ADVERTISE | DONATION
Irrawaddy CONTACT US|FAQ
BURMESE VERSION | VIDEO





COMMENTARY
Whys and Suu Kyi
By KYAW ZWA MOE Friday, June 19, 2009


COMMENTS (11)
RECOMMEND (319)
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
 
MORE
E-MAIL
PRINT

Several “whys” woke me up this morning on the 64th birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi, who would wake up this morning to the sounds of prisoners’ iron shackles and the harsh shouts of wardens in the Insein Prison compound.

The first “why” was: Why have the powerful Burmese generals who control 400,000 soldiers detained Suu Kyi for more than 13 of the past 19 years?

The answer is simple. They are afraid of the 64-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner, who now represents democracy to people not only in Burma but around the world.

Though she has been mentally and physically held down by the junta since 1988 when she dedicated her life to restore democracy in Burma, Suu Kyi has proved how strong, resilient and durable she is. Recently, she has even become more threatening to the generals.

Why are they so afraid?

Basically, she represents the truth. “Truth is a powerful weapon,” she said once. “And truth—like anything that is powerful—can be frightening or reassuring, depending on which side you are on.” 

“If you’re on the side of truth, it’s very reassuring—you have its protection. But if you’re on the side of untruth—then it’s very frightening,” she said in the book The Voice of Hope, based mainly on interviews with her after her release from her first house arrest in 1995,

The junta is on the side of untruth. One of its big lies was the 1990 election, the results of which were simply discarded by the generals after Suu Kyi’s party, National League for Democracy, won by a landslide. The people gave her a huge mandate which, in the junta’s eyes, was something to fear. 

The generals broke their promise after the election to convene a people’s assembly and hand over power to the winner. Voters will never forget that lie.

Why is she so respected as a leader?

She has practiced what she believes even when dealing with one of the most cruel and cunning regimes in the world: “Honesty is the best policy.” To that, however, some detractors say, “She is saint, but not politician.”
 
Suu Kyi once said: “Political integrity means just plain honesty in politics. One of the most important things is never to deceive the people. Any politician who deceives the people either for the sake of his party or because he imagines it’s for the sake of people, is lacking in political integrity.”

Even after the brutal treatment of the past 21 years, she still applies that policy of “honesty,” and her dedication and conviction to restore democracy has never wavered.   

Her words have touched the Burmese people, and her actions have impressed them, proving to the people she is a true leader.

Why is she still relevant, even though she has been forced off-stage in terms of political activity?

Even during her trial, which was called “an absurd mockery of justice” by Britain Prime Minister Gordon Brown, she again raised the issue of national reconciliation which is the only way to bring about peaceful change in the country.
 
“There could be many opportunities for national reconciliation if all parties so wished,” she told diplomats she met in Insein Prison in May. “It was not too late for something good to come out of this unfortunate incident.” 

Obviously, what she said showed that she has been thinking of the development of the country. When she got an opportunity to make an important point, she used it.

She first began calling for dialogue soon after she became active in politics in 1988. The international community unanimously supports dialogue, but the junta is deaf.

Many people in Burma believe that she is the only capable and trustworthy leader who can deal with the generals in a national reconciliation process. Not only that, she is the best person to reconcile with the diverse ethnic groups and reform economic and development policies, and she is a leader who can deal with regional and world leaders.

The last “why” was: Why has the international community taken so long to obtain her freedom?

That is a big question. There are several factors, such as the world has never been united when it comes to a Burma policy. Also, in the past two decades, many world leaders have become inured to the phrase “Free Suu Kyi” and failed to take action.

Gordon Brown renewed the call for the world to act in his article on her birthday. He noted three points: “I have been struck by how Burma’s neighbors have led the world community in calling for Aung San Suu Kyi’s release.



