UK.org.

Member comment.

 

31 August 2004

 

PICK UP OR SHIP OUT!

After catching up on all the incoming mail and news, I know why, UK.org, is supportive of the PDP, it is the only voice of Burma, which does not criticise, condemn, dehumanise, ridicule, and more importantly, ignore, any ideas or possible solutions aimed at giving all the people of Burma, including those forcedly conscripted soldiers, who are forced into persecuting their own people in order that they themselves may survive, a better life.  Instead, it listens and learns.

 

Just for interest, before I too am criticised, I am from Burma, and I do know the country, and I have just returned after 10 months of moving around the country.  I did meet SPDC soldiers, who quite clearly do not want to be seen as against their own people, but admit that they do take from outsiders to feed their own families, because, they receive no payment from the regime. 

 

As a Burmese with second generation British citizenship, having served as a soldier, I feel I am doing my bit by learning skills, which allow me to contribute positively, instead of just knocking down other  fellow countrymen when ever they are in disagreement, which achieves nothing.

During my trip, which I made under covert conditions, I too almost suffered terrible fates, some by my own mis-calculations, and at times from the very people I was travelling with, who constantly linked up with SPDC soldiers, but to my relief, were only trading, but even so these type of meetings appear to be common in many areas I visited.  We did not always greet soldiers, as on some occasions, we laid up in one spot for days, until the soldiers moved on.  This indicated to me, that those who are loyal and sympathetic to the people, are known amongst them, but people are always apprehensive, as agents are sure to be around as well, so they can pick out any non-loyal SPDC soldiers.  This instinct of recognising regime agents is a skill learned over 40 years, and most Burmese have acquired it purely through survival needs, and will hold them in good steed for any future uprising.

 

The people deep inside of Burma are oblivious to what is happening, other than hardship and pain, those on the borders are confused as to who is representing them, so I ask all people who consider themselves as patriotic, to stop fighting among yourselves, and try every conceivable avenue of hope, before attacking it. 

 

Edgar

A UK.org member

 

 

UK.org.

 

29 August 2004

 

SELF DESTRUCTING?

 

The variations of democracy, and the means to achieve it, spouting from different exiles and others, for example, are not necessarily their own views, but those of the country they may have studied, and now reside in, and have perhaps become influenced by it.  A natural process one would think?  What these minds fail to do, at least it appears so, is to read everything in relation to a given subject, in this case, the varying differences of democracy as we know it.  There are a number of ‘democracies’ in the world, some with a  longer history than others, some, no more than camouflage for dictators, not all are perfect, but no single, example, would work in Burma.

 

Any individual or group, with a strong craving for power, together with their own personal level of demands and expectations, arising from it, is the deciding factor of whether a state becomes a democracy or dictatorship. This is more in line with today’s Burma.  It is not so much which democracy in the world is best suited to Burma, but who, is most likely to move into the driving seat. 

Burma should, be searching for a leadership who is not so much seeking power, for personal gain, but instead, is searching for a means to transfer power away from the military, and to benefit all, which of course, can only be achieved with co-operation from the present SPDC.  No matter how hard it may be to accept, this is the only viable way forward.  No person, Burmese or otherwise, has ever, come up with any other solution, other than armed conflict.

 

Those who have sat around for 14 plus years, living a life of paid for comfort, waiting for the old to die in the hope the new will submit, are the ones who should leave the arena, to be replaced by those who are willing to become martyrs of a different sort, again, in Burma’s case, willing to discuss possible liaisons with the SPDC. 

Without committing to either, condemnation or commendation, if new angles are not forthcoming, then hope is gone forever, and hope is all that’s available at this point in time! 

Should the cease fire groups be criticised, or the KNU, who are now stepping forward to talk with the regime.  Is collaboration traitorous, nationalistic, foolish, wise, or simply commonsense?  Until a greater study is made, who has the right to condemn, more so, if it is not they who live under tyranny?  Sometimes solutions are found in the deepest of pits and in the thickest of slime, where only the brave would dare go?  After all, the antidote for a snake bite, does itself originate from the very snake that can kill, and that requires man himself, to seek out the snake, capture it without harm to him or others, and then milk the very poison the snake uses to kill, and then, to use as a defence against it!  Ironic or logic, deserves condemnation, or commendation?

