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

(Part II) Hitting Below the Belt --



Hitting Below the Belt  (Part II)
Principle Tactics of SLORC
by Ven. Khaymar Sarra
All Burma Young Monks' Union


"WHERE WAS DAW SW & WHAT HAD SHE BEEN DOING"

(The titles to each section written in quotation marks are taken from the
complete original text of the pamphlet by SLORC propagandist, Mr. Htoon Shwe)

With regard to this second question, the SLORC generals should know better.
At the Shwe Dagon pagoda mass meeting held on August 26, 1988, Daw Suu
explained to the people, "We know best our own family affairs." It is true
that after the assassination of General Aung San on July 19, 1947, Daw Suu's
mother Daw Khin Kyi had to worry greatly for the future of her children. We
cannot fault Daw Khin Kyi in being ridden with anxiety, for she was a person
who had been intimate with the revolutionary and political environments.

Not many years after the assassination of General Aung San, the military led
by General Ne Win seized state power. The move greatly heightened the
anxiety of Daw Suu's mother Daw Khin Kyi. For that reason, Daw Khin Kyi left
to live her life in foreign countries, so as to escape the dangers of the
military dictatorship She led the unassuming life of a diplomat. She brought
up her children in foreign lands. In some states, when the leader is
assassinated, the spouse or the oldest child of that leader is elevated to
leadership. This happened in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Philippines,
countries neighbouring Burma. Though the people in Burma would have liked to
elevate the wife or one of the children of General Aung San as the head of
state, the military clique that had seized state power very evidently did
not favour the idea. It was found that they were very much afraid of
speaking politically about the family of General Aung San. Therefore, their
sidelining the family of General Aung San in the order-taking diplomat
corps, in accordance with the usual practice of the military government,
should not be seen as something strange.

In 1988, when Daw Khin Kyi, who wanted to have a resting place in her native
land, arrived back in Burma for health reasons, her daughter Daw Suu, who
had lived in lands distant from Burma, also arrived back to be in
attendance. When I first had discussions with her, it appeared that she did
not have the same understanding of the political matters of Burma as a
Burmese who had resided in Burma. I felt that her knowledge was that of one
who was considerably removed. In particular, she lacked a good knowledge of
the changes that had taken place in the military.

An understanding can be gained by considering the fact that when she met the
Irrawaddy electorate, Daw Suu explained, "It is not possible for me to go
against human nature. Had I been raised in Burma, there would be no
accusations made against me today. I was just an ordinary human being and
because of the conditions in my native land, I have had to live my life
where the water was clearer and the pasture was greener."

Even if she had wanted to live in her native land, the prevailing conditions
would not have allowed it. It is probable that Daw Suu realized the anxiety
of her mother. We have to remember that various military dictatorships have
existed in Burma since 1962. How does the military dictatorship regard Daw
Suu, who, after completing her educational studies and thinking that she had
gained enough skill end reasoning power, with patriotic spirit, came back to
attend her ailing mother? The answer is clear. Members of the military
dictatorship SLORC who have been monopolizing the state power, no doubt know
better the answer to the question, "Where was Daw Suu & what had she been
doing?"

"WHEN, IF EVER, DID DAW SUU TRY TO HELP BURMESE PEOPLE?"

While residing in Rangoon, almost every year I would go to see, for my own
interest, the house of General Aung San and his family, which was opened to
the public on Martyrs' Day. I had never paid special attention to General
Aung San's family photos. Previously I had had little more knowledge of the
family than that. With this little knowledge, it was impossible for me to
say whether Daw Suu had done anything to help the Burmese or not. Only Daw
Suu, who has inherited, historically, the genius of her great grand-father
Bo La Young and father General Aung San, would know best.

