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

Did U Aung San make this law? And t (r)

There is no one dare to destroy our culture but them(SLORC) by using(
Mrs;) which is very unappropriate  for Burmese women.

Eyar soe

nin@xxxxxx wrote:

> 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
> duties.
> 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
> indeed.
> 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..
>         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
>         women's 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.
> NiNi