It is said, that a starving man will turn on his fellow man and cannibalism, sooner than die an uncomfortable death.  Is this what is happening inside Burma’s pro-democracy, political arena?

  

Unless all angles are discussed in great detail, instead of receiving reactionary rejection without so much as an intelligent assessment, the pro-democracy groups will devour each other, without the help of the SPDC, who then, would be considered as agent provocateurs?

 

Those who are, or were, capable of leadership, have been either thrown into prison, passed away, or, have not as yet, made their mark! 

For example:

U Kyi Maung.  Why would such a man who gave so much, and had much more to offer, turn his back on something he has been standing for, for so long, as compared to ASSK for example, who is only a relatively recent player in terms history and/or as an active participant, and is only where she is, because of her birth right, and not blood and hardship?

 

Quotes: “A mild mannered U Kyi Maung resigned from the NLD Party in 1997 over a dispute that neither side would discuss. Why”?

 

“The former military colonel, who became a vice-chairman of the party after Aung San Suu Kyi was released after six years of house arrest, was responsible for drafting the party's economic strategy and a new constitution. However he later fell out with Aung San Suu Kyi over personal issues and dropped out of active national politics.  Why”?

End of quotes.

 

Although seen to support democracy from the platform of the PDP, we are recognised by many non-active Burmese, as neutral, and are not seen as a threat to them, whereas some of our mail indicates that threats are common to some Burmese who speak out. 

 

Questions we receive from Burmese people, who are fearful of putting them to any of the pro-democracy groups, including the PDP, I might add, indicating that there are indeed many who think very deeply as to the stagnation of the NLD, NCGUB, NCUB, and other activist groups, all of whom, have come up with absolutely nothing, in the way of solutions, and, is today, as put by some in our mailbox, ‘A monument of mammoth insignificance’!  For many reasons these people prefer to stay anonymous and we of course respect that.  Naturally we cannot confirm all who write these letters, others we can, and have on occasion, met with them at different locations around the world, and know their history.

 

Example question:

“Why is it, that from all the NLD victims of the SPDC, ASSK the only one not subjected to the harshness of prison, after all, her speeches could be judged as the most prolific due to the fact that the world will print what she say’s more so than someone like U Kyi Maung, so what is it what keeps her safe?   It is not world pressure that’s for sure”? 

 

“The only people benefiting from her being kept around, is the SPDC, so they would not want to harm her, as so many assume. To harm her would create a possible uprising, by holding her, but not subjecting her to harsher conditions, which most of her NLD colleagues have to suffer, they in consequence, hold down the people by their very own idolism of the lady”?    

  

“Why does she not leave Burma, as offered by the regime, and form a government in exile, which would gain more clout by touring the world, more so now, that her image has been bloated out of all proportion, and world attention is diminishing, than simply sitting around doing nothing?  Could it be possible, that she is being blackmailed, and U Kyi Maung knew why, but loyalty and pride to his country was more important to him, than denouncing ASSK for providing the regime with a weapon to hold her and Burma, to ransom”?   

 

Just some of the questions, we receive.  The authors of course, are not asking us, UK.org, we are only their voice, the questions, are put to the Burmese people and those activists, political parties etc, who place themselves high in the pulpit of political sermons, but who, as of yet, have come up with precisely, nothing.  When ever a new idea is suggested, which has been proven as neither, positive, or negative, all manner of condemnation is showered upon the donator!   How much of that condemnation is influenced by the SPDC, and how much is self destruction?

 

May U Kyi Maung, continue his next life in peace, and who knows, may offer a guiding light?

His family can stand proud! 

 

 

 UK.org,

 

UK.org

Member comment

 

09 August 2004

 

ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL?

 

No one in their right mind wants conflict, other than those who crave outright power, yet the masses still allow themselves to be manipulated into becoming weapons against their own people by these tyrannical minorities, and in many cases, even turn against their own families. It can of course be witnessed in many parts of the world, and has many contributing factors as to why the majority allows itself to be dictated to, and held in fear of, the few. Open and free debate is one answer of course, but in order to reach that stage pro-democracy elements must first learn to talk to each.  In Burma’s case, it is not constructive political debate, as those who preach democracy are turning on themselves like wild crows, and, without any help from the SPDC, and is precisely what they want.  This is what happens in the absence of firm leadership and a plan from which constructive action can be taken. 