1  |  2 



COMMENTS (11)
 
Please read our policy before you post comments. Click here
Name:
E-mail:   (Your e-mail will not be published.)
Comment:
You have characters left.
Word Verification: captcha Type the characters you see in the picture.
 

plan B Wrote:
29/06/2009
"Should we expect 'even more whys' from you? Why do you reckon you are the only person who asked these questions and presumably knows all the answers? The rest of us must be really thick, obtuse and obstinate. We are not worthy, O Wise and Compassionate One. But you already know that, don't you?"
Chalk one more up for another "useless sarcasm"!
Last time I counted it was in the 3 digits range. Keep it up.

planB Wrote:
26/06/2009
"Why do those on 'The Irrawaddy' forums continue to advocate ideas without even attempting to back up their talk?"
Consider this question as nonplus credit to Irrawaddy:
http://www2.irrawaddy.com/article.php?art_id=16186

Moe Aung Wrote:
25/06/2009
planB,

Should we expect 'even more whys' from you? Why do you reckon you are the only person who asked these questions and presumably knows all the answers? The rest of us must be really thick, obtuse and obstinate. We are not worthy, O Wise and Compassionate One. But you already know that, don't you?

planB Wrote:
25/06/2009
More whys:

Why is 'The Irrawaddy' not trying to bridge the gap between the SPDC and the opposition if it truly wish to promote dialogue/reconciliatiom?
Why do those who wish to end SPDC not wake up to the sobering truth that it is not going to happen soon?
WHy do exile group continue to advocate policies by their government, ie sanctions, that hurt the citizenry more than SPDC?
Why do the EU and USA continue with policies that hurtr the citizenry more than the SPDC?
WHy does the SPDC continue to behave the way they have?
Why do those on 'The Irrawaddy' forums continue to advocate ideas without even attempting to backing up their talk?
Why do people like Turnell, Steinberg, Buzzi and their ilk believe that they know Burma well without having visited the country?
Why does 'The Irrawaddy' continue to promote articles that put the SPDC in a bad light?

Moe Aung Wrote:
24/06/2009
planB,

Thanks for the best 101 yet. They don't need to be belittled by anyone, do they? They're doing that very well on their own. But no, we can't possibly dismiss them; they need to be dealt with.

I'm afraid little Johnny Junta is long overdue for serious disciplining, not just a clip around the ear. We can't just let him run amok, throw tantrums, and go on hurting people willy nilly forever. 'Discipline-flourishing democracy' needs to start with him.

planB Wrote:
23/06/2009
All the other why's that one needs to ask:
Why are the citizenry of Burma not up in arms/indignation against SPDC persecution of DASSK?
Why does every body like to portray the SPDC as less than a worthy opponent?
Why is 'The Irrawaddy' not suggesting solutions to bridging the divide between DASSK and SPDC?
Why is that only news that puts the SPDC in a negative light promoted?
Why do you think there will be anything other than a few possible outcomes from teh ongoing persecution of DASSK?
Why is the SPDC behaving the way it does with its trumped up charges and ongoing kangaroo court proceedings against DASSK?
Why does the EU and other related organization belittle the SPDC at every turn and expect the worst of the SPDC?
You know the answers.
Why are all of you still blowing empty instead of helping the citizenry individually, practically and uniquely?
You know the answer to that too.

planB Wrote:
23/06/2009
Burma is not N Korea yet, 101
1)Buddhism
2)Tourism.
3)No nuclear aspiration, still!
4)On going rebellions/potential rebellions.
5)No ambition to invade neighbor.
6)Still not as crafty as Kim Jong IL yet.
7)Will not be anyone's stooge, even China's. etc
"It's all wrong, isn't it? Such misunderstanding. So judgemental. The world's attitude should be 'my child right or wrong,' shouldn't it? Definitely no smacking."
Obviously, you have not turned over a new leaf. As far as attitudes of dismissal, belittling etc.
"Absolutely Sure?" No!
"If you do not succeed the first time try, try, try again."
That is exactly what you are doing for your 3S advocacy. So is DASSK for hers!
"I get the feeling only you can."
Bad assumption again. Maybe that is how you feel about yourself given past posted opinions.
"I guess all they are doing is attention seeking like a poor neglected child. Awwww!"
Who is the neglected child here? You and/or the SPDC!

