|
|
'WE HAVE COMPROMISED'
ASIAWEEK - June 11, 1999
(The full transcript--at Asiaweek
online)
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING years for Myanmar's junta to open substantive negotiations with the opposition National League for Democracy. The generals promised they would talk with anybody in the NLD, except the party's leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. The party insisted on her presence. Negotiations never began. Now, though, for the first time Suu Kyi seems willing to let other NLD officials start a dialogue with the generals. She recently discussed her future, and that of her party, with Asiaweek Senior Correspondent Roger Mitton in Yangon.
Yesterday was the 9th anniversay of the 1990 elections which your party won handsomely. What is state of your party today compared to back then?
"Well, I wasn't around when the elections took place because I was under house arrest. So I can't really compare the party today to what it was in 1990. But I can compare it to what it was like before I was placed under house arrest, that is 1989. Compared to 1989, the party is subjected to a lot more restrictions. There have been a lot of arrests of party members in the meantime, and some of our best people are still in prison. Some have started coming out - not because of an amnesty or anything like that, but because they've served their term and are having to juggle their way back into the free, or as free as it is in Burma, free society. And the party, I think, is tougher. It's much more, it's smaller because obviously a lot of our members have been forced to resign. Or they have been put into prison. But I think there's a tougher feel to it, it's more tight knit. It has to be."
You said in your human rights message in April this year that you have faced more hardship over the past year than over the preceding 7 or 8 yrs.
"Oh, yes. Because the authorities, over the last year, really started getting serious about trying to annhilate the party. Because this has been their slogan for I think about two or three years now. Annhilation."
Annhiliation? This is the term they use?
"Yes, that is the term they actually use. They use this word annhilate. And I think then they changed it to crush perhaps because there was a little bit of criticism on the part of the international community."
You said the regime's activities against you are tantamount to criminal activities?
"They are criminal activities. Because what they are doing is against the law. According to the terms of the law, some of the things they have done are crimes. So they are criminal activities."
But there is nothing much you can do about it even so?
"Oh, there is no rule of law in this country. So the fact that they act in these criminal ways, it does not make any difference to them. It makes a lot of difference to the people, of course."
On May 27 last year your party held a Congress and announced its intention to convene a parliament. That was a fairly dramatic action.
"No, it wasn't like that. We did not announce our intention to convene parliament last year. It was not like that. But one of the decisions taken at the Congress was that we should ask the authorities to convene parliament by a certain date."
And subsequently you placed a deadline of August 21 by which time parliament must be convened by the regime.
"That was the decision of the Congress that we should inform the authorities that parliament should be convened by a certain date."
And if they did not convene parliament by that date?
"Well, we discussed this matter. Party representatives who came to the Congress wanted to know whether we had an alternative plan. And we said we didn't at the moment because the decision had just been made that we should inform the authorities of our decision to ask parliament to be convened. But then we decided that we would have to make an alternative plan because if they didn't meet the deadline then we must take another action."
That's when you decided you would name your own committee that would represent parliament in the absence of the regime convening it?
"The committee representing parliament, yes. But we went step by step. They didn't convene parliament by the 21st of August, so our party announced that we would then convene parliament on our own and then the regime started arresting our MPs. So then we decided that we would form the committee representing parliament."
So it was a fairly dramatic summer last year.
"But step by step. I think if you put all these things together then it makes it into a great big drama. But that is not how it actually was. It was one thing at a time."
It certainly captured the attention of the international media, especially when you add on your own attempts to drive out of town.
"Yes, but again that was at a different time. It was all spread out from May until September last year. May, June, July, August, September. It was spread out over five months. If you put together what happened over the five months then it seems very dramatic, but if you take it one thing at a time, then you can see that we went quite slowly."
Yesterday, the one-year anniversary of your congress when you took the first of those steps and asked the regime to convene parliament, you held another party meeting but you did not make any comparable move or first step of any kind?
"Well, there's no need for a first step any more, we've already taken the first and second steps - the second step was to form the committee representing parliament. Now the next stage is to take forward the activities of the committee. That is the logical next step. You can't keep taking first steps all the time. That wouldn't make sense, would it."
But many people felt you would make another dramatic move on May 27 this year in order to boost your party's profile.
"People always want drama, I think especially journalists. They want something dramatic all the time to write about. Which is why I disagree with your view of our having done something terribly dramatic last May. It wasn't like that at all. You're putting together five months events into one day, and then of course, that makes it seem very dramatic."
So there will be no comparable actions over this summer, even if spread out?
"I don't know what you mean by comparable actions. Because what we did last summer was to go forward step by step, and we will keep on going forward step by step."
Well, comparable actions like driving out of the city?
"Driving out of the city was not part of the call for convening parliament. It was connected to that because they started arresting our MPs."
That action of driving out of the city put you and your party into the headlines of the world's media.
"Although it may surprise people, we don't do things in order to attract attention. We do what we think would help us in our political aims, that's all."