 

Some voices constantly preach their classroom philosophy, not as educated opinions open to constructive discussion, but which, more often than not, is nothing less than repetitive chatter, with solutions to nothing.  Simply stating history and the obvious over and over again, and blaming others for Burma’s dilemma,  is not, and has shown itself, not to hold  any significant substance in today’s real world, if it did, Burma would by now, be celebrating a numbered anniversary of democracy, instead, it still lives under the vice like grip of the SPDC.  To even the most naïve and uneducated mind, this must surely give out clear messages?

 

“When someone finally does,  actually get off their arse, and physically does something, and, in full view of the world, and, explains his reasons and objectives, (irrelevant whether or not it’s considered as constructive by all the voices), they are instantly criticised and in some cases condemned, as irresponsible and ambitious. 

After witnessing the feedback to Dr. Zarni’s flying visit to Rangoon, there are clear indications shown, from the attacks made against him, fuelled by probable emotional jealousy, the true colours of those people who preach freedom and democracy.

Words are easy, daring actions take courage”! Instead of attacking Dr, Zarni, would it not be more constructive to sit down and talk with him, then, assess what he has collated, and then ‘listen’ to his opinions with mature intellect? 

If as some believe, he has ambitions, is it right to criticise him, there is after all, many exiles with ambition, we can read their opinions every day.  The only protruding factor with Dr, Zarni is, he done something other than just talk.  He shook the dragon by the throat, not knowing whether or not it would breathe fire, which of course it did.  The dragon however, was not in the guise of the SPDC, but the very people he is supposed to be allied to!

 

The people of Burma are on display to the world; their begging bowl is fast becoming boring because any donations are wasted on fruitless efforts of promoting a lost cause.  This man took it upon himself, accepting any and all tarnish it may bring upon him, to bring the game back into play. That is not the actions of a man with selfish ambition, that type of character only moves in directions where risk to their own well being is at a minimum if not absent, the selfish ambitious type would on the other hand, sacrifice others to achieve his goal.  Who did Dr, Zarni sacrifice?

 

The person who attempts, to break the circle, knowing it may destroy his credibility and possibly his life, is a person of extreme courage, There is today, only one other person within the pro-democracy elements, who through genuine love for his country which he places above all else, broke the circle, and from that act back in December 1997, converted the pro-democracy arena from one which operated in tightly closed ranks, where only a chosen few were permitted, this being the reason for political stalemate, into a free for all, open arena, where time has shown just how effective that brave act has become, as some groups and individuals, are now searching for new ideas without the fear of being branded a traitor against the NLD, whereas before, silence was in force, and personal opinions were never voiced.   

 

Show me and the Burmese people, just one other person who has in recent times, had the courage to break the circle were personal ambition is not the issue, but Burma is?  Before democracy can become a reality, multi-views must have a free hand, where the people can decide. If people are not willing to face obstacles head on, it is left to those who are brave enough to act albeit unconventional, or at least regarded as such by some. A leader is a person who can break away from the club, where all its members are trapped inside their own illusionary world dictated by selfish motivation.

 

To consider, and not hastily condemn, is wise leadership. In the same token, to enter the water without a life jacket is not only tempting fate, it is also a sign that you do not plan ahead!  The open abuse thrown at Dr, Zarni again reveals the blind alley’s others are constantly becoming trapped, and fear that ‘they’ may be considered irrelevant and forgotten?

 

Events create leaders, Leaders do not create events! 

 

Daren K.

A UK.org member.

 

UK.org.

2nd. August  2004


It would appear that, Htun Aung Gyaw, is now hot under the collar, because he may not have perceived the concept of our comment fully, which is certainly nothing to be ashamed of, as his English is of a standard he should be proud, but it requires much more to understand the full context of a sentence or phrase, as it would with any foreign language. We do not wish people to misinterpret our comments, no more than they would us, when translating Burmese into English.  

