Responses of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi o

[nldburma@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Responses of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on 2-7-1999

Responses given by Daw Aung SanSuu Kyi, General Secretary National
League for Democracy on 2nd July 1999.



Response to first question.

I cannot understand clearly. Do you mean that we should be using "sweat and 
blood" slogans in our fight for democracy? Don't be ambivalent. We might as 
well speak openly.  The word "blood" was mentioned, so we might as well be 
frank and open. Because we are not asking for blood to be spilt do you mean 
to say that our fight is not effective? The value placed on the people's 
blood is not the same with everyone. As for us, we place a high value on the 
blood of the people. We believe that the people's blood must not be shed to 
naught.  For some it matters not if it is someone else's blood that is shed. 
  Our view is different.


I want to ask of those who say that we should make appropriate
responses, what sacrifices are they making? Only yesterday one of our
members U Kyaw Min (architect) passed away. What was the cause of his
death?  His imprisonment and the disease he contracted then. He was
released only when he became seriously ill and now after one year he
died.  Can you not say that the response he made was equivalent and
appropriate?  He did not shed blood drop by drop nor was his blood
splattered on the streets. Yet his sacrifice was of an equivalent
value.  I am convinced of this.


The notion that only by getting out on the streets with blood dripping
to the ground is the way to go to achieve your political goals for the
country is something that can be compared to what is happening in Kosovo 
now.  This notion is entirely unacceptable to us. The Serbs believed in 
violence to achieve their political ends and as a result the country of 
Yugoslavia has disintegrated and the Serbians are devastated to such an 
extent that they cannot lift their heads.  We want democracy because it will 
be good for the people, their advancement and their happiness. Our fight for 
democracy is not because we want to see the people shed their blood on the 
streets. I personally am averse to using those big words like "blood" and 
"sweat". The word "sweat" conjures up hard labour.  To
be bloodied too is not good.  We do not want to bring the people to the 
stage of shedding blood and sweat.  To those people who are thinking that we 
are not making equivalent/appropriate responses I want to ask what 
contributions are you making?  I suggest that by example and actions they 
should say "I am doing such and such and another is doing such and such and 

others should do likewise."


Without doing anything yourself. As for U Kyaw Min, he deserves much
respect. He knew his days were numbered while in hospital but when I
visited him there he thanked me for the visit despite my busy schedule.


It is us who must say thank you to him. Genuine workers do not give
credit to themselves. Those who are not participating actively are
finding fault with others. U Kyaw Min was on the brink of death but he
was not recounting what he had done. His thoughts were for others.  As a 
colleague, it was normal for me to visit him.  I am not anyone special and I 
did not need to be thanked. He is a truly good man. Buddhism teaches us not 
to praise ourselves for our good works but to give praise to others.  Saya U 
Kyaw Min demonstrated this teaching. He was in the prime of life(not quite 
66).  He never regretted his circumstances, never mentioned a thing about 
what he suffered.  Did he not respond appropriately and adequately? Those 
who think that this is not an appropriate response give us your ideas so 
that we might think about it and may be we can learn something.


Response to the second question.

People were aware of their responsibility in 1990. I have said this
before. Compared to countries where the people have had to struggle for 
democracy, our people are politically more mature. Why? The
desire for democracy was so great that they gave their wholehearted support 
to a political organisation that would achieve democracy for them.  They had 
the foresight. Many parties were formed and they all had their goals.


However the people knew that if votes were scattered or spread out the
cause for democracy would be weakened so they cast their votes for the
NLD.  This is a very politically mature decision. This is my conviction.


Despite the landslide victory with 82% of the votes power has not been
transferred. If we had obtained only 50%, imagine how much more
difficult it will be. Because of the landslide victory (over 80%) the
world has acknowledged us. The NLD did not conjure up any tricks to get the 
peoples' support. It cannot be said that it was a narrow victory. But now 
some are trying to make excuses and saying this and that like only 60% of 
the people went to the polls. We won so decisively  and yet they are playing 
all sorts of tricks........ deceiving the world, deceiving the masses.


I say that the people acted responsibly in voting so overwhelmingly for the 
NLD and that is why I say that they are very politically mature.


Response to the third question.


