"BETTER
GOVERNANCE IS THE ANSWER"
Transcript of
interview with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, August 2002
Q: Is increased
funding the answer to
ASSK: No, better
governance is the answer to
Q: Do you think that
increasing humanitarian assistance to
ASSK: No, simply by
increasing assistance you are not going to do anything to change the situation
of the civil society. Other measures have to be taken to ensure that civil
society is strengthened. For example, there have to be measures that will
enable pluralism to flourish in
Q: Those who advocate
caution over a massive increase in humanitarian funding have been described as
"irresponsible," "lacking compassion" and "valuing
politics over human suffering." Do you have a comment?
ASSK: I think this is
a very, very sweeping statement, to say that simply because people advise
caution over something they are to be considered irresponsible, lacking in
compassion, etc, etc. I thought caution was something that every reactionary
rather approved of. Now, it's strange that reactionaries would be saying this
thing, that caution means irresponsibility. I think if people don't like what
you are doing then they will say you are irresponsible because you are doing
too much and then again, if they don't like the fact that you are doing too
little, they start saying you're irresponsible too. So, I think this is a very
subjective comment.
Q: Are those who want
to attach conditions to aid being too inflexible? Why?
ASSK: Too inflexible?
Not at all, because it depends very much on the conditions.
If the conditions are reasonable, then you cannot say that there is
inflexibility.
Q: Those who promote
increased humanitarian assistance in
ASSK: I think what I
would like to say is that
Q: The larger amounts
of aid being received by
ASSK: Not at all, it
depends on what the differences between
Q: What conditions
are necessary to ensure that humanitarian assistance to
ASSK: I've said this
ad nauseam: accountability, transparency and independent monitoring. Unless
there is accountability and transparency, you can never say what happens to all
that assistance. It may not go to help the people, on
the contrary, it may go into schemes that harm the people. So unless there is
accountability and transparency we cannot say that humanitarian aid is
assisting the people. Q: If you could speak to those who would make decisions
on increasing aid, or humanitarian assistance to
ASSK: What I would
like to say is the most important aspect of humanitarian assistance or any kind
of assistance is good governance. Unless there is good governance, you cannot
ensure that the assistance will really benefit the country. So, we cannot say
often enough that good governance is the answer to
Q: What type of aid
do you think is important to sustain at this stage?
ASSK: It is possible
that there are some forms of humanitarian aid that can be used properly at this
time because there's accountability and transparency and at the same time it is
possible that there some kinds of development aid which also fit the bill.
Q: What about
HIV/AIDS projects?
ASSK: There is a lot
of interest in HIV/AIDS projects and I think that's a good thing because
certainly we need to be very concerned about this problem. But I don't think we
should forget other problems because there is so much concentration on
HIV/AIDS.
Q: You have also
stressed that aid should directly benefit the people and bring about
democratisation. It has been claimed that trade and aid that increases the size
of the middle class will bring about democratic change,
therefore massive amounts of economic aid are needed for
ASSK: I don't think
that just because you create a middle class that you will bring about democratic
change. I don't think those two necessarily go together and I do not think that
you can claim that certain forms of economic measures will bring about
political reform automatically, political reform is political reform. I would
have thought that on the contrary, it is the right kind of political reform
that can promote economic reform.
Q: What are your
criteria to determine satisfactory community consultation and community participation. Would the assertion that "our door is
always open" or "they know where we are and they can talk to us when
we are on-site" constitute adequate community consultation?
ASSK: No, of course
not. In the community, the people of the community have to feel free to say
what they want to say [and] they have to feel free to go and see whom they want
to go and see. So unless there is that kind of freedom, freedom of association,
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, I do not think that you can say that it
is a satisfactory situation.
Q: Do you have an
ideal model of community participation?
ASSK: No, I don't
have an ideal model. I don't think you can talk about ideal models because one
community is quite different from another. The basic requirements, as I said,
are freedom of speech and freedom of association. Unless there are freedom of
speech and freedom of association I do not think that community participation
could be absolutely satisfactory.
Q: Should
consultation include ethnic nationality groups?
ASSK: I think
agencies should try and get in touch with everybody who is concerned with the
projects that they are trying to run. I don't think you can just say that,
"in this matter we will only consult ethnic nationalities," or in
"this matter we will not consult ethnic nationalities," it's very
much on the kind of project they are running. They have to consult whoever
would be affected by these projects.
Extracted from the ALTSEAN-Burma report “A Peace of Pie?
http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/peaceofpie.htm