COMMENTS (0)

RECOMMEND (165)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

Question: It was written in Thailand’s Nation newspaper that young army officers could make changes to the bigger political situation in Burma. What sort of response have you heard from people inside the country? What is your analysis? Answer: Here people aren’t hoping for anything unusual and they don’t talk about it much either. It’s only people outside the country that say these things, especially Westerners who don’t know much about Burma and are always hoping for change. The media outside Burma always focus on rumors of change, however, the majority of Burmese people—especially those who know Burma and the Burmese military well—do not have much hope. Unlike the armies of other countries, the Burma Army has been built with one blood, one voice and one order. Soldiers have been trained to follow exact orders. Burmese people know and believe that it’s impossible for the army to disintegrate. People in today’s Burma Army might have disagreements, but they rarely express their views and argue about these things or discuss them. That’s why I strongly believe that at present they will never attack each other or split because of ideological differences. Q: In the Philippines, General Ramos stood by democratic forces to the end. In 1974, when an order to shoot students protesting in Thailand, some Thai generals disobeyed orders. So, people are thinking and writing that there should be heroes from the army in the Burmese democracy movement as well. Do you think there’s a possibility that there are some army generals who like democracy? A: I don’t think so. Not only is the Burmese army different from those in the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand but also from those in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. The structure and their training methods are different. In the Philippines and Indonesia, during the periods of Marcos and Suharto, and under Thanom Kittikajorn in Thailand, military authoritarianism was used. But within the armed forces, there was still freedom to criticize, discuss and express ideas to some extent. There was also competition among officers, which doesn’t exist in the Burma Army. Another unusual characteristic of the Burma Army is that the army is the only institution which guarantees the future of urban and rural youth. Working for other offices and departments don’t give the same guarantee for one’s livelihood. Once you joined the army, you don’t have to worry about food or shelter—you get regular meals and you don’t have to worry about buying a house. So it’s not practical to hope that people will leave the army like soldiers did in the Philippines or Indonesia. Today, I strongly believe that the Burma Army is never going to disintegrate that way. Q: Diplomats and foreign correspondents point to pressure on the generals from inside and outside the country since the ambush in Depayin. Sanctions must be leading to disagreements among the army’s top leaders. Outside Burma, people suggest this may be causing factions to develop. A: There have been incidents more serious than Depayin and nothing happened. Another thing is that if we look back at the history of the army, Gen Kyaw Zaw was well-loved, trusted and relied upon by people in the army as well as the general public. But when the military took action against him and removed him, people within the army and the general public hoped there would be internal conflict. But nothing happened. No one stood by Gen Kyaw Zaw and spoke up for him—everyone was quiet. After Gen Kyaw Zaw, there was Gen Aung Shwe and Col Maung Maung from the stable faction [of the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League] that took action against the socialist group. People hoped that there would be disintegration in the army at that time. After 1962, when Gen Aung Gyi was fired, the army remained the same. Nothing happened. Not a single movement. After Gen Aung Gyi was fired, the same thing happened to General Tin Pe. Then U San Yu. The last one was Tin Oo, the NLD [National League of Democracy] Vice President. Like Gen Kyaw Zaw, he proclaimed himself as "the general of the soldiers" and the soldiers loved him very much. When he was fired, nobody stood up to object. No one broke ranks. I feel that the same thing’s going to happen in the future. They might remove one person—for instance, like Gen Saw Maung, Gen Than Shwe, Gen Maung Aye or Gen Khin Nyunt—but this army and the structure and practice will continue. Q: In the past, there was more democracy within the army, is that right? A: In previous eras in the military, there was something called durbar [a meeting] of offices from military units and battalions. In battalions, there were regular meetings and functions where all the battalion commanders right down to soldiers had to attend to discuss things. This took place from the very beginning and soldiers were able to talk freely.