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



/* Posted 12 Nov 11:00am 1998 by drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx in
igc:reg.burma & Maykha-l*/
/* -------------" SLORC's 33 Question on Public Servants
"---------------- */

Following is the 33 questions, ordered by SLORC to be
filled-up by civil servants in 1991/92. In the light of
recent intimidation and detention of NLD leaders, it is
apparent that General Khin Nyunt's MIS groups are
pulling the string on current crackdown on the

1. Do you prefer KIA, KNU, ABSDF, NMSP insurgent
organisations to hold power ?
2. Do you prefer insurgent BCP underground organisation?
Do you support?
3. Can you accept Myanmar to be ruled by a certain
foreign country?
4. Do you prefer the CIA intervening inside Myanmar?
5. Do you support Sein  Win and others governing Myanmar
at this critical time?
6. Do you support the so-called U Nu's parallel
7. Do you support the broadcasting by foreign radio
stations, such as BBC, VOA?
8. Do you want Myanmar to lose its independence?
9. Do you support NLD leaders U Tin U, Daw Su Kyi, U Kyi
Maung and U Chit Khaing ?
10. Do you support absconders Sein Win, Peter Limbin,
Maung Aung and U Sein Mya ?
11. Do you want the situation to return as in 1988?
12. Do you want the military to safeguard the country
prior to the existence of a concrete constitution?
13. Do you accept that all citizens have their
respective responsibilities for the existence of the
concrete constitution?
14. Can you accept that all civil servants must be free
from party politics?
15. If not, explain why.
16. Were you a party member during BSPP time?
17. If so, reveal your party membership number.
18. Reveal your responsibility in the party.
19. As the government has already instructed the civil
servants to be free from party politics, do you know
that disciplinary actions will be taken in case of
violating the instructions?
20. Do you know that violating civil servants' rules and
regulations can lead to begin dismissed?
21. What is your main responsibility?
22. Has the military sided at the last elections?
23. For the long lasting benefit to the country, how
long should a systematic transitional period last?
24. Which organisation can work out peace and stability
for the country?
25. Which is the most suitable system for Myanmar?
26. How should the head of state(president) be chosen?
 (a) Direct election by the people;
 (b) Step by step-- Township, Division, Central;
 (c)Elected from among members of parliament;
 (d) Elected by parliament a qualified non-MP.
27. Is it appropriate to elect somebody who is married
to a foreigner as the Head of State?
28. If appropriate, how will the situation of the
country become?
29. What punishment should be given to persons who
threaten and cut off the heads of many people, who
destroy the country's properties and, who cause split in
the military?
30. Which should be given preference--the country or an
31. For the benefit of whom is the military doing and
with what it is doing today?
32. How should the military regard the organisation that
considers the military, which is shouldering all the
country's welfare, as its enemy?
33. Is it right to have head-on confrontation with the

[Following is the hard-hitting editorial from Asiaweek
in 91. Such quality writing is always well worth
re-reading. ]

ASIAWEEK: MAY 31, 1991.

The government of Burma is not so much a gnawing cancer
in Asia's entrials as an ugly abscess on its face. The
condition, that is to say, is in no danger of spreading
but cries out for treatment. Ugly is not a word lightly
employed in a constituitonal context.  Even the most
praised of governments have their unattractive sides;
and rarely can it be said with fairness that an entire
apparatus of state is irredeemably bad. But what can be
offered in mitigation for an army clique that imprisons
citizens--for 40 years-- on charges of "attempting to
hold a National Assembly meeting"? How can special
circumstances be invoked to excuse persecution, exile,
imprisonment and hounding to death of men and women
whose crime has been to get themselves elected to
parliament in a landslide? How can room be made in
places where just men gather for leaders who force
millions of citizens to reply in writing to the question
"What should be the penalty for those who behead people,
destroy state property and try to divide the Army?"