However, in 1988, when I unexpectedly met Daw Suu and saw with my own eyes
the good will, the spirit of sacrifice, sense of responsibility, untiring
effort and the forgiving attitude she had for Burma, the Burmese people and
the ethnic nationalities, I was very much surprised. Students in the yard
who were in charge of compound security said, "Your Holiness, we cannot
guarantee anyone's safety." While saying this, they showed me what they had
in their hands: some darts, iron bars, wooden stakes and catapults. At that
time, the military and the police had become uncontrolled and totally
ineffectual in terms of law enforcement. Anyone could have become a victim
of violence as a result of riots,
acts of terror, factional fighting, assassination attempts or arbitrary acts
of the military. I had thought that there would be a close relative of Daw
Suu near her to provide some measure of security. Later, I learned from a
youth leader and colleague that there was none.

I let my thoughts wander, weighing the situation. Daw Suu must have known
what was happening. I could not resist praising Daw Suu for having the
courage to live in such tangled circumstances. I felt concern for Daw Suu's
security. From Brigadier General Aung Gyi, I learned that in a yard on the
other side of Inya Lake, 700 soldiers were on guard for the security of one
person. (General Ne Win) At that time, not a single soldier or policeman
serving as a security guard was seen at the house of the wife and daughter
of General Aung San, to whom the country was much indebted. Were the great
leaders who regarded themselves as shouldering the responsibility of the
country being forgetful? Were they incapable of sending even a single
soldier to provide security? Meanwhile, that security was being provided by
young students armed with darts was really quite laughable, but no incidents
occurred at that time, and it was a praiseworthy effort.

After passing the front gate, I reached the visiting room under the porch.
Daw Suu's mother's health was rapidly deteriorating. I was requested to wait
for a while as I could not see Daw Suu immediately. As the time was drawing
near to midday, some students made an offer of midday alms.  (Theravada
monks always have their last meal - alms taking- of the day before noon).
Before long, I was requested to move into the inner guest-room. In the
guest-room, there was only me, Daw Suu and the student leader who
accompanied me, and the three of us together discussed the situation.

It seemed that during discussion, Daw Suu's mother regained consciousness.
On a call, she hurried into the room where her mother was lying in bed. When
asked, the youth leader said that the health of Daw Suu's mother had been
very bad, and she had been losing consciousness frequently.

On hearing this, I was very much distressed, wondering whether I had
inadvertently been giving trouble to Daw Suu and whether it was a case of
insensibility on my part. I had approached Daw Suu for I had a conviction
that her role was very important in the change from one political system to
another. It was not easy for Daw Suu with the condition of her mother's
health, the students milling in the yard, the coming and going of leaders,
and occasions like this, when she was forced to discuss matters concerning
the country.

The extraordinary thing about Daw Suu was that never for a moment was she
seen to be depressed, complaining, short-tempered, remonstrating others, or
in apparent fear. I could not fail to feel a delight when I saw that she was
always calmly guiding and counselling to the satisfaction of everyone.

Not long afterwards, Daw Suu came back to talk with me, but the discussion
was not resumed. The meeting ended and I left.

On request, I gave a promise to the organizers of the mass meeting to be
held by Daw Suu at the Shwedagon Pagoda on August 26, 1988, that the Sangha
would take responsibility for security measures. The Young Monks' Union
(Rangoon) was formed before the 8-8-88 incidents (The "8-8-88 incident"
refers to August 8, 1988.  On that day, a general strike took place,
accompanied by nation-wide peaceful mass demonstrations.  At 11:45 p.m.,
after day-long protests, troops began spraying the unarmed demonstrators in
front of the Rangoon City Hall with automatic rifle-fire.  No one knows how
many were killed and injured on that night or in the following days,
however, estimates are in the thousands)  without election of the central
executive body. According to the consensus of representatives of the areas
attending the meeting, 16 monks were designated as leaders, and activities
were carried out secretly at the center or in the different areas in
accordance with the system of collective leadership and action. I convened
an emergency meeting of the Young Monks at Nga-Tat-Kyi Pagoda. It will be
remembered that at the mass meeting on August 26, 1988, where Daw Suu made a
speech, more than 5,000 monks undertook measures for security.

Originally, Theinbyu Ground was chosen as the venue of meeting. However, it
was argued that it was too small and problems could arise. Finally, the
western portal of Shwedagon Pagoda was decided upon as the venue. Given that
the military dictatorship could not be underestimated, however, how could
the meeting fail to instigate trouble?

