One Week in Rangoon

Burma is a big stage where the villains carry guns, writes Ong Ju Lin, one of the 18 activists detained recently by the Burmese junta.


The authour after her release at a press conference in Bangkok.

I WAS one of the 18 detained in Rangoon for six days. The six Americans have become international heroes. The other 12 - three Thais, three Indonesians, two Filipinas and one Australian are lesser (known) heroes, while the three Malaysians have been branded as "trouble-makers" in their own country.

In Burma, a different kind of media coverage were given on the incident. In The Mirror, a government propaganda news daily (as with all mass media in Burma), the editorial writes: “The people of Myanmar (Burma) can no longer bear the nefarious actions of the 18 alien instigators. The citizens of Myanmar (Burma) sees them, not as doves of peace, but crows of chaos. Because of that, they had helped the government arrest the 18.” – a lie as we were arrested by plainclothes policemen and not by the people.

Now with all the international attention on us, many may think that the action was very well planned, a commando team of democracy fighters sent forth on a mission, almost a conspiracy. Even the military was shaken. Eighteen people from six countries. Were they hand-picked?

Who was the mastermind? Who was the leader of the group?

In reality, nothing can be further from the truth. We come from all walks of life. A 19-year old American college kid. A 51-year old seasoned human rights activist. A journalist who knows more about writing than direct activism and facing 12 hours of interrogation.

We fumbled and drifted, not knowing what was coming next. Not knowing whether lying or telling the truth would get us out or further incriminate us. When our Malaysian Embassy officials came to see us, we thought we could seek some assurance from them. How wrong we were. All the first secretary could tell us was, ''Do you realise the consequences of your actions on bilateral ties?''

Sometimes we kept mum despite the shouts and threats from our interrogators. Your story is different from the rest. It is up to you, we were told. Sometimes we cooperated. We spilled information because we were scared. (In my mind, this is a rogue government with no care of what the world thinks.)

For three days, my two Malaysian colleagues and I were kept in the police headquarters before we were sent to a ''guesthouse'' to join the 15 others. We lived in an office, sharing it with a police officer of high rank, who came in at 9 am and left at 6 pm. Civil servant. He does his own things. People come in to see him, take orders, leave. On the second day he smiled at us. On the third day, he changed his longhi (sarong) into his military uniform in front of us. We became natural inhabitants of his office, like the ginkyoks (lizards) on the wall.

In the beginning we were defiant, cocky. We held on to our own. They too. Hard, indifferent looks. After all, they are in power, our captors. But as the days passed, they could neither feign power anymore than we could feign disdain. We lived together 24 hours a day in an office six by eight metres. They brought us food and cigarettes. They accompanied us to the toilet, our only excursions. Once in a while they came in to interrogate us. We fear interrogations. The uncertainties, the lies we have to keep up. The disbelief in their eyes. The continuous questions.

At night, they drape themselves on chairs and tables, while we sleep on mattresses under mosquito nets. I wrote my letters inside. On the third day, we got braver: will you get us bryiani rice from this shop at Sule Pagoda Road? We'll pay. To our delight, they did. The hard looks and indifference melted. Our smiles became genuine. Even our 'Thank you' (Je-zu-tin-bateh).

They smiled at seeing us enjoy our meal, they could not hide. Our captors, they become people in my eyes. They fear us, and hate us, but came to like us. Me too, though to admit it is as if to imply that the junta, with their human rights abuses and atrocities, are okay.

We have a constant attendant, a spy you could say, who watched our every move, and was present at every interrogation, who would not tell us what was going on, or would only tell us lies. ''How long will we be kept here?'' ''Very long.'' ''How long? Forever?'' ''Yes.''

Once I said, ''Don't ask him anything. He only tells lies.'' I notice a sting of hurt in his eyes. He doesn't hide very well. Neither do the others. Neither do I. I came home with a knot in my chest that wouldn't go away. We came home jubilant and triumphant. Heroes. But I did not feel jubilant and triumphant. I was ashamed, not for what I did, (leafletting). But because I really didn't want to see my captors as people, so I can come home and condemn the junta with authoritative vigour. So I can mock their ignorance and stupidity. My captors who are part of the junta, who work a 9-to-5 job, and go home to their families and TV sets.