We are here really to discuss the current situation. Really to assess
the changes taking place and what changes should be taking place in
Burma. What they will say or what will happen I do not know.  The other 
matter relates to the report by United Nations Human Rights Group about 
refugees on Burma's border especially on the border with Thailand. The 
report contains allegations about the persecutions; unjust, illegal and 
brutal treatment of the refugees by the soldiers, which worsened after ASEAN 
had accepted the SPDC as a member in 1997.  We are all aware of this. About 
which refugees and how they are ill treated and even killed.



There is no need for me to go into details.  But this organisation
carefully looked at the evidence, examined the victims and got their
story from their own lips.  There was no hearsay evidence. It must be
said that the report was written very meticulously.  But, the PDC people who 
are permitted to write and say things and the ambassador in London has come 
up with the defense that the said refugees are not genuine refugees, but 
rebels who want to secede and that there were no such persecutions, that all 
this was a concoction and lies to defame the government. You all, (my 
fathers), will have heard about this also.


Before answering the last part of the question I want to make one thing 
clear.  It is not appropriate to equate the awards in money terms. But since 
you (father) want to know, I will tell you.  Human rights awards are not 
judged in terms of their money value.  The main idea is to recognize the 
services given for humanity. I am not sure if Dr. Cynthia and Min Ko Naing 
received 20000 each or whether that amount was for both. The award to 
Sayagyi U Win Tin was not a cash payment.  It was a deliberate affirmation 
and honor bestowed on Sayagyi for his services.


There was some misunderstanding because these awards were mentioned at
the same time and some may have thought that Sayagyi U Win Tin also
received a cash award.  Whether or not a cash payment was included in
the award is not the criterion. The services for democracy, for
political achievement and humanity are the basis for the choice.


Response to the fourth question


Let me say something here. It is true that at the time the NLD was
established our policy was that we would not resort to violence. In
keeping with democratic principles and practices those who do not
believe in violence will support us. We have already said that  we would 
never forsake the students who had taken up arms in 1988 to fight the 
government.  Why is that?  Because we trust and believe that they are 
fighting for democracy in their belief that this is the only means to obtain 
their goal.  This is not our policy.  So we choose our policy and we abide 
by it.  But we cannot turn our back on those who sincerely believe in 
democracy and choose another path. We will not take the path that they have 
taken.  Why?  I have given the reason over and over again and I say it 
again. The culture that has existed in our country is to change the 
political system through the use of violence.  If we do not change that 
culture now, it will go one and on.


When political power was assumed in 1962 it was with the use of force
that is to say it was with the use of arms.  At that time there were no 
economic issues but because of political issues, power was assumed by those 
bearing arms.  In 1988 demonstrations by the people was stamped out by the 
use of force.  To change the political system by the use force, to silence 
political dissent by the use of force - these are matters we cannot accept, 
we cannot condone. We want to settle political issues in a political way.  
We will set the pattern.  The country will then learn how to have political 

change for whatever reasons in a peaceful manner.


Another issue I want to talk about is this.  When the other side is
shouting out about sweat and blood and such things do we have to respond 
likewise? I recall the words of  Mahatma Ghandi.  He used an expression from 
the Christian Scriptures. It also has some relevance to Hamurabi of ancient 
days. Its about "an eye for an eye" principle. Ghandi said that if we follow 
this principle, the whole country would be left without any eyes.  For that 
reason he adopted the 'non violence' approach. If we think about Ghandi's 
approach and its outcome we will understand why in all the countries of 
Asia, India is the only country that has been able to cling to the 
democratic system despite all the many problems that they have had.


I believe that a lot of thanks is due to Ghandi. This does not mean that 
India is free from violence.  Even now they are at war with Pakistan.


They do have clashes off and on.  But the principle policy of settling
political issues in a political manner as far as possible and to resort to 
arms only when all else fails is evident. Political change in India has 
never occurred through bloodshed.  After the second world war, out of all 
the countries in Asia that were granted independence and adopted democracy 
India is the only country that has never given up the democratic system.


