UK.org.
Member Comment
14 October 2003
ULTIMATE RESPONCIBILITY?
After reading comments from 'Kanbawza Win', "will the Twain ever meet?"
I found most points, made interesting reading, but are already known facts,
as the author is obviously aware, but many people inside Burma are not.
The message as I read it, was a reminder to those outside of the country, in
the hope it will guide them to more inter active and productive debate?
It's the solution to the problem, which should take up the time of all the present
day appointed, and self appointed groups, and not the constant debates on the
cause of the problem, as that is well known, and the continuous catalogue of
repetitive demands which all these people seem to discuss, has fast become monotonous,
apart from falling on deaf ears, even the wording does not change in order to
perhaps make an old story sound a little more competitive, and perhaps indicate
that some effort was put into its construction?
I am an old man now, I fought in North Africa, and then in Burma, Malaya and
Korea and then onto Borneo, with a few skirmishes in-between, I learned not
to make friends because chances were it wouldn't last, I don't know why I was
allowed to survive after witnessing so much carnage, but I did, and all my civilian
life, I have tried to repay god's grace, and have worked in human rights areas
in one form or another ever since. At 86, I wonder why the world is still,
at war with itself, after it has witnessed every conceivable means of annihilation
known to mans corrupt and perverted mind, from 1914 through to the present
day? I wonder today, if my survival was really a punishment for some misdeed
I may have inadvertently committed, because watching the world burn has been
a terrible burden on my life.
It takes just one match to burn down a forest, but an army to distinguish it.
Even though the destruction of the forest is inevitable, the trees will grow
again over time, but we will never prevent matches being manufactured which
threaten the new! Like fires, war and conflict is started by a minority
of tyrants, who then manipulate the weak and ignorant to do their dirty deeds,
just as the trees are fixed on the spot so cannot escape the flames, these vulnerable
soles become slaves, less they burn where they stand. So, what can we do?
I like to think that all those comrades I lost in those years of war, meant
something worth while, when I see young people having fun, even if they are
a bit rowdy and perhaps totally ignorant of how that freedom was won, I wonder
if those who died by my side and in my arms, would have thought their death
worth while? Today, I don't think so! They would be turning in their graves
with utter content for those people who profess to be our leaders, who have
failed miserably to educate the people sufficiently, to recognise the dangers
of matches, and more so, of those who strike them, with intent to cause fires,
and to supply adequate means to quell them before they start their misdeeds.
I refer back to points made by Kanbawza Win, and, as it happens, by a number
of others, but in my words, the solution begins only when all concerned have
the same game plan in their minds, but for that to be conceived, all concerned
have to be sitting at the same table? The fire-fighters, who greatly out
number the arsonist, must not only be able to hold down and restrict the arsonist
in a preventative fashion, but must also be capable of combating him if he escapes
to light his fire. If that cannot be achieved because of inconceivable
differences, then the battle is lost before it begins, and there will never
be a united Burma in any form? This is how many foreign observers, and
I don't just mean media moguls, see the situation today, and why all focus was
and is still, trimmed around Aung San Suu Kyi, even though there are other eligible
candidates. This world figure image did not simply appear over night, but was
part of a carefully constructed plan to create a centre core for Burma's political
entities to rally around, because without a core holding the mass together,
things would never change in Burma. This 'core' like the sun, unfortunately,
has been completely misinterpreted, perhaps even abused, by those involved,
because instead of being the magnet in which to draw in and then hold in a disciplined
orbit, it has become a platform, for egotists and dreamers, and has actually
repelled the very units it was designed to attract. This setback stems
not from misinterpretation or inadequacies conceived from inside Burma, but
from those outside who supposedly were acting on behalf of those locked inside.
