw Suu's marriage to a British citizen entitles
> her to those priveleges you mention?
Moreover, the person Daw Suu married to is a professor, NOT the Prime
Minister of UK or the president of the United States.
Point (3) My personal communication to whom it may concern
Please stop addressing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as Mrs.Aris; it is very
un-Burmese. We, Burmese women never have to take our husband's name.
This Burmese women's right is not new. It was granted 2540 years ago.
Calling Daw Suu as Mrs. Aris is a violation of Burmese women's right.
This violation challenges the whole community of Burmese women.
Marriage is a social act we all human being (men and women) do.
In which we need to find a balance between husband and wife.
A husband has to respect the law, tradition, religion or belief
and customs of his wife wherever she comes from and whatever her
origin is. To preserve her own culture and rights is the very
important duty of a husband. To keep her husband's duty alive is an
art of a wife.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has proven it in a way that it is possible. She
remains one of the most capable and independent Burmese ladies married
to a foreigner. Her marriage has always been proven to be an independent
but a compliment to her both personal and public life as well as to her
In my opinion, by calling Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as Mrs. Aris is somewhat
suggesting as if we (all Burmese ladies) have no right to choose our
future husband according to our likeness. It is very narrow minded
Please let me put an example (sorry about that :-)).
Suppose we were invited to a farm for some reasons.
There the host offers varieties of fruits.
Mangoes, bananas, durians, apples, grapes, oranges etc.
and you name it. At this point, one cannot force another
to eat or not to eat any particular fruit, for we have
choices and we have preferences.
Eg. one would eat durian and another would
choose grapes for sure. If one doesn't like durian, one
will never be convinced to eat durian regardless of
friendship or whatever it may if one's liberty is granted.
Moreover one should not be called names or one's liberty be
taken away for one's preference of either durian or grapes.
Selecting a husband is much the same except there are more
personal details involved. We all know about it, don't we? :-)
Hmm..I mean smoking or no smoking; drinking or no drinking..
VEGETARIAN OR BEEF STEAKS EATER etc.
It is (1) apolitical (2) women's right.
Since women's right is a human right. Taking away our Burmese
women's rights on the liberty of marriage is violating
a human right indeed!
Last but not least please let me remind you of our traditional saying.
It is this if you have a daughter she will bring you a son. If you got
a son you have to give him away to his parents in law. Every Burmese
knows this saying as one of our old Burmese traditions.
After all, the role of the Burmese Women cannot be undermined
but should be underlined!!! --------------------
Thank you so much for reading it.