So things like driving out of the city, which might precipitate a rather strong reaction from the regime, you are not at the moment planning any of those types of actions this year?
"Last year, if you think back, the first two times we did that, driving out, it was resolved very quietly. And we were not doing it in order to precipitate a strong reaction either. Because the authorities decided to play it in a civilized way and there was a civilized solution. It was only the third time, when it was decided that they wanted to go in for drama. So it was not we who went in for drama. We, as I said earlier, don't do things in order to attract attention or to create drama. We do what we think would be politically beneficial for our party and its supporters."
I repeat that people were expecting you and your party have to do something dramatic like last year.
"We never say what we are going to do in advance. So it's no use in trying to find out."
But there has been a sense of disappointment or a deflation among people that nothing happened yesterday on the May 27 anniversary.
"It depends on how political they are. If they study the announcements of the committee representing parliament, they would know that we have taken actually a much bigger step than we have done since last September. Because we are starting to make plans for preparing a Constitution, and for getting closer to the nationalities. But people are not interested in the real politics of it, they just want dramatic events."
Do you believe that the people are still behind you?
"Oh, yes, much more now than ever. Because I think we have much more support now than we had say three years ago, when there were those who thought that perhaps the government's economic policies were getting them somewhere and that the country might be improving economically. But last year - well, in 1997, that was really the crunch year for the economy - it became obvious towards the end of 1997 that things were not going well. And last year it became even more evident. And because of that, we have more support now than we had, say, three years ago. I think the best years for the regime were between 1993 and 1996 from the point of view of the economy. Because at that time, people really believed that there was going to be a big boom."
You extrapolate dissatisfaction with the economy into support for you?
"No, I don't think so. I think people support us because they are discontent with the present regime. That's normal in any circumstances. You know, people support the opposition because they don't like the incumbent. So whether it's for economic reasons, political reasons or social reasons, it's not always the same. But I would say that primarily in Burma at the moment it's for economic as well as political reasons. But I think that it's the economic reasons which have swung so much support in our favor over the last couple of years."
How can we gauge your support from the people, aside from getting feedback from your members?
"You can also look at how cooperative the general public is with the authorities. I think then you will have some idea of how much they like or dislike this regime. I mean you can grade the degree of support or lack of support for the regime that way. And anybody who has studied the situation here would find that the general public are not really cooperative with the regime at all. They are reluctantly dragging their feet, going along with what they are made to do.
But you don't find any enthusiasm for the policies of this regime." Former ASEAN secretary-general Ajit Singh, when he was sitting with the regime's Gen. David Abel last night, asked me why Asiaweek did not write more about you and your party losing support.
"Why is he saying that? Because he obviously wants you to write about it. In fact, Asiaweek and other Asian magazines have put forward this point of view. So I suppose they want to emphasize this point of view, which is not really surprising coming from an ASEAN country."
If an election were held again tomorrow, would you win in comparable style as in 1990?
"Oh, absolutely. Perhaps even better."
There are those who say that was then and this is now.
"Well, I'll say one thing, it's only if elections are free and fair. I doubt that if there were an election tomorrow, it would be free and fair because I think the regime has learned a very hard lesson from the previous elections. And I think if they were to hold elections tomorrow, they would make sure that the elections were rigged so that whoever they want to win will win. I don't think they would allow it to be free and fair elections. Because they miscalculated very badly in 1990."
There are those who say that the election would not be won by the NLD, it would be won by you. And it would be won by you because of your name - the name of your father, Aung San, who is a hero to the people.
"They said this about the last elections too. A lot of people say the last elections were won because of me rather than because of the NLD. But that's a matter of opinion."
They say the party is nothing without you.
"I don't think that is true. I would be nothing without the party. After all, I can't work without a party. And obviously it helps the party to have me because my father's name still means a lot in Burma."
The rather scabrous cartoons that appear every day in the New Light of Myanmar do not bother you?
"No, we've got so used to that. That's been going on for a year or two now. Certainly a long time. We've got quite used to that. We'd be quite surprised if they didn't come out. In fact, they are one of our biggest assets, as it were. Because the nasty cartoons have turned a lot of people against this regime. We get feedback from ordinary Burmese people, from a lot of Burmese business people who are not particularly political and who I don't think were really hardline supporters of the democracy movement or anything like that. They are people who really had not that much against the military regime either as long as they could make the economy work it was all right. But when these cartoons and very very vicious articles started coming out in the government media, the feedback we got was that some of these people just felt embarrassed. And they began to think that it showed up exactly how the regime has no standards at all. The nastiness of the cartoons reflects the nastiness of the regime - and also their low intellectual approach if you like."
At the ASEAN conference being held here yesterday and today, Gen. Khin Nyunt gave the keynote speech. He said: "Myanmar is on the right political track that will guarantee the peace, stability and prosperity of the nation." Is the country on the right track to prosperity?
"Well, it's certainly not prospering. I don't agree with that statement at all. Let's put it like that."