Aung San Suu Kyi, and senior figures of the NLD, are tightly controlled by the
SPDC, and only have one weapon, that of peaceful intimidation. It was
up to those outside, all of whom use ASSK's name as their own ticket to fame,
and in some case's, fortune, to play their part in bringing about some form
of a plan. As it has been said many times, because certain ethnic nations
are visualising, only what is good for them, at least in appearance, it prevents
unity over a common cause. But is it that? Could it be that the Burman
section of society, or a small minority of them, would prefer seniority over
issues, and is actually their 'closed shop' tendencies which prevent a unified
front? ASSK, as quoted by others, has repeatedly stated that all sections
of society are to be included in any genuine talks with the SPDC?
Now, I can only refer to information at my disposal, and no doubt I will be
corrected if I voice a wrong assessment, but over the years, the NCGUB for example,
has acted as the government in exile, where the appointed 'prime minister' is
not a member of the NLD, at least not at the time of elections, is a blood
relative of ASSK, has been in dispute with her on numerous occasions, some personal
and some political, and is an avid opponent to any ethnic participation of any
kind? Surely for any government in exile, under the pretence of being
a coalition, would be chaired by a member of the 'elected party', noticeably
a cabinet minister, and in the absence of its senior figures, due to preventive
measures, in its homeland, an ambassador with port folio, would be nominated
as head of a coalition abroad? I have read numerous critical remarks made
against the NCGUB, but hear of no moves to quiz its chairman, which could be
done by selecting a non-aligned committee of qualified exiles, which should
have equal representation. All democracies have these committees, and
'elected' representatives of the people are answerable to them. Being
in 'exile' does not exclude the NCGUB from scutinty. Ultimate responsibility
for the present lack of incentives sits firmly on the shoulders of this 'exiled
government'!
I would expect, the NLD, with most of its senior figures prevented from operating,
being dependant on its exiled subordinates to co-ordinate proceedings to an
advantage, because as pointed out, they are residing in free societies where
they can speak out, and seek guidance if required from foreign agencies, they
have various financial packages laid before them, and still no positive plans
are in motion? With all the tools and facilities at their disposal, the
NCGUB, is still no further forward. Has ASSK's incarceration all been
in vain, or is there a plot amiss?
Even if one of the problems is caused by the different groups walking their
own road, it is still the ultimate responsibility of the NCGUB to work hard
toward bringing them together by what ever means. It is the NCGUB
who has funds at its disposal, so it is it, which should be hosting conventions
where 'all' can be heard. Conventions of a small and exclusive membership
shows only contempt, for those not in the club. It should stop exhibiting itself
among various western establishments with a feeling of self importance, and
mingle more with the Burmese abroad, to form what could be a powerful union
of intellect, experience, wisdom, finance, plus many more attributes.
I read of a meeting in America 'Indiana' I believe, where a convention took
place, and Sein Win attended. It appears to me, that over the past years
since its formation, the NCGUB has acted the important guest by invitation,
and on no occasion has ever come up with a plausible plan of any kind, instead
the same old story about how support around the world is growing, and things
will improve. The NCGUB, could perhaps put out a world wide invitation
to all those Burmese who believe they can contribute toward a drawing up a start
line?
The people inside Burma have been let down badly, including those NLD members
who are in prison or restricted from operating by other means. Just as the NLD
was looked upon as a life line, for those people inside Burma, the NCGUB, was
formed to offer the same to those outside, and to utilise all facilities at
its disposal to work toward a solution, and the first part of that solution
should have been to work very closely with those who are also working for those
locked inside, but do not have the political clout or publicity of the NCGUB!
Personally I believe, and I understand that I am merely an observer, that the
NLD needs to clean sweep its overseas operations, because if I was from Burma,
and I had at my disposal, all the information available, I would not hesitate
to look elsewhere for representation of my concerns.
An old man who still worries, signing off.
Cecil.
UK.org
Member.
UK.org.
Collective Comment
11th. October 2003
DEAF TO THE TRUTH & BLIND TO LOGIC?
