The Burmese Fairy Tale (r)

[kzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I hope that someone will convey my response to Ma Thanegi and believe
that many people will also reply to her and tell her what they think
about the sanction and about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's stance. 
Dear Ma Thanegi,
	Everyone may have his or her own approach to the crisis in Burma
and I think no one will suspect you of cooperation with SPDC for having
different views.  I respect all who dedicated their lives for democracy in
Burma and who have dedicated for the course.  However, that doesn't
necessarily mean that I agree with your approach and your view.  In fact,
I really don't agree with it.
	First of all, as you know there is a huge difference between the
official foreign currency exchange rate and the unofficial rate in Burma.
No one even the family members of SPDC won't change their dollars with the
official rate as long as they all can avoid.  What I mean is no one really
want to change by the offical rate.  By that difference and the
unnegotiable stance of SPDC to devalue their currency officially, every
company finds hard to benefit from their investment in Burma and so they
must find a way to exploit for its betteroff because all companies invest
in Burma to get profit for themselves.  The exploitation can occur in
every level from the forced labour issue to the illegal or unofficial
businesses behind the law (SPDC doesn't have certain law).  Then, who face
the losses?  The people but not the high ranking officials.  The companies
investing in Burma exploit the cheap natural resources and inexpensive
labour (sometimes forced labour) by the accompany of the military and its
leaders.  Only the military leaders and some officials who know how to
make extortion benefits from the investment.  They become richer and
richer at the time when all people and the country become poorer and
poorer.  For that perspective, investments under unjust administration
result more harms than good.  Without changing the system of unjustice,
inequility, uneven system of power flow and impossibility to balance the
power, most investments will only lead to the counterproductive effects
than benefit for the people of Burma.  They may create few jobs but the
point is no one can control them to make mutual benefit for the people and
themselves.   
	Secondly, what do you mean mordernization?  Night clubs, parks,
higher buildings, more cars or more materials?  When we say
development and modernization, we should be very careful of disadvantages
that come along with such material development and modernization.  Our
very precious natural beauties have been destroyed and sold without care
for the natural effects that come along with the destruction of natural
equality.  Moreover, who is responsible for creating jobs and welfare of
the people?  Those who have are in power are the most responsible for the
unemployment and poor welfare of the people.  If they are sensible to the
issue of people's welfare and happiness, they have to do what the people
are willing to see.  Unemployment is the only thing you can see but there
are so many things to include in the issue.  To create sustainable 
development based on pleasant environment for the farmers, for the ethnic
people, and for the poor, the major changes need to be made in our country
and compromising is very necessary.  Without compromising or dialogue
(please note that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been calling for the dialogue
for a long time but SPDC or the military junta has been ignoring to
compromise), it is impossible to work out for the goodness of the people.  
	Thirdly, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi called for the sanction only unless
SPDC didn't follow the dialogue path.  It turned out that SPDC ignored the
call for dialogue and the possible impact of the sanction on the country.
SPDC doesn't care whatever happen to the people and however the country is
destroyed.  It cares only for its power.  Therefore, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
has been very fair in calling for the sanction to enforce the dialogue
however, SPDC has never been sensible to solve the problems of the
country.  Only SPDC is responsible.  Furthermore, all international
community will not accept the call for sanction without considering all
perspectives or without learning the reality of the situation.  Only some
governments such as SPDC do illogically.  
	The time has been passing very quickly and it is unbearable to
stand such long under the suppression and the hardship caused by the
malfunctioning of the junta and mismanagement of the administration.
However, no one would get to the moon only by waiting to get to the moon.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi alone can't bring democracy to the country and it is
the obligation of all.  The dedication of only a few people will not give
a prosper goal but dedication of all people from Burma only will help make
a abrupt change from the terror.  If you understand to do something, it is
very necessary to educate others to participate.  
	I really think that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is not responsible for
the hardship and unemployment partly caused by the sanction.  Only SPDC is
responsible for those.  Moreover, when modernzed without considering or
preparing for the sustainability, the development will not be stable.  You
should learn what happened in Thai economy, the impact of Indonesia's
deforestation, and the fall of Southeast Asia's economy.  Then all should
think what are necessary to prevent from those and to become firm
developed country.  However, we can't reestablish the natural resources
when those are sold out carelessly and it is very important to make
conservation of the natural resources and use the resources wisely.  I
hope you learn how the developed countries are thinking deeply for the
preservation of their natural resources and to use efficiently.
Sincerely,
KZY  


	

On 13 Feb 1998 brelief@xxxxxxx wrote:

> (as posted to soc.culture.burma  by <soba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW
> FEBRUARY 19, 1998
> THE 5TH COLUMN
> 
> The Burmese Fairy Tale
> 
> By Ma Thanegi
> 
> (The writer is a pro-democracy activist and former political prisoner. She
> lives in Rangoon.)
> 
> 
> Like many Burmese, l am tired of living in a fairy tale. For years,
> outsiders portrayed the troubles of my country as a morality play: good
> against evil, with no shade of gray in between-a simplistic picture, but
> one the world believes. The response of the West has been equally
> simplistic: It wages a moral crusade against evil, using such "magic
> wands" as sanctions and boycotts.
> 
> 
> But for us, Burma is no fairy-tale land with a simple solution to its
> problems. We were isolated for 26 years under socialism and we continue to
> lack a modern economy. We are tired of wasting time. If we are to move
> forward, to modernize, then we need everyone to face facts.
> 
> 
> That may sound like pro-government propaganda, but I haven't changed
> since I joined the democracy movement in August 1988. I have lived most
> of my life under the 1962-88 socialist regime-another fairy tale, this
> one of isolation. In 1988 we knew it was time to join the world.
> Thousands of us took to the streets and I joined the National League for
> Democracy and worked as an aide to Aung San Suu Kyi.
> 
> 
> I worked closely with Ma Suu, as we all called her, for nearly a year. I
> campaigned with her until July 20, 1989, when she was put under house
> arrest and I was sent to Insein Prison in Rangoon, where I spent nearly
> three years.
> 
> 
> I have no regrets about going to jail and blame no one for it. It was a
> price we knew we might have to pay. But my fellow former political
> prisoners and I are beginning to wonder if our sacrifices have been
> worthwhile. Almost a decade after it all began, we are concerned that the
> work we started has been squandered and the momentum wasted.
> 
> 
> In my time with Ma Suu, I came to love her deeply. l still do. We had
> hoped that when she was released from house arrest in 1995 that the
> country would move forward again. So much was needed-proper housing and
> food and adequate health care, to begin with. That was what the democracy
> movement was really about-helping people.
> 
> 
> Ma Suu could have changed our lives dramatically. With her influence and
> prestige, she could have asked major aid donors such as the United States
> and Japan for help. She could have encouraged responsible companies to
> invest here, creating jobs and helping build a stable economy. She could
> have struck up a constructive dialogue with the government and laid the
> groundwork for a sustainable democracy.
> 
> 
> Instead, she chose the opposite, putting pressure on the government by
> telling foreign investors to stay away and asking foreign governments to
> withhold aid. Many of us cautioned her that this was counterproductive.
> Why couldn't economic development and political improvement grow side by
> side? People need jobs to put food on the table, which may not sound
> grand and noble, but it is a basic truth we face every day.
> 
> 
> Ma Suu's approach has been highly moral and uncompromising, catching the
> imagination of the outside world. Unfortunately, it has come at a real
> price for the rest of us. Sanctions have increased tensions with the
> government and cost jobs. But they haven't accomplished anything
> positive.
> 
> 
> I know that human-rights groups think they are helping us, but they are
> thinking with their hearts and not their heads. They say foreign
> investment merely props up the government and doesn't help ordinary
> people. That's not true. The country survived for almost 30 years without
> any investment. Moreover, the U.S., Japan and others cut off aid in 1988
> and the U.S. imposed sanctions in May last year. Yet, all that has done
> nothing except send a hollow "moral message."
> 
> Two Westerners-one a prominent academic and the other a diplomat-once
> suggested to me that if sanctions and boycotts undermined the economy,
> people would have less to lose and would be willing to start a revolution.
> They seemed very pleased with this idea, a revolution to watch from the
> safety of their own country.
> 
> 
> This naive romanticism angers many of us here in Burma. You would
> deliberately make us poor to force us to fight a revolution? American
> college students play at being freedom fighters and politicians stand up
> and proclaim that they are striking a blow for democracy with sanctions.
> But it is we Burmese who pay the price for these empty heroics. Many of
> us now wonder: Is it for this that we went to jail?
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the Burmese fairy tale is so widely accepted it now seems
> almost impossible to call for pragmatism. Political correctness has grown
> so fanatical that any public criticism of the National League for
> Democracy or its leadership is instantly met with accusations of
> treachery: To simply call for realism is to be labelled pro-military or
> worse.
> 
> 
> But when realism becomes a dirty word, progress becomes impossible. So put
> away the magic wand and think about us as a real, poor country. Burma has
> many problems, largely the result of almost 30 years of isolationism. More
> isolation won't fix the problems and sanctions push us backwards, not
> forward. We need jobs, we need to modernize. We need to be a part of the
> world. Don't close the door on us in the name of democracy. Surely fairy
> tales in the West don't end so badly.
> 
> ----------------------
> http://www2.gol.com/users/brelief/Index.htm
>