A small piece in a monstrous structure; which is responsible for more than 10,000 of its people fighting for democracy in exile; which is responsible for arbitrary arrests, tortures and deaths of elected representatives and activists;which is responsible for the butchery and rapes of ethnic minorities; who is responsible for the 120,000 refugees languishing on the borders of Thailand. But I come home and I still think of them.

Is he responsible? Richard, our interrogator with a big pot belly? Who shouted at me for not co-operating. He, whom we taught how to play cards; who patiently listened and translatedinto Burmese for his other colleagues; who passed his cards to his friend while he ran to answer a phone call. He who promised to teach us a Burmese card game before we left.

Or how about the woman attendant who insisted on standing and watching me bathe? When I look into her eyes, she is as naked to me as I am to her.

Or is it the guard we affectionately call the flower boy, who would go outdoors to pick flowers for our hair? Which do you want?'' ''The yellow ones.'' We made our choice peering out from the windows of our prison.

Or was Khin Maung, the judge, responsible? His dedication to his job was admirable. Eight hours of sitting in his big, hard chair wearing a yellow scarf with a wing-like-thing on the right side of his head. Listening patiently to statements from police officers and witnesses.

His sentencing, he delivered with utmost seriousness, five years in Insein Prison, only to be negated moments later by the auspiciousness of the Foreign Affairs Ministry. We were to be pardoned and deported. But he played his role well.And so we came back as heroes. Freedom fighters. We joked about the ridiculousness of the whole experience. The trial, the interrogation, the investigations of us. We mocked them and their antics. We condemned the junta. We talked about human rights and democracy, as if our experience has anything to do with the violent realities of Burma.

In our roles of heroes, we are as much actors in a play -- a shadow play -- as Richard, the judge, or the 'Flower Boy'. We play into what is expected of us by following a director's orders. In our case the director is the world, the media. Who then is the master puppeteer in Burma? Again I ask, who is responsible while people are tortured and killed? Those who direct, those who participate, those who stand and watch, or those who try to lead a 9-to-5 job, concentrating hard on their work so they won't hear cries of pain, loss and death.

If those in the last group, the 9-to-5 people in Burma are to be condemned, so should anyone around the world who has ignored the suffering in Burma. Or in East Timor. Or Turkey. Or Mexico.

As there are different degrees of degree of blame and responsibility, then there are also degrees of heroism. On one extreme, the Americans see us as gallant heroes, taking on a military regime. I feel I do not fit there. Neither do I deserve the Malaysian government's condemnation of our actions and labelling us as trouble-makers and law-breakers. We went there to do a good thing for a forgotten people, and that we took risks to our best.

During those six days, I discovered humanity behind the villain's mask which they cannot hide despite the fact that in Burma, the actors carry guns. Total evil is a clear target, a defined red bull's-eye in the centre of a white circle. In Burma, I found that the paint was mixed to a solid pink, bad inseparable from good. Humans. Like me. I will continue to do what I do, to fight for the rights of the oppressed under the military rule of Burma. I will write articles, compile updates, research, lobby, not so much of conviction, but perhaps for a lack of wisdom to do something different.

(I wish to thank Amy deKanter who has helped me throughout the process of writing this article. Thank you for giving me a safe space to allow me to remove my mask.)

Published in The Nation August 21,1998

My meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi

by Ong Ju Lin



Once expected to lead her country but now an exile in her homeland, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi still harbours hope for a democratic Burma. As one of the first batch of ASEAN journalist to interview her since her release from house arrest, Ong Ju Lin writes her impressions meeting The Lady in Yangon.

We were the first ASEAN journalists to interview Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi after she was released from house arrest in 1995. The clandestine meeting in Yangon was arranged by ALTSEAN –Burma (Alternative ASEAN on Burma), a Bangkok-based organization run by Malaysian Debbie Stothard which supports a democratic Myanmar (Burma).

The pro-democratic Burmese movement continues to call the country Burma and its capital Rangoon although the military regime has changed their names to Myanmar and Yangon. That decision is a stance to reject the repressive one-party rule of the junta which did not have the democratic support of the majority of the people.