Politics is a game for party goers, because one person needs others to fulfil
their game plan. The SPDC for example, everyone, among the top leadership
is both suspicious and fearful of the others, they need each other, and they
feed from each others poisonous minds, even so, that will not stop each individual
from building up their own personal security net through bribery and corruption,
and of course fear! This continues on down the chain of command, until
no one knows who they can and who they cannot trust, and it is this, which keeps
any despot regime alive! Corrupt that chain and you will watch it implode.
A master is only a master if, there is an abundance of willing slaves, and the
NLD has become a slave to its own public relations, along with ASSK. Reality
no longer has any bearing on the NLD's course; their voluptuous PR strikes them
deaf to the truth, and blinds them of logic, including those who have become
entombed in the same vacuum of public relations hype.
Some say, that by criticising Suu Kyi, only burdens the chances of dialogue
with the SPDC, but then again, there are those who believe her, to be the barrier
preventing dialogue, and everyone has the right to an opinion?
Placing a question mark by each of these opinions only goes to prove that more
debate should be undertaken internally within the NLD, and between other pro-democracy
parties, because after all, it is their country too. The 'NLD' who appears
to be going to great lengths to avoid such debate, to which, is drawing much
criticism, are defiantly stating, metaphorically speaking; <"we won
the election, which means we take all the glory">, which seems to have become
an arrogant trademark of the 'NLD'? Does that mean the failures will also
be accepted, when it comes to writing history?
No one is trying to derail advancement, by being critical, as some voices suggest,
the ordinary people of Burma avoid commenting on issues that concern them, so
we do it for them, until such time as they are able to front issues first hand.
Its answers which are lacking, so people have no choice but to come to their
own conclusions, why else is the membership of the PDP growing so rapidly?
Some voices call for every group to support the NLD, as it is the only way to
democracy. What do these people think has been happening for the past
13 years, and too what end?
Depending on how a person looks at it, the people of Burma are in a state of
war between themselves, and war can only be fought with coalitions,
(Political parties must act in their own right, & not as subsidiaries to
the NLD) as with its full meaning, 'coalition', in that, it is only a temporary
commitment. Beat the enemy then restore the status quo, until further
change is called for. The façade has faded from the NLD; it has now become a
charade, which many have become bored. Show the regime a coalition table
with multiple flags, and it will have to think seriously about its own future!
In every democracy, parties change their leaders if considered a public liability
or is inadequately qualified for the job. If the NLD has not seriously considered
this, then they are not politically mature or competent to run a country.
There is no doubt, that fear is in their hearts, brought on by the public backlash
if they replace Suu Kyi, this is the fault of the icon image, the world has
created, so now the people, are blind and deaf to reality, and are living in
a fantasy world of miracles. This also places the 'icon' in a tough position
as well, because it will make her over cautious, as one mistake will destroy
the image of; metaphorically speaking, "I can do no wrong". This in itself,
is a risk no political party should consider taking if it wished to continue
in politics. We are talking about a country of 50 plus million, does a very
small minority of diehards allow for continuous suffering of the millions, just
because they cannot see what is happening?
Another myth, in the form of questions put to us, is the idea that ethnics
are well represented is a false picture, because those who sit at the table,
although from ethnic groups, are individual 'NLD' members, used to give the
impression that the 'NLD' is a party for all, but in fact, do not speak for
the majority of the ethnic population, who, under their own national identity,
are not involved, and indeed are not recognised, as separate political entities
within Burma's national boundaries, at least, that's how we see it, but we are
after all, only observers, with eyes and ears, so too are many Burmese
people who live abroad, so, why do they get the same picture?
Is there not the risk of distorting the principles of fighting for a democracy
in time of conflict with a governing despot regime, by focusing on one ideal,
and only one solution, that of the 'NLD'? Which is now seen by many disgruntled
people in Burma, and outside, as defunct? A fact, which seems to be ignored
also, by western media outlets, although this is possibly due to tunnel vision
reports or simply because, without ASSK there is no news, and it must be remembered
that she was only made popular from the Nobel prize, but this in its self is
not cause enough to allow the country to continue on its present course,
and her stand against the regime is still very much in the minuscule market
when in comparison to some pro-democracy leaders, and their followers, of all
persuasions, who have made immense sacrifices for their country.