The people who had learned that Daw Aung San Sun Kyi would give a speech at
the mass meeting on August 26 arrived before dawn by the millions and filled
up the entire field of the western portal. Moreover, U Wisara Road was
jammed with so many people that movement became impossible. It was the rainy
season, and the people waited patiently in the rain and wind for Daw Aung
San Suu Kyi and the entourage approaching along U Wisara Road. The car in
which she was riding had to be left on the road. The young students
shielding her from the crowd had almost to drag her along forward. At one
point, she and her entourage became blocked by the people, and it was
impossible for them to move either forward or backward. As the crowd was
excessively large, there was great concern over Daw Suu's security. Though
the monks and students were providing security, the situation was well
beyond their capabilities. It would not be wrong to say that it was a very
dangerous occasion, even though it might be assumed in retrospect that the
security situation had been well under control, as no serious problem
occurred. At that time, why were the military and the police, who claimed to
have a life-time responsibility for the country, strangely absent?

Whatever the risks taken by Daw Suu on August 26, 1988, the event was a
great success. Who could fail to praise Daw Suu for not hesitating to take
great risks for the sake of the country like that? The military clique must
have also known this.

One evening, not long after the military clique seized power on September 18
(On September 18, 1988, General Saw Maung announced over the state radio
that the State Law and Order Restoration Council had formed and the military
had assumed power.  The 'fake coup,' which the SLORC called a necessary
'policing effort,' was widely believed to have been orchestrated by Ne Win)
I was discussing the prevailing situation at a monastery, with students of
the University Training Corps and the All Burma Federation of Student Unions
numbering approximately forty. The discussion centered on the immediate and
long-term programmes that should be adopted for the movement. At that
moment, two students returning from outside announced, "Ma Ma Suu (Sister
Suu) has agreed to form a party. We are delighted. We've just come back from
there. We felt pity for Ma Ma Suu, while under such a strict curfew and
while everyone seen was shot at. Just think, Ma Ma Suu was going about in a
car. Aba (Elder uncle) U Tin Go was also with her. Yes, we all went to Aba U
Aung Gyi's house." All the students, on hearing the news of the formation of
the National League for Democracy clapped their hands in delight.

Daw Suu had formed the party. With the objective of developing democracy and
human rights in Burma, for the cessation of civil war and establishment of
peace, Daw Suu travelled all over the country and made speeches as part of
her organizational activities, without rest. While journeying, security
could never be complete. She had to face interference, subversion and
intimidation of various kinds by the military dictatorship, the SLORC. It
was learnt that one abbot, out of concern for her security, warned, "Daw
Suu, your father was killed by Maung Saw. The one that will kill you is Saw
Maung." (General Saw Maung, the former head of SLORC)  All people who wanted
democracy were concerned about the security of Daw Suu.

However, it appeared that Daw Suu did not pay attention to her own security
situation. With an unfailing spirit and determination to carry on to the
last, she went on doing things that she had to do. The armed forces, which
were founded by her dear father and were now under the control of the
military clique (SLORC), put her under arrest on July 20, 1989, while she
was endeavouring, without respite, for the emergence of democracy yearned
for by the people. For nearly six years, she was forced to stay alone in her
own house as a prisoner and was released on July 10, 1995.

Daw Suu did not have time to rest. Right away, she had to make speeches
urging the people, who would come and assemble in front of her house, to
make an organized effort, to have unity, to have no fear and to continue
working in accordance with their objectives.

"It is useless to remain in fear. We have to work, come hell or high water,
until the era of democracy has arrived, a time when our lives will really be
worth living."

Such words could bring great danger in a country of military dictatorships.
However, as Daw Suu was convinced that death for what was right was a worthy
death, she would be seen leading the people with an indomitable spirit, firm
and unyielding as steel.