Malaysia, as the strongest advocate of Myanmar’s entry into ASEAN, takes an ambivalent stance on the democratic movement in Myanmar headed by Aung San Suu Kyi. Malaysia’s mainstream media is wont to portray Suu Kyi as an obstacle in Myanmar’s government to unite and develop the country. Her party, the National League of Democracy, which won a landslide victory in the 1990 elections, is recast as the opposition party, and the ruling junta which refused to hand over power, as the legitimate government of Myanmar.

With this political background in mind, it was with some degree of risks that I, as a Malaysian journalist and three other South East Asian journalists undertook the “unauthorized” journey to interview Aung San Suu Kyi.

Entering the country as “tourists”, we paid a “social visit” to NLD deputy chairman U Tin Oo. The Lady, as Suu Kyi was fondly referred to, made her way to Tin Oo’s house as if a normal weekday morning meeting with the party deputy chairman. She was flanked by two bodyguards on the back seat of a white sedan car. That way, we avoided having to go through the security checkpoint at the roadblock leading to her house in University Avenue.

Although, she has been “unconditionally released” as flaunted by the military government, visitors to her house still needed clearance from the authorities.

After the interview, we found ourselves trailed by MI’s (Military Intelligence personal, akin to Special Branch in Malaysia) on motorcycles with cameras pointing at us.

To shake them off, Stothard advised that we enter five-star hotels, changed into longhi (local sarongs), wear sandals and exit through the backdoor. This I did, and soon I blended in among the market crowd.

At night, I went to pray at Shwedagon Pagoda, the temple where she addressed half a million people in a rally in 1988. As I kneeled down to pray in front of the statue of the Buddha, tears welled up my eyes thinking about my experience meeting her in the morning.


The authour and Aung San Suu Kyi, 1997.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been made larger than life. Her charisma and courage under fire has been reported by the international media and her image has been broadcasted throughout the world, made into postcards and posters that were blown up to superhuman sizes. For her supporters, she is an icon, a beacon of hope. Yet, there is little known about her, as a person.

Her detractors paint her as an agent of the West. In Malaysia’s mainstream media, Suu Kyi is seen as a controversial figure, a thorn in the military government’s effort to rule the country. Her party, the National League of Democracy, which received the mandate of the people in the 1990 election, has been recasted as an opposition party.

But that morning, as I sat talking to her for an hour in U Tin Oo’s terrace house, all these images receded into the background. In front of me was a woman, who obviously missed her sons and the comforts of a normal life. That fact, that she was human, a mother, a wife, a person in her own right, and not just an icon or a beacon of hope for mere mortals like us, made her struggle all the more poignant.

She had flowers in her hair. Small, white jasmine flowers that gave off a gentle sweet scent. She was small, shorter than my average height of 164cm. She spoke with a polished English accent, a product of being an Oxford graduate. She seemed guarded during the interview. Perhaps she was cautious speaking to ASEAN journalists, rightly so as our governments, which never did boast of good human rights records, have accepted Myanmar’s illegitimate government into the brotherhood of the ASEAN grouping.

I appreciated her straight forward answers. When she had completed her no-frills, no-nonsense reply, there was a definite full-stop to it. Her answers were almost like well-rehearsed mini speeches. But she gently deflected personal questions about herself and instead pointed to the shared struggles of her fellow political prisoners.

After the interview, she relaxed. Her warm smile made us feel at home. We had tea, made small talk and took turns having our photographs taken with her. A fellow journalist asked what perfume she wore. She denied ever wearing perfumes. It must be the flowers in her hair. (see the interview: A Duty to the People)



A DUTY TO THE PEOPLE
by Ong Ju Lin

“Burma is not a government. It is a country with people who hope, who fear and who wish for a better life. Please try to get to know the real Burma.”
Aung San Suu Kyi



During her six-year house arrest, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was told by her captors she could leave the country at any time she wanted, on condition that she would never come back. She agreed, but gave her own condition: that she be allowed to walk to the airport several miles from her home. The military government refused, fearing that people would rally to her in her symbolic farewell.

Such is the charisma of the daughter of martyred statesman, the much loved and revered Aung San who is known as the Architect of Burma.