No one is denying the overall principles of the 'NLD' indeed they're accepted
by most of the pro-democracy groups, as shown by the unconditional support given
in the run up to the elections and thereafter, *and at great expense to some
historical political figures who willingly retired into the shadows allowing
the 'NLD' or should we say, 'Suu Kyi, to a free reign.*
The 'NLD' did not simply appear on the scene from nowhere, climbing to its apex
of popularity by chance. Without the support of many political figures,
including the ethnic population, *where circumstances could have been very different.
Had they pursued their armed struggle more intensely,* the 'NLD' could not have
cleared the first hurdle.
*Had the ethnic armed struggle, the Karen, (KNU) for example, been intensified,
using tactics befitting the conflict, which they were learning about fast, back
in the 80's, and ignoring the call to support later elections, then today's
story could have been very different, however, because they allowed themselves
to be duped into a false sense of security, by supporting the 'NLD', the lull
in 'KNU' activity was quickly taken advantage of by the regime, and slowly over
the years the 'KNU' lost the initiative, which in turn caused splits within
the 'KNU' and in consequence to that, much of its ground as well?
A high price to pay for loyalty and zero results one would think?
What sensible person would continue to places bets on a three legged horse we
ask?
Had 'U Nu' as Burma's elected prime minister, 'not' included ethnic sympathies
in his policies, during his time of office, he may very well have continued
in government, with the military in full support. But he wanted to create
an equal society with the ethnic nations, and this cost him his government.
Is this the view of the NLD? Does the party, or ASSK, 'not' intend
making the same error of judgment as it is recognised, and seeks to pacify the
regime into believing that its first duty is to the Burman community, then and
only then, will the ethnic solution be debated? This sounds feasible,
#but does not answer the question of why it is taking so long#? (# this being
a serious question#)
The other feasibility being, the NLD will only deal, if the ethnics 'are' included
in any debate, which could be a logical answer for the present stalemate?
If the second is true, then more emphasis should be placed on a tight coalition
of actual ethnic political parties, and not simply the NLD members, who happen
to be ethnic nationals!
Many outside observers, who quite rightly acknowledged the 1990 elections, saw
the 'NLD' as a major break through in bringing Burma into a democracy.
The vast majority however, are not, and have never been aware of Burma's political
history going backwards from 1990, and believe the 1990 elections to be the
first in Burma, making them completely unaware that an already elected, and
then ousted government, was lying dormant. To these people, Burma only
began its fight after 8/8/88, when in fact this event was no more than a bloody
continuation, which happen to be highlighted by the outside world. Most of Burma's
present situation has only been brought to the surface by human rights organisations
and by the continuous plugging of individuals. But, fate also gave
Burma the perfect public relations (PR) rouse, in the image of 'Aung San Suu
Kyi'. With her fathers name, colourful background and privileged life
style, it added to her influential credibility, which every western politician
craves for, to which the outside world expanded on. This was the sole
reason that every other 'political figure' in Burma, stood down. They
believed by having the world on their side, the regime would collapse. Burma,
in its excitement of having one of their own, as a world figure, fell into line
behind her, fully aware the right qualities needed to take on the regime would
be absent, but justified, because it was firmly believed that world support,
now recognised as superficial, together with her presence alone, would intimidate
the regime into submission. The political studies undertaken by 'Suu Kyi'
were far from being compatible to the leadership qualities required, which could
only possibly come from someone with a hands on experience gained from years
of personal involvement, and not someone who spent a life time in another world.