DAW SUU, "NOT AN EDUCATED PERSON"

In the deprecatory pamphlets, the dictatorship SLORC under the assumed name
of Mr. Htoon Shwe, asserted:
" Daw Suu is not an educated and learned person. She is not gifted in
education and has never been a professional scholar". Concerning this, I
personally came to see the SLORC as often ignorant and greatly lacking in
general knowledge. Not unlike children, they just say out loud whatever
comes into their heads. Compassion welled up in my mind as I reflected on
the nature of humanity and the different lives that people are fated to assume.

However, upon consideration, many questions also entered my head, such as
"Do the SLORC really not know the truth, or are they just pretending not to
know? Are they launching this defamation with the limited knowledge that
they have, or did they just select some facts for the purpose of defamation,
or are they doing this just out of habit?", and so on.

In the contest between the two systems, dictatorship and democracy, the
SLORC has had to struggle desperately to remain in existence against the
will of the people. The proper conclusion may be that, in the manner of a
person trying to shield himself from lightning with a palm frond, the SLORC
launched this defamatory attack using some of the few bits of information
that they knew.

After reading Mr. Htoon Shwe's pamphlet, I collected all the books and
articles about Daw Suu available in the liberated area, in the border areas,
and on trips abroad, and carefully reread them. I reviewed the facts I
already knew, and I came to notice the large number of awards and honours
accorded to Daw Suu. I felt no envy of her for receiving these awards, only
pure gratification in realizing the attention and care shown by the
international community to a citizen of my own country.


A very brief biography of Daw Suu and a list of international awards and
honours she had received are given below.

Daw Suu was born on June 19, 1945. At the age of four, she started her
schooling at the St. Francis Convent School in Rangoon. Subsequently, she
continued her studies at the English Methodist High School, Rangoon, Joseph
and Mary Convent of New Delhi, the University of Delhi and Oxford
University. She studied political science while she was at Delhi University
and political science, philosophy and economics while she was at Oxford. At
the age of 22, she was awarded the Master of Arts (Honours) degree. In 1987,
she was preparing a thesis to be submitted to the Department of Oriental and
African studies, London University. This study was interrupted by her return
to Burma.

She has been awarded the following: 
1990, Honorary Fellow, St. Hugh's College (Oxford, UK)
1990, Thorolf Rafto Award for Human Rights(Norway)
1991, Sakharov Award for freedom of thought (European Parliament)
1991, Nobel Peace Prize (Norway)
1991, Honorary Member, International PEN (Norwegian Centre)
1991, Humanitos Human Rights Award (USA) 1991, Honorary Member,
International PEN
1992, Marisa Bellisario Prize (Italy) 1992, Annual Award of International
Law Group
	1992, Honorary President, Students' Union, London School of Economics and
Political   Science (London, UK)
	1992, Honorary Member, International PEN (English Centre) 1992, Honorary
Life Member, University of London Union
1992, Honorary Professorial Fellowship, Law and Society Trust (Sri Lanka)
1992, Honorary Doctorate in Political Science, Thammasat University (Thailand)
1992, International Simon Bolivar Prize (UNESCO)
1992, Prix Litteraire des Droits de I' Homme (Nouveaux Droits de I'Homme France)
1992, Honorary Member, World Commission on Culture and Development (UNESCO)
1993, Member, Academie Universelle des Cultures (Paris, France)
	1993, Rose Prize, Arkejder Beveagelsens International Forum of Danish
Labour Movement, February 28
	1993, Premio Mujer Progresista (Federacion Mujers Progresistas/ Spanish
Federation of Progressive Women, Madrid, Spain)
	1993, Victor Jara International Human Rights Award (Center for Human Rights
and Constitutional Law, LA, USA) 1993, Member of the Advisory Board,
Francois Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights, Harvard
University (USA) 
1993, The Freedom of City, Commune of Giugliano (Italy)
1993, Honorary Doctorate of Law, University of Toronto (Canada) 
1993, Bremen Solidarity Prize (City of Bremen, Germany) 
1993, Honorary Doctorate of Civil Law, Oxford University (UK) 
1994, Honorary Doctorate, Free University of Brussels (27.5.94) 
1995, Jawahalal Nehru Award for International Understanding (India for 1993) 
1995, Liberal International Prize for Freedom (Britain's Liberal Democratic
Party, UK) 1995, Honorary Doctorate, Queens University (Canada)
Companion of the Order of Australia
W. Averell Harriman Democracy Award (USA)

After getting a general idea of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's educational
foundation and pursuits, and the awards and honours she has been accorded,
the readers are left to determine for themselves whether she is an educated
person or not.