Following the footsteps of her father, Suu Kyi’s courage in standing against the repressive military junta won her admiration and support from her fellowmen. In the 1990 elections, two years after the mass slaughter of pro-democracy demonstrators in Yangon (Rangoon), her party, the National League of Democracy, won 82% of the seats contested.

The junta refused to transfer power, and instead, launched a systematic crackdown on the pro-democratic movement, incarcerating party leaders, activists and students. After a six-year house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi was released in 1995 but is still under constant surveillance.

Her integrity, her love of her people, her personal policy of never sacrificing any lives for an assumed larger good in the face of violent threats, won her the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

Last year, Myanmar was accepted as part of ASEAN in its policy of “constructive engagement” amidst controversies over human rights abuses that continue to plague the country. In an attempt to right its image, the ruling military has changed its name from the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) to the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Real changes, however, remain to be seen.

Last December, three South East Asian journalists and I made our way into Yangon to meet The Lady in a clandestine meeting arranged by the ALTSEAN (Alternative ASEAN on Burma), a Bangkok-based organization working toward a democratic Burma.

In the three-hour long interview, she spoke with poise and candour about the social-political situation in the country, about ASEAN, democracy and human rights. The following contain extracts from my interview with her in Yangon.

The ruling military government has recently made some changes, for instance changing to a more benign image and removing some party leaders. What do you think of these changes?

We’ve got to wait to find out whether there are going to be any real changes in policies towards democracy. That will be the real measure of change. Obviously, there is some change in personnel’s but whether it is a matter of sorting out who is more powerful or to determine who is going to adopt a more reasonable attitude, that we cannot tell. It could mean they are trying to bring in new blood or it could be they are delegating power, so that a greater number of their people in the arms forces are involved in running the country.

You have repeatedly called for sanctions against the military regime. Don’t you think sanctions will hurt the economy and the people?

I do not think that the economy will get any worse with economic sanctions, in the sense that the public do not suffer because the profits from economic projects essentially go to the top. The NLD as you know supports economic sanctions because it is aimed at bringing about a better record of human rights and democracy in Burma. Sanctions would hurt the elites, but they are the ones who could afford it. They can reduce their fleet of cars from six to five. I don’t think it will significantly hurt them too much.

You have called for political changes in Burma. Must political change precede economic change?

You cannot really separate the political and economic framework. Without the right political framework, a healthy economic framework cannot exist. For example, two of the most criteria for a healthy economy are free competition and the rule of law. Free competition ensures that the most able are give the opportunity to do all they can. Rule of law ensures not only equality, but so that people know that there are rules on what people are allowed or not allowed to do. When there is no rule of law, the economy turns into a chaotic situation.
In this country, trade is so influenced by politics. There needs to be transparency and accountability from the government. It is so lacking that the country does not even have a reliable set of statistics on which to base any kind of economic predictions.

As a new member of Asean, what do you think of Asean’s constructive engagement policy towards Myanmar?

Asean was initially set up for political reasons to keep communism at bay, and now Asean is not at all interested in the political aspects of what’s going on in the region. The main concern of Asean appears to be solely economic concerns and everything else is considered the internal affairs of the country. We find that a little disturbing as I have said earlier, you cannot divorce politics from economics, because eventually politics will affect the economy.

As the newest member of Asean, do you think Myanmar would be an asset to Asean?

We do not think that Burma under the military will be an asset to Asean. When you think of a membership of a country you don’t just accept just the government, you accept the people. I think these are important questions to ask – are you adhering to the wishes of the government or are you respecting the wishes of the people? In the interest of the whole region, I don’t think there will be political stability in the region without fundamental political changes in Burma and without political stability, there can be no sustainable economic growth. And without that, Burma will be a weak spot in Asean.

You have been painted as being rigid and an obstacle to Myanmar and Asean’s wish to unify and develop the region. Why do you think that is?

I think that is how I am represented because many Asean governments have close relationship with the military regime. By rigidity simply means we are not prepared to let them oppress us and decide for us. Afterall we are the legitimate government that received the mandate of the people as is shown by the 1990 election. And we have been given the mandate to bring democracy to Burma. Therefore we have a duty to the people. Because we stand firmly by our duty to struggle for democracy, the military regime tried to paint us as being rigid.

