INFORMATION SHEET No.A-0742 (I) (r)

[sai_kyauk@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I am a shan national.  I am a silent watcher but I do not want to silent 
any more when I read this posting.


 
>MYANMAR INFORMATION COMMITTEE
>YANGON
>
>INFORMATION SHEET
>No.A-0742 (I)                 26th December 1998
>
>
>
>Editorial
>
>THE VIEW FROM THE EMBASSY OF MYANMAR OTTAWA
>
>"THE PHONOMENON OF POLITICAL POPULARlTY-AN ANALYSIS "

At 05:46 AM 12/26/98 EST, OKKAR66129@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>What makes a politician popular ?

In Burmese case, the military regime makes a politician popular, 
particularly Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

by using cruel and immoral ways 

>What makes this popularity ephemeral(lasting only a short time) or 
transient(passing quick) in most cases ?
In Burmese case, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been popular in Burma and 
around the world for 10 years now for her dedication and love for her 
country.  If she is not popular or supported why the SPDC stopped her to 
visit her local offices and divisions.  Why SPDc still attacking her, 
including this article posted by Ottowa Burmese Embassy.  Why the person 
do not dare to reveal his or her name?  Think about it.


>
>What makes it sometimes enduring and sustained for generations ?

Because the military leaders have no guts to transfer the power to the 
1990 elections' winner NLD.  In addition, they only care about the real 
people (I mean "real people" are the military elites) not slaves (in 
Burma ordinary people are treated like slaves).

>	First of all there is ample evidence that to achieve national 
popularity even
>in a democratic society does not necessarily depend initially on 
political
>credentials of the individual. He might even have achieved national 
fame by
>being a successful pop star, a movie actor, or some sports star, 
including
>being a wrestler, one of whom has recently been elected to a 
gubernatorial position in the United States.

In addition, generals who have no political credentials hold the power 
for good and use the local news media as their propagating tools became 
well known in Burma for their abusive behavior and became villains.  
They called themselves nationalists and declare that they have right to 
hold political power.
Is the use of force and threat a political credentials?

>Pundits explained that when the electorate gets tired of these 
politicians and their
>political ploys that seem to be leading them nowhere the electorate 
have not
>shown any mercy in dumping him or her in favour of any " non - 
political " and
>refreshing phenomenon available for election.?

In Burmese case, electorate gets tired of listening the propagating made 
by the military regime.  They want NLD to lead them but NLD's elected 
representatives and local offices has been systematically eliminated by 
the military regime.  When 1990 elections' results were ignored and 
elected members were jailed, tortured and forced to resigned in Burma, 
the truth loving people understand that the opposition politicians have 
been systematically harassed, and cornered by the regime.  ASSK is using 
a confrontational stance because the regime never recognize the election 
results and have no intention to start the true dialogue with NLD.  
>
>This is so, 
>especially when complicated further in less developed democracies by 
financial
>temptations and forceful intimidations imposed upon them by 
unscrupulous
>politicians who would resort to any means to defeat an opponent.

In the case of Burma, Who are unscrupulous persons in general.  who is 
trying to defeat its opponent by using dirty tricks?  Look only the past 
10 years, who refused to hand over the power after 1990 elections as 
they promise.  who is trying to stop the opposition parties to organize 
the people?  Who is afraid of the formation of independent 
organizations?  Who is responsible for the closing of the Universities 
which produce the educated people?  Who detained the NLD elected 
representatives and said it is an warmly invitation?
>
>	To the educated and the well-informed constituencies the most common 
>dilemma faciing them is the question of whether the most popular 
politician
>being the best canelidate to lead the country. This is the main fear in 
the
>Union of Myanmar and that is one good reason that it feels it needs 
time to
>change from one system to another.

Who is in the great fear in the union of Myanmar that the most popular 
politician has an ability to lead the country?  It is not the people 
because they voted for NLD, the people who fear is from the military 
elite including the embassy people.  It is clear that people rejected 
the military in 1990 elections and favour NLD party. The military 
leaders are so afraid of the NLD leadership and they have no guts to 
hand over the power.
>
>	If one now considers why so many popular politicians of the 1970s, and 
80's
>have now become almost forgotten relics of the past (exemplified by the 
so-
>called "Gorl archev Syndrome " ) despite even having won nobel peace 
prizes
>and so on --many interesting causative factors emerge.

They are forgotten because they were put in prison by the SPDC.  For 
example, U Thu Wai, U Htwe Myint and U Win Tin  have been in prison for 
more than 8 to 5 years.  Also people's political conscious in Burma was 
so high in 1990 election that they did not want their votes to split so 
they voted only for NLD even though  some NLD candidates are less 
experience than 1950s, 1960 and 1980s popular politicians.  It means 
they want a strong party to lead the country.  So that is why NLD has 
been crushed by the Burmese military regime.


>
>A. 	Their " achievements "focussed on distinct benefits oriented 
towards the
>needs of powerful international "blocs" and their satellite nations at 
the
>expense of his or her own country being disintegrated and in one 
instance the
>largest world power has been reduced to a minor role in international 
affairs.