This was evident within a short time period, but has been allowed to continue
up to the present day. 'Nelson Mandela', who we respect for our own reasons,
because of his beliefs was incarcerated for many years, where the word 'institutionalised'
must come to mind, and who many seem to associate ASSK with, was placed on the
platform as a figure head to quell the storm, he had no political prowess when
pitted against formidable opponents, but he too shouldered the cloak of public
relation hype, he played the icon role well, and stood down when real politics
was called for. If the NLD wish to reach the table, it must consider other
routes, and brave any criticism thrown at it. Heavy sacrifices must be braved
if Burma is to ever live in a free society, it must honour those thousands who
suffered pain and death in the past, or else their sacrifice was all in vain.
It does not matter who leads, so long as that person holds all the right credentials
and is not solely a figure head of no consequence.
The person holding all the right qualities, along with impressive credentials
had placed himself as a loyal subordinate to the cause, he too believed in the
NLD. This loyalty prevented him from stepping around those he respected
but did not always agree with and to stand by his convictions, until that is,
a few years ago, when he could no longer sit back and watch Burma sink deeper
into the pit.
The people of Burma are renowned for their patience, and 13 years of political
stagnation, although the persecution continues, must be a monumental show of
patience, which finally reached its conclusion and the true situation was confronted
by an individual who has devoted his whole life in bringing about freedom for
the people of Burma, where his loyalty, it was concluded, was to the people
of Burma, and not to individuals. It was therefore time to break the deadlock.
A whole new political spectrum was about to begin in the form of the 'Parliamentary
Democracy Party' (PDP-Burma) with its heritage stemming from Prime Minister
'U Nu's party. This time 'Bo Aung Din' was about to transform its image
and it's following, once he was elected as its new chairman.
This was a few years ago, and still, both the 'NLD' and the world, ignore the
fact, that the 'NLD' has major leadership problems, who themselves, refuse to
ignore the fact that the SPDC will never commit anything to Suu Kyi, but might
be willing to work with someone else?
The other more noticeable fact, is the use of the arrogant blind eye technique,
applied by the NLD, to ignore the presence of the only sustainable political
opposition party, which holds all the credentials of a well founded party which
to many hold preference to that of the 'NLD', because it has now become a formidable
political opponent, not only to the SPDC, but it appears the NLD as well, and
by putting itself forward, has given Burma what it asked for, and that is a
multi-party system, which without, is a mockery of democracy. The 'PDP'
is not an enemy of the 'NLD' simply a part of the system it wants to create
for Burma. The 'NLD' was awarded loyalty from the 'PDP' in the deepest
sense of the word, and it was abused, as a result, the PDP of today, wants to
give the people of Burma the opportunity to follow a different path to democracy.
The end result is the same, but the route may differ. Its time to give
the people a choice, after already allowing the 'NLD' over a decade of their
support.
UK.org.
Collective Comment
NOTE:
To those who contact UK. Org. We will always be open to your comments
and questions, and will answer to all, but we can only voice our opinions, therefore
we suggest as we always do, for people to contact those who consider themselves
as Burma's future. We will continue to relay letters & comments from various
internet postings, using the e-mail address's used to contact us by those who
utilise Internet café's, therefore do not have access to them, this will allow
you to contact the authors of any comments which interest you, if desired.
Everyone has the details of the NLD, PDP, NCGUB, NCUB, DAB, and CRDB.
Some are dormant, or purely for appearance sake, there are other newly formed
groups, but the main communication should be made with the NLD or the PDP, we
use this order of merit because all other groups are satellites of the NLD,
therefore are nothing more than extension lines, whereas, the PDP is completely
independent of any influence which may otherwise interfere with genuine answers
to your questions, as many have already found out..
More & more questions are put to UK.org, as to the competence of the 'NLD'
leadership, we can only reply by suggesting that these questions be put it to
the NLD by you. Do not be afraid of intimidation, if that does arise,
let us know, and we will splash it all over the world.
A soldier walks into battle knowing he may die, but his courage and his comrades
work together in building self strength to make that walk, and many, if not
all, will win through! If it is a battle to save others, and 'not' to
suppress them, then no matter how long the walk, or how perilous it may be,
a soldier must not hold back, but join minds with his comrades, and take the
walk together!