It has been said by Asian leaders that the Declaration of Human Rights does not reflect the values or situation of the people in Asia. What is your comment?

That is not something that was said at the time when the Declaration of Human Rights was brought up. In those days, there were quite a number of Asian and African countries fighting for independence and they were demanding for equal treatment and the rights enjoyed by the western nations. Now that they have come around, they are saying that these values are not Asian and that Asians don’t need human rights. So, we have to be very careful about that. Burma was one of the original signatories of the declaration. I am not aware of any Burmese who stood up to say that it was not Asian or Burmese. If we were to accept values that originate only in our region, then well, there can’t be any Muslims in Malaysia because Islam did not originate in Malaysia, nor can there be any Christians around the way except in the middle east.

If SPDC agrees to a dialogue with you and the dialogue leads to the possibility of working with SPDC, would it be agreeable to you?

Of course we are very willing to join them to solve the problems of the country, that is why we have always asked for genuine political dialogue. In July they invited us to have a dialogue, but it was not a dialogue and SLORC (SPDC) made no doubts about that. It was simply a meeting. And there was simply not enough time. The second time around they invited Kyi Maung, NLD chairman. We did not respond because it is the policy of the party that he and I should always do things together, mainly because we were aware by separating the two of us the NLD could be split. We don’t want a sham dialogue. Genuine political dialogue requires equality, mutual respect – which means each side would choose who to represent them. If one party has the power to choose who too speak to in another party, how can you say that it is a genuine political dialogue?

It is said that Myanmar’s problems cannot be solved unless the ethnic problems were solved. In your attempt to dialogue with SPDC do you also support a triapartite dialogue which includes the ethnic minorities?

Of course we support that process. I think that a dialogue beginning with the military regime and the democratic forces is a very good prospect for tripartite dialogues. At the moment, a lot of the ethnic nationalities are afraid to get in touch with the NLD because they have been threatened and intimidated by the authorities.

SPDC says that democracy can be in Myanmar without Aung San Suu Kyi. What is your comment on this statement?

Well I would be very happy if there would be democratization in Burma without me because that would mean there is less of a burden on my shoulders.

There have been criticisms of NLD that if it were to form a government, it will not make a viable government because it has no experience ruling a country.

Did SLORC (SPDC) have any experience when it came into power nine years ago? Even for the government in Britain, most of the cabinet ministers are Labour party members who have no experience of governing a country because the previous Conservatives were in power for such a long time. So I don’t think you can use that kind of excuse. If you are going to take the attitude that only those with experience can rule, that means the government will go on forever.

Since your release, how much freedom do you have?

I am not even allowed to go for a meeting in Rangoon, for instance the youth meetings a few months ago. All this talk about unconditional release is a lot of nonsense. How can you call it unconditional release if the street to my house is blocked off and anybody who wants to visit me must get clearance from the authorities? It should not have been lauded as unconditional release.

How do you feel that you have not seen your family for such a long time?

My youngest son was allowed to visit me towards the end of September. But it is not for me to say how I feel. A lot of my colleagues are in the same boat. Husbands, wives, mothers are in prison and the children are not allowed to see them. Recently three elected MPs were arrested. They were neither allowed access to family nor counsels. They have the right to be defended by counsels but what has been happening is totally against the laws of the land.

What is your impression of Malaysia?

Of course we are very impressed by what Malaysia has achieved in the last 40 years. But the achievements of Malaysia are also for us a matter of sadness, because it reminded us that at one time were at a far more progressive stage than Malaysia, but because of the fact that our democracy was stunted, we lost out economically.

Why have you sacrificed so much to remain in your political struggles?

I don’t particularly call it a sacrifice. It’s a choice. One makes a choice. And it’s always a mistake to call it a choice because when you start calling something a sacrifice, it carries a certain implication that you have given up something. And I really don’t see why it should. It is something you do out of your own freedom. As Buddhists, we believe in Karma. Essentially what you reap is what you sow. That means if I choose to remain in Burma, it is my own choice and I bear the consequences of my choice.

What is your vision of Burma?