Of course, Japan is an exception. Japan was not granted independence.
Japan got democracy when she lost the war.  All the other countries
including Burma got a measure of democracy.  Most of the countries lost 
democracy through the use of force.  We lost democracy because power was 
assumed by use of force.  Just as U Aung Myint remarked, our NLD policy is 
not to resort to force.  This is contained as a fundamental policy.


Those who accept our view may support us.  Those who do not support that 
view will have to find their own way to attain democracy.
Though it is stated in the newspapers that the establishment of a
constitution is the concern of every one of us, all of us know that we
really are not given the right to say anything about the constitution.
We have stated our position quite clearly.  Only a constitution ratified by 
the Pyithu Hluttaw composed of the elected representatives of the people 
will be acceptable to us. Another election is not a matter for 
consideration.  The 1990 election results must be first implemented.


I believe that they are saying these things out of jealousy. The richer 
countries and the World Bank have declared that they would provide 
assistance to Burma if there were a democratic government acceptable to the 
people.  All of us are aware of this.  They are dissatisfied because aid is 
not forthcoming in their present situation.


As regards giving humanitarian aid to the people of Burma these
countries and organisations have consulted us. We have always said that that 
we welcome humanitarian aid but it must be given in the right way which 
means that it should not only go the those people who the authorities 
select.  The authorities will use this aid for political means, which is 
unacceptable to us. If the people are left out and only the authorities and 

the civil servants benefit, this will not meet with our approval.  This is 
also another factor that displeases the authorities.  They are unhappy 
because we have some say in the matter. One day when we have both the power 
and the authority, the country will benefit to a truly great extent.


This is why they do not believe in dialogue.  But we do.  We believe and the 
people believe that unless we can be magnanimous our country can never 
advance.


In circumstances that call for forgiveness, we must be magnanimous.
Thakin Soe was mentioned earlier.  I am not clear about what was meant. 
Contact with rebels is condemned as treachery.  Similarly wanting to have 
dialogue with the other side could be considered treacherous.  Is that the 
inference?  We do not consider the SPDC as rebels.  We consider them as the 
opposition. We don't want to use the word "enemy". This struggle for 
democracy is even harder than the struggle for independence. Then we did not 
have to struggle against our own countryman as we have to do now. When we 
won they had to return to their own country. Now, in our struggle for 
democracy the conflict is among ourselves and there are some who want to 
claim that this country is for them only. Only they have the right to live 
here and that others do not have that right.  These people are very petty 
minded and mean.  All citizens of this country have the right to live here 
and enjoy equal rights. This is our goal.  If we do not settle these 
animosities what do we do?  Kill off all the people?  This is meaningless. 
It is like what the Serbs are saying. The Serbs killed the Albanians one by 
one and now the Albanians are out to kill the Serbs. What benefit is that to 
the  country? I have no time for violent methods (killing and shedding 
blood).  It is the lowest method, the lowest road to take the lowest path to 
follow.


No matter what, we want our country to take the highest road. This
country has had to resort to violence.  We had to resort to arms when
the fight was for independence.  My father spoke about this point. "We
either get it or we fight for it" is what he said.  He meant that
fighting and shedding blood would be as a last resort.  That is the
lowest road and we do not wish to start by taking the lowest road.  If
we start that way we will be belittling our own country. It will be like 
declaring that our country deserves the worst.  This is not my view.  I 
admit that there are many things to be rectified.  We are not familiar with 
democratic political ideology.  Many are immature in political matters. But 
to say that we deserve the worst route, the lowest path to achieve democracy 
is something I will not accept.


Section 17  -- that is something that we are very familiar with because this 
is the section applied to most of our comrades who are now in prison. This 
section is in relation to association with rebels. But it really applies to 
assisting the rebels with money and the like or taking part in their 
meetings and deliberating with them.  Our party is not supporting any rebel 
group in cash or kind.



There is not a hope of deliberating with them.  Just try to visit them
-  we will never be allowed. Politically mature people are prepared to
talk as equals.  Look at the Serbs. They did not want to talk.  They
attacked and killed. Blood flowed like streams.  Who benefited? Neither the 
Serbs nor the Albanians. The animosity they harbored for five hundred years 
will go on for another one thousand years. What hope is there for that 
country? Do we want to follow that path?  What
encouragement is there to follow that path?


Rangoon
July 13, 1999


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