George Orwell, once a policeman in Burma, could not have
invented any thing more Orwellian than SLORC, the name
by which the junta chooses to be known. Had chronologies
concurred, it might have been suspected that the gloomy
English satirist drew on Burma's Ministry of Truth and
its Bureau of Thought Police for his imaginings of the
sinister totalitarian state. Franz Kafka, the bohemian
German analyst of angst, might have fashioned from the
Rangoon model a truly Kafkaesque theme of maddieningly
impentrable authorities whose logic becomes
indistingushable from nightmarish inanity.

But Burma is no fiction. Recently a 33-point
questionnaire was handed out to all government-sector
employees to everyone, that is, with a proper job.
Filling it out is compulsory, with name, rank and
department appended. Its cynically loaded questions
would have sat well with Gestapo interrogators or
apparatchiks in the Gulag. Helpless respondents are made
to say item by item whether they favour being governmed
by insurgents, "underground elements," foreign
countries, a"parallel government.." No, no, no,no.

Slyly, the correct answer switches to yes. "Do you
prefer the Army to be in charge while a strong
constitution is being drafted?" Then a tricky one:"Must
public servants stay clear of politics?" Anyone who may
have confused support for strong constitutions with
politics will panic at the "If not, explain why" that
follows. "Which organisation has restored peace and
stability to our country?" The Army! The Army! "How
long, in your opinion, should it take to change from one
political system to another?" Oh, years and years. The
question, "Should a person married to a foreigner be
head of state?" is a kind of intellectual rape, since
the answer is no, yet Aung San Suu Kyi, who has an
English husband, was the popular choice in elections one
year ago. Truly Orwellian is "How should the Army regard
those who view them as the enemy?"

If it were only these semantic perversions the Burmese
people had to deal with, there would be precedents in
Hoxha's Albania, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the Kims' North
Korea. but refugees tell of a state-sanctioned decay of
social decency for which a political historaian would be
hard pressed to find a precedent. Corruption, they say,
has been virtually institutionalised. Almost any money
transaction not politically threatening goes
unchallenged. Deals are cut between officials and drug
brons, gun runners and loggers. Laws are capriciously
bent for any foreigner who, to secure a cheap piece of
underexploited natural resources, is prepared to grease
the palms shamelessly extended. Heroin warlords may be
invited to join the sham National Convention. Truces
without honour have been secretly concluded withethnic
insurgents. These reports come from people who hate
SLORC, yet tellingly, few if any attempts have been made
to deny them.

That is Burma's sorrow. The rest of the world doesn't
seem to care much. while Beijing has been made to suffer
for stamping out incipient democracy two years ago, the
censure of Rangoon is, to say the least, unimpassioned.
A million demonstrators in Tiananmen Square may have
been voicing the feelings of a billion Chinese, but no
one will ever know, for the billion were not asked. The
Burmese people, on May 27, 1990, expressed their will in
a national election. They returned candidates of Aung
San suu Kyi's National League for Democracy in 80% of
the constituencies. But the junta, explaining that the
people had voted for the wrong parties, did not allow
elected representatives to proceed to the legislature.

That generals seize power is not cause enough to snub a
nation. that democracy is suppressed, civil rights
abused and corruption allowed to flourish are reasons
for condemnation, but not for cutting off diplomatic and
commeercial intercourse. Rogue regimes would otherwise
outnumber conformist ones. but when governments defy all
decency--as South Africa's did with apartheid, Iraq's
with territorial aggression, North Korea's with
state-sponsored terrorism-- the international community
declares such regimes outlaws.  Burma's brawbeating
junta has perpetrated a travesty that even Adolf Hitler
dared not try: it has callously set aside an unambiguous
verdict of the people. It should be made pariah.
Sanctions against trade and investment should be
rigorously applied. Burma's neighbours have chosen not
to be drawn into moral judgements. They are right whch
they say they are not responsible for what goes on
inside the country. They are justified in saying that
politics is one thing, business another. But only up to
a point. Yes, the point can be stretched, because in
practice tolerance of error can nevver be rigidly fixed.
but the murderous goons who run Burma have tightened
their collective credibility to the limit of electicity,
and snapped.

/* Endreport */