Kin Oung is the author of the book Who Killed Aung San? He is the son of Tun Hla Oung, who was the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID Department, and who was credited with the rapid capture and arrest of U Saw and his men after the assassination of Gen Aung San, and the son-in-law of Justice Thaung Sein, who played a vital role in bringing the assassins to justice.
Kin Oung spoke to Kyaw Zwa Moe, managing editor of The Irrawaddy, just before 63rd Anniversary of Martyrs Day, which commemorates the anniversary of the assassination of nine heroes of Burma’s independence movement—including Aung San—on July 19, 1947, just six months before Burma regained its independence from Britain.
Aung San—the father of detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi—is considered the father of Burmese independence, and led the fight for colonial liberation from Britain, which had ruled Burma since 1885.
Question: Were the British thought to be involved in the assassination of Aung San?
Answer: Aung San wanted independence and wanted the Burmese to be wealthy. He also wanted the Burmese and ethnic nationals in hill areas to be united and friendly. Then some British companies got involved because it was important for them to stay on in Burma and for Burma not to gain its independence. Aung San's ideology was close to socialism and he gave some speeches about it and hinted that nationalization should take place for the sake of the Burmese people. But whether they [the British] had an intention to kill Gen. Aung San and his ministers is unclear.
Q: So Aung San could unite the whole country and seemed to be a left-wing leader who sympathized with socialism. Were these the two main factors that caused him to be assassinated? Were there other factors?
A: Among the British there were differing points of view. It's possible that some British companies financially supported the ambitious politicians who disliked Aung San. But British governments, first [Winston] Churchill's and then [Clement] Attlee's, were not able to provide such support. The government could not give openly, but the British companies could give clandestinely. They did provide financial support to U Saw [the rival of Aung San who plotted to kill him]. At that time, Maung Maung Gyi, the brother of U Saw was in London. U Saw would take as much as they were willing to give. And there was a black market after the war. At that time I was in Burma's navy and knew such things well. People tried to sell or trade everything they got—just like you see high-ranking officials of the current military government involved in the businesses of opium, jade and so on. In those days some smuggled in even small items such as flint. What I mean is people did business in whatever was accessible to them. As for British military officers, they had to send their weapons to Singapore because Burma was soon to be given independence. They also sold their machine guns, Tommy guns and other weapons. So U Saw bought them.
Q: Were Maj C.H.H Young, a British commander of No.1 BEME, and Maj Lance Dane, the core suppliers of weapons and ammunition? Some said Lance Dane was not a core supplier and U Saw got weapons from Young.
A: The police might have heard this from my father, who was deputy police commissioner at the time. But the military intelligence men detected these facts in many ways, and they became known by U Nu, U Kyaw Nyein and Aung San. They informed the British governor, but he did nothing. Many weapons had been lost.
Q: They informed the British governor after they received information that U Saw had obtained many weapons?
A: Yes, the governor was informed by my father’s department. They knew something would be happening due to the loss of weapons. At that time, U Nu and U Kyaw Nyein also received information that something was in the works.
Q: It was reported that Aung San was not actually assassinated by the weapons that Young supplied. Reports said other weapons were used to assassinate him and his colleagues.
E-MAIL
PRINT
COMMENTS (22)