Although Mr. Htoon Shwe blatantly affirmed that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi could
not be considered an educated person with the level of educational
foundation that she possesses, he did not mention the criteria that should
be used for judging whether a person was educated or not. Therefore, it
becomes very difficult to know who are educated people and how many educated
people there are in this world. Furthermore, Mr. Htoon Shwe went on to say
that "the educated academics, organizations and Universities of the
international community, magnifying such mediocre qualifications and
standards, are making a mountain out of a mole-hill and are very weak in
making a judgment of people." The readers might have noticed that two
assumptions are made in this analysis. One is that "only people like the
SLORC have the highest capability and responsibility to judge the
educational qualification of the people of the world," and the other is a
subtle suggestion that "the international community should aid and support
only the SLORC with such awards and honours". Had they any sense of shame,
they would be very ashamed of this.

At this point, a question to Mr. Htoon Shwe would be in order.

At the time of the first resistance, during the anti-colonialist period, the
workers' leader Thakin Po Hla Gyi, the peasants' leader Saya San, Buddhist
monastery-educated Thakin Kodaw Hmaing, parachutist and hero Major Kya Hla
Aung, Reverend Abbot U Ottama, Reverend Abbot U Wisara, the students, the
Duwas (chiefs of Kachin people), the Sawbwas (chiefs of Shan people), the
Thirty Comrades (The Thirty Comrades were a group of young soldiers,
including General Ne Win, who set out with General Aung San for Japan in
1941 to begin training for the anti-British uprising.  They are among the
most widely revered of Burma's historical heroes), and other resistance
leaders were mostly persons of limited formal education. The education these
leaders had was basic and some of those who had undertaken higher learning
did so under the colonial system of education, the standard of which was
lower than that of the higher learning we have today. However, no one has
described them as uneducated. All the leaders who have served the country
are held in respect and affection by the people, and their efforts are
appreciated. What would Mr. Htoon Shwe like to say, we may ask, about them?

Moreover, in the same breath, the SLORC clique, under the assumed name of
Mr. Htoon Shwe said, "She is not a person who has earned a living by the use
of the power of intellect."

I cannot definitely say whether this observation was made out of a real lack
of knowledge or whether it was made out callousness, on the assumption that
most people in Burma are in the same state of ignorance as the junta.

The truth is that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi had worked:

in l968, as a research assistant in the Department of Political Science at
the School of Oriental and African Studies in London;
from 1969 to 1971, as assistant secretary of the Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions, United Nations Secretariat, New York;
from 1972 to 1973, as a researcher for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bhutan;
from 1975 to 1977, for the cataloguing of Burmese books and periodicals at
the Bodleian Library, Oxford University;
from 1985 to 1986, on research at the Department of South East Asian
Studies, Kyoto University, Japan;
in 1987, on research in the Special Research Department in Simla, India. 

[Had the SLORC transferred power to the NLD led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,
which won 82% of the seats in the 1990 elections, she would have been
working as the president of the Union of Burma up to this day.]

People from all walks of life know that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has earned a
living using the expertise and knowledge gained from her education and study.

It seems that the SLORC military clique, under the assumed name of Mr. Htoon
Shwe, would like to say that "Daw Suu is not fit to wield the power of a
state, since she has very low educational qualifications and has never
served as an employee of a regular department." The people have been
presented with this picture of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi by the SLORC's
propaganda. This has been undertaken not directly but in a roundabout way,
probably with the hope of winning over the uninformed among the public. Yet,
it may be noticed that this only leaves the SLORC in a worse light. It is
hoped that this much would give enough idea to the readers to decide whether
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is an educated and learned person or not.

http://www2.gol.com/users/brelief/Index.htm