Moe Aung Wrote:
22/06/2009
"No nation likes to be labeled an 'outpost of tyranny' and then be treated as such."

It's all wrong, isn't it? Such misunderstanding. So judgemental. The world's attitude should be 'my child right or wrong,' shouldn't it? Definitely no smacking.

"The SPDC is not N Korea or Iran yet."

You absolutely sure about that?

"Why have nobody from the west/Asean try to change the SPDC's mind?"

You absolutely sure about that too?
I get the feeling only you can. I guess all they are doing is attention seeking like a poor neglected child. Awwww!

planB Wrote:
21/06/2009
Excellent analysis through "WHYs".
The answer to the last why will remain elusive as long as the West continues to favor one side while absolutely continuing to castigate without exceptions regarding the other side.
Bridging the great divide that is becoming wider with the latest idiocy by the SPDC is a must.
No nation likes to be labeled an "outpost of tyranny" and then be treated as such.
The SPDC is not N Korea or Iran yet. Labeling the SPDC as such might just aspire them to be such.
Keep this status quo of SOS and find future Burma to be the true "outpost of tyranny".
Remember the one true consistent answer to all WHY questions is:
They can!
All "Why don't" questions can all similarly be answered:
They can afford not to!
Why have nobody from the west/Asean try to change the SPDC's mind?
Why do the SPDC and Shwe remain intransigent to the world's opinion?
Why are the UN and USA not trying to bridge this present great divide between DASSK and the SPDC?
You know the answer.




Moe Aung Wrote:
21/06/2009
Brown and Obama are as good as you get for Western leaders with regard to this kind of issue close to the hearts of the Burmese people. In comparison, Bush and Blair were shallow career politicians. It demonstrates to us the limits of diplomacy and the need for self-reliance.

The junta most certainly knows this reality, quite happy for people to carry on clamoring for help from the outside world, and so long as it doesn't face another challenge from unified and coordinated mass action, especially combined with a mutiny within its own ranks.

George Than Setkyar Heine Wrote:
20/06/2009
The NLD's landslide win in the 1990 elections signaled Daw Suu's clout, popularity and potential, ultimately compelling the generals to sideline her from the country's political picture out of awe and enmity.
At the same time, the NLD was targeted for obliteration but to no avail until today as it is shrewd, keeping out of harm's way.
Then Daw Suu was targeted for assassination at Depayn in 2003. The late Soe Win bungled the job and the Lady remained invincible until today.
Than Shwe will not let loose Daw Suu to lead Burma to rise to its relevant heights.
And China will make sure Than Shwe holds the reins of Burma until it can declare the country as a province of China, like the British did way back on New Year's Day, 1886, as a province of India.
Fear of China is what makes the UN and others keep away from Burma like the generals fearing Daw Suu, sidelining her out of the country's political process further.
And she will remain thus, until she hits the dust but it is simply unjust.

More Articles in This Section

bullet Sizing Up an Icon

bullet Fighting Corruption Begins at Home

bullet Future of Exiled Burmese Media

bullet How Much Freedom Does Burmese Media Enjoy?

bullet Five Days in Burma

bullet Turning Burma into Next Asian Tiger No Simple Task

bullet With Suu Kyi On Board, Is Burma Finally Moving Toward Real Change?

bullet The ‘Rule of Law’ in Burma

bullet New Doors are Opening in Burma

bullet A Good Beginning to the New Year






Thailand Hotels
Bangkok Hotels
China Hotels
India Hotels

Donations

Home |News |Regional |Business |Opinion |Multimedia |Special Feature |Interview |Magazine |Burmese Elections 2010 |Archives |Research
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group. All Rights Reserved.