Let us bring this act of theatre to an end by referring to the first comment made by the honourable gentleman. The areas we believe to be prominent, we have highlighted.  We will explain ourselves further into the comment.


Subj: The Field that we have to Play 
Date: 28/07/2004 18:16:53 GMT Daylight Time
From: htun.gyaw@RCN.COM
To: MAYKHA-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU
Sent from the Internet (Details)

“The Field that we have to Play”

Burmese activists have been trying to make a strategy for
decades but their strategies only reflect what they dream
about themselves as heroes.  They never see the overall
situation of the political environment in Burma. Their
thoughts were blurred because of their egos, heroism, and
individualism (our view exactly)
Many activists like to compromise with the
regime and make a deal with them for getting democracy for
our mother land.  No one is willing to speak about guerrilla
warfare or arm struggle.  (Ditto)
Because of the 9/11 tragedy, a lot
of activists disassociate with arm struggle or urban
guerrilla warfare. They only dare to name themselves as non
violent activists.  (Relevant perhaps, but not entirely true)
I will argue in this article that
compromise with the enemy and reach our goal for democracy
is the desire one, but if there is no sign for compromise
from the other side; we have to choose the second option,
arm struggle or urban guerrilla warfare followed by the
international pressure.  If we want a true dialogue, we have
to create our own leverage. ( A big 'Ditto;)

Burma has been under military boots since March 2nd 1962 to
the present time.  We cannot get out from under the military
boots because we are tirelessly fighting each other.  More
over, so called pro-democracy leaders are acting like
dictators without discussion with their group or respect
their own members.  Individualism dominates over team work.
Egoism is the main weakness in our struggle.  Also lack of
passion and knowledge in politics are killing our movement. 
So call leading politicians only care about their salary and
are interested only in applying for grants and donations
from NGO's and western governments.  (Our sentiment exactly)

One exile Burmese leading politician said “we cannot ask the
money for arm struggle, they will not pay for that”.  He was
right; any government from the western world won’t give a
shit about arm struggle.  ( Ditto)
For that reason, many ABSDF
members and activists have switched their strategies as non
violent means for getting money from the western governments
and NGOs, even though they know that it is not working for
our country’s political environment. They are adopting non
violent means as a tool for survival not for democratic
change.  Most politicians do not care about the suffering of
people around the world; they only care about their
political ambition and trying to prove that they want
peaceful transition not war.  Western politicians are only
interesting in supporting the non violent struggle which is
the best colorful picture for them to show on stage, even
though thousands and millions of innocent people have been
slaughter by their repressive governments.  Some times we
have to make war to get peace; this is the reality for today
Burma.  (Ditto)

Why do we need to stage a war against Burmese military?
Because dialogue has been calling from every corner of the
world for democratic change in Burma. The US, EU, the UN,
NLD and ethnic minorities has been calling for dialogue, but
the regime never gives a shit about it.  Some activist
groups dreamt about a middle player or as a broker to settle
the dispute between two groups.  Before we start to
materialize this role we need to question ourselves, how
much political power you have to play this role? Do you have
any concrete foundation for that role? Are they willing to
compromise with the opposition?  ( Ditto)

If the answer is yes, it is meaningful to play this role but
if the answer is "No" do not dream about it, this kind of
action will not only harm you but it will harm our movement
as a whole to some extend. (Ditto)
UN special envoy Razali Ismail
has been trying to break the deadlock for years but he never
succeeds.  He has the full support from the UN, western
countries and ASEAN but he cannot do it.  The brutal action
in Depeyin massacre and broken promises made by the regime
proved that it has no will to compromise with the
opposition.  After 16 years under the current military
leadership, (Current title is all that changed, the type of leadership has not changed since 1962 ) the freedom to association, freedom to speak,
freedom to publish, freedom to organize, are still
prohibited which indicates that Burmese military regime has
no will to transfer political power and has no plan to
change Burma as a democratic country.  Are you still
thinking about military leaders having genuine desire for
democratic change? You should not be.  Every time when we
talk about compromise, the regime think we are weak and they
took the harder stand.  Now it is time to not talking about
compromise or dialogue.  (Ditto)
Compromise and dialogue are the
work for NLD party, which has been lead by 1991 Nobel Peace
Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, they have this role to play and
we have our own role to play. Our role is to broke down and
destroy every mechanism and tools of the regime which
oppress the people.  (Ditto)