You have said in the past that things are worse now than they were under the Burma Socialist Program Party (BSPP) - the regime led by Gen. Ne Win from 1962 to 1988?
"Yes, I think a lot of people would agree with that. It's much better now for a few people. The economic opportunities that have come into the hands of a few people have made them very very wealthy; but in general I think Burma is much worse off. Take the lack of electricity. It was not this bad under the BSPP. Now there is a very very bad shortage of electricity. I think in some cases a shortage of water as well. Because in many places even in the middle of the city, people depend on electicity to crank up water from the ground floor to the upper floors. So no electricity means no water. And if the electricity only comes on at 12 o'clock at night they have to get up at 12 o'clock in order to get water in while they can."
"And look at the state of the schools and hospitals. They are much worse now than they were under the BSPP. Because under the BSPP, I don't think that there were complaints that there were no medicines in the hospitals. Or no equipment. There was a certain lack of sophisticated equipment and perhaps they did not have all the medicines necessary. But the situation was much better. But now they have nothing in the hospitals." "And the same thing for the schools. The schools under the BSPP were not all that hot, but now they don't have basic things like textbooks. Although in some schools they have built up these fancy computer showrooms with computers which are kept under lock and key, except for demonstration purposes."
"So I think one can say that we are much worse off. And of course, if you look at the statistics collected by an agency like UNICEF, which is nothing to do with either the democracy side or the military regime, you would find that the percentage of people who don't go to school at all is rising. And the percentage of elementary school dropouts is also rising." Yet people who came here during the 1980s say that the roads then were all potholled, that there was only one decent hotel in Yangon where you got a candle when you checked in and so on; whereas now the roads are okay, there are lots of cars and the place is full of hotels. "As I said, for some people it has got better. I said for the privileged people it has got better. But how many Burmese people use these hotels anyway? How many Burmese people are going to fly in after a holiday abroad? So for those who can do it, yes, it's better."
Someone mentioned to me that, of course, even the military men suffer from power outtages and other hardships from the economic situation, so it's not as if they are benefitting from this.
"It depends on where you are. You can be a quite low-ranking officer, but if you happen to be in the right place i.e. a place where you can make a lot of money, where people like to bribe you, or where you are in a position to dictate how people live, then you can get very very wealthy. But a higher ranking officer who is in a position where there are no bribes coming in, then he will not be well off. And of course the rank and file are not well off."
They may not be well off, but everyone seems to agree that there are no signs of unrest by younger officers, no signs of dissatisfaction.
"Well, there are always rumors about dissatisfaction because the soldiers are poor. The rank and file are poor. They don't get enough to eat. And I think you will find that a number of families of soldiers are putting up little stalls, little snackbars, in the areas where they have barracks because the husbands are not earning enough. That you can see everywhere all over the place."
Businessmen tell me that the kyat economy is doing quite well, growing by 3% to 4% annually; that it is only the dollar economy that is doing badly.
"What do they mean by the kyat economy doing well?" Using kyat for purchases, trade and whatever, it's only things that you need to import, or the national projects where foreign currency is used and where there's a lack of foreign exchange, that are really hurting. "Yes, but what do they mean by the economy doing well? Of course, we buy things with the kyat, if that's what you mean. That we go on doing. But with the rate of inflation, business has dampened down. Ordinary foodstalls or restaurants, eating places, where you pay in kyats, I think there are fewer customers there too."
Even in rural areas?
"Even in the rural areas people are having to tighten their belts. But in the rural areas, of course, there are not that many economic enterprises growing as there are in the urban areas. In the rural areas there are mainly farmers and the agricultural economy is not doing all that well. For example, recently because the rain started so early this year, in April, I was told that the peanut crop has been really bad. So that's going too affect peanut farmers hard. And that also means that the price of peanut oil is going to go up."
Yet few seem to think that the weak economy will lead to political change. They think the people will just struggle on as they have done for the past forty years or so.
"It always surprises me when people make remarks like that. Considering the fact that in 1988 what happened happened really because of the economy."
Well, it was the demonetarization of some of the kyat notes that really caused that to happen, wasn't it?
"Yes, but that hurt them economically. The fact that some of the kyat notes were demonetized didn't really bring about a revolution at all. It was nearly a year before the 1988 demonstrations broke out, but in the meantime of course the people had been getting poorer and poorer. And the economic hardships were getting worse and worse. And so it was a culmination of many economic hardships. I think economic reasons have always played a fairly big part in political revolution."
Is that what you are seeking: a political revolution?
"We are seeking a political revolution simply through political means. By doing politics which is what we are doing, and which is what the government is trying to prevent us from doing. So if a revolution breaks out, it will not be of our doing. It will be because the government has more or less blocked all other paths to political change."
Would you support the people if unrest like that breaks out?
"If you mean that would I support violence, no I would not support violence. Because I don't think that violence really does anybody any good. But if you mean that would we support a spontaneous demonstration by the people for better conditions, certainly we would. Why shouldn't we? We know that there is a need for better conditions."