We will not publish comments openly, if requested not to; indeed we will destroy
them if asked, as some already have. But we thank everyone, for all the
information, even the abusive, because it reveals both sides of the coin, and
makes life easier for our analysts. We will add however, when, as an ordinary
person, you are confident enough to confront a political party which says it
represents you, and you speak your mind, and ask direct questions without fear
of intimidation, and then you are on your way to a free society.
Good luck.
For information relating to the 'PDP'. Mailto: emlmpdp@aol.com / / ukorgburma@aol.com
// Ukorg@aol.com
UK.org
Member comment.
02 October 2003
PRO? - ANTI?
Criticism, is a process of democracy, and is not related to that of insulting
an individual. To point out personal political qualities or inadequacies,
is an opinion based on observations of both, achievements, or failures, and
is neither an accolade on the first part, nor an attack on the second, and
an individuals personal character has no bearing what so ever. If that
cannot be accepted by those who want to influence politics, then democracy
will never reach Burma, just it has failed to reach many other nations, for
similar reasons.
No person or institution can live in the past, and expect the present to adhere
to it.
The same reflects on the present in relation to the future. Hence, we
live for the day, and can only anticipate tomorrow, by learning from the past,
and studying our actions today.
The hard facts facing Burma have been outlined many times by UK.org. Facts
which all parties, (providing the same result is called for) have to consider.
Society today, no matter where in the world, comprises of a multitude of decisions
which have to be made by someone. It's those decisions which decide
the fate of billions of people. Many of those decisions will be met with conflict,
others will be met with gratitude, and there are those who accept any decision.
Societies are made up of all three. Alas, in some of those societies,
unless you fall in line with one particular ideal, you are automatically labelled
as; "Anti". Being 'anti', in a country ruled by despots, would
normally mean prison or a death warrant, but being anti, in a democracy, simply
means that you belong to the political party of your choice! When Uk.org,
or its members, comment on the NLD for example, they do so in a political
sense, and not as an enemy, as some of the more immature minds, seem to believe,
and each comment is an opinion, based on intelligence gathered by our own
people who move about all over South East Asia in many different roles.
Some letters to us go as far as asking, if we have people actually inside
the regimes infrastructure, well, we could hardly acknowledge or deny such
information could we.
For many years motivation (not to be confused with immature fanaticism) was
absent in Burma, it appeared briefly after the 1990 election, although that
could have been associated with a sense of utopia after the election.
Unfortunately, it soon sunk to an all time low, after a period of 'non-happenings'.
Once ASSK was interned, all motives were 'emotionally' directed toward her
release, and none was levelled at concentrating on political solutions, exactly
what the SPDC would have planned.
When UK.org, or its members, comment on the inadequacies of the NLD, and the
control over it, as being held by the SPDC, we do so, from a political stage,
because certain cultural instincts among the Burmese people, appear, "as seen
through western eyes", to prevent them, from publicly speaking their minds,
in fear of being rebuked as dis-loyal, when in truth it is voices like those
of this fellow 'Aung Aung', who tries to discredit anyone who speaks their
mind, which happens to be critical of ASSK or the NLD, and it is these people
who are the real threat toward democracy, and, they are playing right into
the hands of the SPDC, and all because of their personal craving for recognition.
This person 'Aung Aung' actually insults senior figures in the PDP.
The people he refers to were living like animals in the jungle fighting a
bloody conflict, before he & his friends were born. These men and women
who have suffered years of hardship and agony, losing their families to the
jungle and decease, and all to try and give a future, to later generations
like Mr. 'Aung Aung'. Well, Mr. Aung Aung, for one thing, we are lucky,
that we can, and do, speak our minds if we feel it needs to be said, and we
welcome constructive criticism, but we will fight insults. You do not
hold the credentials to even sit at the same table as these people or feast
on their waste, and you certainly are naïve if you believe that you are capable
of taking on the vast intellect, knowledge and experience of the PDP, or indeed,
UK.org. for that matter. It is not for these worthy people to explain
who they are to you, but for you to research the history of the country, you
are supposed to love, so that you know who to thank for keeping up the struggle
for so many years at such great cost too themselves.