For me, confrontation is the role we need to adopt and play
tirelessly until we reach our goal.  For NLD and political
parties inside Burma they need to play a softer role by
showing that they are humble, open minded and dedicated to
peaceful transition.  If we play as a negotiator or as an
apologist to the regime nothing will change.  As an exile
activist I have and we all have tremendously more freedom
than NLD.  We do not need to copy the NLD strategy; we have
to adopt the more aggressive role when we confront with the
regime.(Ditto)

Activists who interested in non violent struggle will
concentrate on international pressure by lobbying in the
congress, senate and western governments.  Activists who
interested in urban guerrilla warfare will find ways to do
it.  Both groups do not need to talk about compromise or
negotiation; if we set this rule for all of us, we can make
a difference.(Ditto)

Look at Iraq, more than 300,000 American troops are now
stationed in Iraq.  They have best weapons around the world,
technological wise, financial wise, moral wise they are far
beyond better than the Burmese military units.  Even though,
America is the strongest nation in the world and they fought
against the tyrant who tortured and killed thousands of its
own citizens, religious fanatics and their six century
ideology oppose the western ideology of democracy.  Even
though, Americans have a good intention to set up a
democratic system in Iraq, they are facing the extreme
resistance from the Iraqis radical groups.  Still American
soldiers are suffering from the day to day attack.  Most
Iraqis do not know the value of democratic system. (Not a compatible example)

Look at Burma, more than 300,000 Burmese troops are now
occupying Burma as the main terrorist group.  They rape and
killed innocent women and children, poorly equipped soldiers
robbed food and materials from villages, when the regime
lost the 1990 elections, they are morally down, ethically no
value at all.  Iraq has 25 million people, Burma has 50
million double than Iraq.  Burmese people are dying for
democracy and they proved that in 1990 elections.  Our
people know the democratic value but the Iraqis do not. 
Within the 25 million Iraqi, a few radical groups manage to
fight back the world strongest army, why not we Burmese
resistance groups can fight back the morally cripple Burmese
regime?  Think about it? Every thing is possible and we have
to do it hard. (Ditto, but close co-ordination or unification only, with other units, will bring results.  A confused battlefield only brings disaster)

When I was elected as the Chairman of All Burma Students'
Democratic Front (ABSDF) I gave an acceptance speech to the
audience.  I said, “Now we formed the umbrella students'
organization for democratic change, when the western world
heard about it, they will support our arm struggle, with the
help from the democratic countries, we will toppled down the
military regime".  But I was dead wrong, western world is
not interested in helping us for the revolution as I said
early.  We have to do it by ourselves by believing ourselves
for change; do not expect the help from other countries. 
The strength is within the country and we have to find the
way how to use it. (Ditto)

This is my own opinion for the good for our country and I
have nothing to do with personal bashing to anyone. ( Accepted)


Sir,
Your understanding of comments made by Uk.org, is quite obviously confusing your emotions.  I will outline one more time, this being the last time, with the hope for your sake, more than ours, that you grasp the true meaning of the words.  It would appear that all infomation passed in last comments have been completely overlooked, or not understood.

1. No person or group, is patronising, disrespecting, or otherwise, you, the ABSDF, or ANYONE ELSE!  If you are not able to comprehend what is written we can only apologise for the English language.  Every other reader grasped its meaning except you, are you simply looking for attention, because debate, it is not!  That was a rhetorical question.

2.  The PDP is NOT,  repeat, not UK.org, or, visa-versa.  We are both completely separate entities., with no cross influences what so ever, which we explained perfectly well.

3.  If you want to check names of comments if not signed, then simply click details on your message box where it will give you all relevant information, and do not dare to attack us with your assumptions.

4.  The PDP or its chairman has not in our memory, used antagonistic language to anyone inside, or outside of Burma, other than perhaps, the SPDC.  You are obviously completely unaware of what is going on. 

We think you owe Bo Aung Din an apology.   We on the other hand don't really care for one.

Any future contact from you will be ignored.

UK.org.

Click details!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!