In case of Russia, yes its disintegration leads to weaken its power but 
it turn out a good thing to other countries such as Germany 
reunification as one nation and east block has been free from iron 
curtain.  The threat of cold war is almost over.  These are the positive 
points. 
>
>In East Asia the models of change have been different. Political change 
has
>been cautiously controlled in the world's most populous country and 
some of
>it's neighbours while economic reforms are being made at a rapid pace. 
Again
>in economic terms they seem to be doing better than the other models 
despite
>the " Asian Flu " slowing them down in their growth rates but only to 
an
>extent. Besides,  they have collective leaderships and exert some 
control on
>emergence from within or by insertion from abroad populist politicians 
at this
>stage of development.

In case of China, economic reforms are the only change but not political 
system which would be a threat for the stability of the future Asia and 
the world.  Especially neighbouring countries such as Burma, Cambodia 
and Vietnam.  Recent political stand off in Malaysia between Mahar Thir 
and its former deputy PM Anwar showed the world that the Asian value 
means dirty works, neoptism, corruption and abuse of power, not for 
creating a democratic society.  Indonesia demonstration proved that 
Asian value means force the people to shut up their mouths.
>
>Among these countries, the Union of Myanmar went one step ahead of it's
>neighbours ( that practices single party political systems but 
developing
>market oriented economic structures )by allowing political parties to 
be
>formed as a first step towards democratization.

Woo! Woo!  It is going beyond realistic. Burma is one step ahead of 
corruption, extreme use of power, arbitrary killing, and backwardness.  
Allowing the political parties and blocking them to organize its own 
people is not a first step towards democratization.  Why SLORC/SPDC hold 
the 1990 election? for what reason?  Political parties have been 
harassed and threatened, they have no right to organize the people and 
no right to call for their party congress.  But the regime sponsored 
organization USDA has the right to call mass demonstrations and 
organized the people freely and forcefully. Is it a one step movement?




>This has led to emergence of populist politicians with affiliations to 
outside
>powers who have their own vested interests and who seem to be 
completely
>misreading and misconstruing the true intentions of the government of 
Myanmar.
>Banking on external support and assuming that internal political 
popularity to
>be an " eternal birthright ", they demanded an immediate transfer of
>government authority as soon as they won a majority of seats in an 
election
>which was held by the government in 1990 ( but not contesting ) to form 
an
>elected assembly which would oversee the development of a firm and 
enduring
>national constitution.

When the colonial government ignored the rights of the burmese people, 
Ko Aung San and thirty comrades tried to find support from the Japanese 
and called the Japanese army into Burma.  When the Japs broke their 
promise, the thirty comrades fought back and joined with the British.  
Burma has its own history and they were not named as betrayers.  Ne Win 
was one of them who called the Japanese army into Burma.  There is only 
one law if SPDC believe that to seek external support is not acceptable, 
they have to blame Aung San and Ne Win first. Why are they seeking 
support from the ASEAN countries?  Why are they pleasing China?  NLD has 
the right to form the government because they won the land slide victory 
with 81 percent of the parliamentary seats.  Why the SLORC warmly 
welcome the NLD, after NLD won the elections?  Why ? Why? Why?  Before 
the elections, General Saw Maung declared that after the elections the 
army will go back tpo its barracks and it is not his duty to rule the 
country after the elections, the winning party will take care of the 
entire nation.  SLORC's job was to held the free and fair election only.  
His speech was published by SPDC and distributed to the entire nation.  
Who is lying?  Saw Maung did not mention a word about the election is 
only for drawing up a new enduring national constitution.  Your 
statement said the 1990 election is only for the formation of an elected 
assembly to oversee the development of a firm constitution but the 
elected assembly was not allowed to form by you SPDC regime.  Your 
phrase is contradict with the regime attitude towards NLD and the 
elected representatives.

>
>This was the beginning of an era of international confusion when 
Western 
>Governments also joined the chorus supporting such a politician and 
while
>ignoring her slogan of " dialogue or face utter devastation ", showered 
her
>with prizes including the coveted Nobel peace prize. But when the 
Government
>steadfastly stood it's course and it's own agenda of gradual evolution 
towards
>democracy, the western powers began to build up the pressure on Myanmar 
by
>calling for sanctions and innumerable negative measures that actually 
achieved
>little - and whatever little negative effects they achieved was 
unfortunately
>felt by people at the grass roots especially in areas where the 
restoration of
>peace and tranquillity with the former ethnic insurgents have been 
achieved
>and where infrastructure development was begining . It is worthy of 
note that
>the political party have played no role in either making peace with 
armed
>insurgencies or in the development of the regions.