We ask Mr Aung Aung, how many years he spent in the jungle, living on one
bowl of rice a day, if he were lucky, never sleeping at the same location
every night in case of ambush. How many times has he fought in a fire fight
with regime troops, how many times has he watched while his family and close
friends die from decease or wounds because they could not get the medical
aid they needed? We ask these questions, because anyone who has lived through
all of this, and come out of it, would be of strong, and of sound, but saddened
character, and would not raise their voice in childish bravado, and insult
the very people they should be offering respect too. We ourselves, are
a very placid group, who help many thousands of people around the world, sometimes
at great risk to our selves, but anyone who labels us as anti-democratic,
or accuses us as being wilful, will find that we can also, spit venom in such
a way, that it will be incomprehensible for their mind to even imagine.
There is no place on this planet that we cannot reach, so if it's a subject
such as accusations of us of being pro-SPDC, then those accuses had better
be prepared to take on a giant who can lose his scruples at a drop of a hat.
You see, we not only defend democracy, we will also fight, to allow others
the freedom of constructive speech that it gives!
It is people like this 'Aung Aung' if indeed that his real name, which prevents
progress. These people do not hold the qualities or courage, that people
like 'Bo Aung Din' for example, and most of his central committee, who earned
their place with blood, and who know for example, what Mai Hong Son, and Mai
Sot, in Thailand was like when they were little more than hides in the jungle,
and how men and their families cleared away the jungle with their bear hands,
little food, and fearful of attack, today they are thriving towns and comparatively
safe havens for those fearful Burmese who flee to Thailand. There were
many who perished during those extremely tough times, but fight on, they did.
People who live in these towns now, have no idea just how much they owe to
those people. These are the ones who have been fighting for decades,
and have blooded their hands many times, and braved the risks and dangers
and extreme hardship. Unlike some Burmese individuals, who feed off
the blood of such people, themselves having never ever held a gun, or hidden
in the jungle frightened and alone, not knowing if they would ever see their
loved ones again. No one out side of their circle hold the right, or
the credentials, to criticize in a manner where dis-loyalty is aimed.
The 'PDP' or, UK.org would never insult the integrity of NLD members, or anyone
else in the pro-democracy movement. Because many of them also started the
fight decades ago, and who firmly believe in their ideals, something we believe
is an all round respected trait, and is an essential ingredient to fuelling
a democracy. Without opposition, you cannot have democracy!
Without motivation, to stimulate the mind, even waking up from sleep can lose
its interest. After so much stagnation in Burma, at this point in time,
it appears to be anger, frustration and revenge, which motivate many.
There is an air of rebellion among the mass population and it appears acceptable
to many, but it has neither direction nor incentive, because strong leadership
is absent, so it seems now, but eventually it will gain momentum, if indeed
is not already doing so in the undergrowth. This is inevitable in Burma's
situation, the tinder's of revolution have been smouldering for decades, and
it is unstoppable, the only question, is when?
It must be remembered, that 'strength comes from confidence', whereas strength
alone does not bring confidence. At this point in time, the strong are
confident, but the confident, are also growing stronger!
A taste of constructive critisism to all the young but enthusiastic democracy
loyalists. As children we all used to play at being soldiers, or fire-fighters,
we were good at playing dead, but we were also very aware that it was a game
to us, and that we could never comprehend the real thing, with its reality
of horrors, that would come soon enough. If you want to play big boy games,
then keep it among yourselves, as you have not yet learned the rules of the
game in which you are so insistent in joining, and even then the right qualities
may be absent to qualify for the game, plus of course, when the realities
of the game finally become clear, the courage required to continue, may desert
you.
Grow and learn!
Uk.org.