Totally wrong, the NLD has the ability to build the trust between the 
minorities and the Burmans but not the regime which has killed many 
minorities and civilians for decades.  Why SLORC/SPDC does not want to 
start the dialogue with NLD? because they are afraid of losing their 
power.  The gradual evolution towards democracy means they will hold on 
power or sharing the power for few more decades and it is not 
acceptable.
>
>It is ironic that sanctions! ban tourism! stop investments ! have 
become the
>key words of the political party that won the largest majority of seats 
in
>1990, who should in fact, be helping these border areas in their
>rehabilitation. They don't seem to care what happen to people who need 
jobs
>related to tourism and who need 
>agricultural assistance, personnel training etc.- so long as they get 
into
>positions of governing the country.

In this point I agree with you.  NLD does not need to call for 
sanctions, ban tourism! stop investment because without sanctions and 
without bannig tourism, SPDC has no ability to promote the country's 
ruin  and deep corrupted economy.  You guys are lucky because you guys 
find the scapegoat goat as well as your main opponent which you dearly 
wanted to blame for the down fall of the Burmese economy.

>
>This seem to have angered the people of Myanmar, and caused 
>disenchantment among  it's own political supporters who started to 
abandon the
>leader and her party last year and, which in recent weeks have become
>resignations en - masse. Last few weeks have seen a " back lash " in 
the form of mass
>resignations of elected offiicials and party committee members as well 
as
>closure of many district level offices of the National League For 
Democracy
>and it seems to be a continuing spontaneous process rather than a few 
isolated
>events that took place because of " intimidation " as alleged by 
desperate poliiticians whose popularity within the country are now 
deeply in doubt .

Do not lies to us and the internation communities.  We know what 
SLORC?SPDC is doing so far and how they lies to us and its own people.  
Please stop lying.  You already know that why they resigned from the NLD 
party.  Under the extreme pressure and threat many NLD elected 
representatives resigned.  SPDC detained them after NLD formed the 
peoples parliament representatives and shamelessly announced that they 
are not detained by them but they are invited as the guests by force.





The questions now are -
>
>-Has the undoing of a political party's popularity begun with it's 
ephemeral
>nature starkly displaying itself ? From all indicators it seems to be 
the case
>and if so who is to be held responsible ?

The main responsible person is Ne Win, Than Shwe and Khin Nyunt from 
SPDC circle.  If the NLD is not a popular party any more, let them 
organize its people freely.  Why are your government afraid of NLD and 
ASSK?
>
>As discussed before, isn't this dowllfall the result of people's 
displeasure
>for what these politicians have done to them ?

No body rejected the NLD so far, the weakening of the NLD is 
systematically conducted by the regime itself.  The people trust NLD 
leadership and still is.


>
>Isn't it time to realise by friend and foe alike that the national 
convention 
>process be now supported and recognized as the sole legitimate 
mechanism for
>the Union of Myanmar to make the transition towards, a disciplined and 
orderly
>multiparty democratic system ?

Yes, it is the time for SPDC to allow the NLD to lead the national 
convention without guidelines and allow all the elected representatives 
to participate in this process.  It is time for SPDC to compromise if 
they really love their nation.  How do you think?  let me know!

>
>Isn't it now time for the international community to focus less on 
popularity
>of individuals and start to give priority to policies over 
personalities ?

But you know, personal popularity is very important, people became 
popular because they did some thing.  If the person is not known by the 
people how could they choose their leaders.  In the army Than Shwe , 
Maung Aye and Khin Nyunt are popular military leaders because all the 
government own newspapers praised them as noble men and the saviours of 
the nation but the papers criticized ASSK as a power hungry person.  She 
is proving the world and its own people about her ability and 
dedication.  Even though she was harrassed, attacked and under 
tremendous pressure, she is still doing her job.  I think she is amazing 
person who has full of courage.  Do you think the government is all the 
time right?  If you think so why SLORC/SPDC change its course from 
socialism to multiparty democracy?.  The former BSPP regime was wrong, 
that's why SLORC was forced to change its courses from Burmese way to 
Socialism to Burmese ways to Democracy.

>
>Isn't it high time to stop criticizing and making unfounded 
allegations, but
>rather help the country make it's democratic transition by the only way 
it can
>be achieved ?

There will be no criticism if SPDC wisely enter the negotiation field 
and starts the real dialogue and work together with NLD.  Released all 
political prisoners by showing its good will.

>
>Finally and most importantly isn't it time for the main political party 
to
>give up its confrontational attitude before it's too late, and assume a 
new
>role of cooperation with the government and renouncing external 
political
>affiliations?

The dialogue is open to SPDC and there is also a reward from the UN one 
billion dollars.  NLD is ready to start a dialogue and willing to work 
with SPDC if their is no tricks and acceptable guide lines.


>
>The answer is a plain and simple, YES! and
>
>The time is now! - for the strength of a country lies with the people 
within
>the country and nowhere else.

The country's future lies on SPDC decision! they really care about its 
own people and development of the nation or they only care about 
themselves.  It is the decision they need to do in the near future.  I 
cross my fingers that they have guts to start the dialogue with NLD, if 
they really are true soldiers who willing to pay their lives for their 
country name Burma.

>
>***********************
>
>	

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com