When I talk about liberal democracy I mean a political system where there would be regular elections, where the people are in position to freely change the government if they feel it is no longer acting for their benefit. I would like democracy to mean a country that is strong enough, liberal enough, and sensible enough to cope with crisis without undue harm to the people.

What are your short and long term goals?

The most important is to exercise our right to function as a legitimate political party. We are a legitimate political party. At the moment we are so restricted. We are not allowed to publish anything, not allowed to hold meetings, to recruit new members, we’re not even allowed to reorganize ourselves. They’ve tried to close down our offices, they’ve threatened our landlords. If we try to move then they would go and threaten potential landlords. Therefore our short term goal is to function as effectively as a political party despite all the restrictions imposed on us. Our long term goal is of course to practice liberal democracy.

You are perceived as a global human model. What advice can you give?

If you are going to perceive me as a global human model, than I have no advice to give you because I don’t like to be considered as that. The only thing I can say is that I would like to be seen as an ordinary human being caught up in extraordinary events.

Do you desire to be the Prime Minister of Burma?

That’s not my greatest ambition. My greatest ambition will be a peaceful old age. I hope that democracy will be well established in Burma before I am old so that I can enjoy my old age in peace.
I am confident that there will be a democratic government in the not so distant future and NLD will play and important role. But I am also aware of many political parties which have worked for democracy for but many have been deregistered. I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to their efforts. It demonstrates their commitment to democracy and their generosity of spirit.
Although they are not able to move as legitimate parties anymore, they are supportive of us because they know we are all working towards the same goal.

This interview was published in the Sun Megazine, February 5, 1998 under the title All is Not Lost.

Eyes Wide Shut

by Ong Ju Lin

While ASEAN celebrates the ASEAN-10 on its 30th anniversary, all is not well with the new kid in the block. Ong Ju Lin takes a critical look at ASEAN’s policy of “constructive engagement” with Myanmar.

Ah Thwin operates a small food stall near Shwedagon Pagoda, catering to both local devotees of the temple and tourists. This unassuming young man was a Math student at Yangon University until it was closed indefinitely by the military government more than a year ago. As a hive of democratic activism, the government has reason to fear another revolt by students similar to the one ten years ago. Unable to finish his degree, Ah Thwin supports his family selling rice and serving Fanta drinks.

Ah Thwin chats with us animatedly. He is knowledgeable and offers his views on the socioeconomic situation of his country readily. But when asked about his position on the current political impasse, he whispered: “You know The Lady?” and took furtive glances around him as if making sure no one heard him. He said no more.

The following day we visited his stall again. This time Ah Thwin was not his usual self. He stayed away from our table, coming over only to take orders. We were perplexed. As we left, I noticed a Tatmadaw uniform hanging on a partition wall next to his stall and a soldier was in there taking a nap. When I looked at Ah Thwin, he averted his eyes. When I raised my camera to ask him if he minded I took his picture, he waved and covered his face with his hands.

Fear is pervasive in the daily lives of Burmese. The 1989 bloody crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators appears to be still fresh in the minds of the people. Since then, more than 100,000 have fled Myanmar fearing political persecution. Today 12,000 refugees face an uncertain future, languishing on the borders of Thailand.

In Myanmar, state control in everyday life is tangible. No one can spend a night in another’s house without clearance from the local authorities. And “there are spies everywhere,” says a woman, looking about her when I asked her what she thought about Aung San Suu Kyi.

Although the official figure puts defence spending at 11.4% of the total government expenditure, most external observers agree that Myanmar spends more than 40%, a very high percentage considering that Myanmar has no external enemies. Malaysia spends less then 5% for defence.

The high defence budget is said to be directly related to the tight political suppression under a one-party rule as well as its armed conflicts with its ethnic minorities.

In an effort to clear its belligerent image, the military junta has recently replaced its State, Law and Order Restorative Council to the State, Peace and Development Council. New faces were brought in and several officials were tried for corruption. General Than Shwe, the head of SPDC admits that to do well economically, it had to make changes and self improvement.

However despite these changes, human rights abuses continue to be reported throughout the country. According to the All Burma Student Democratic Front, in November 16, 1997, Myanmar’s newly formed SPDC was responsible for the killing of 13 people at the Kyat Taw village in the northern part of Arakan state. They claimed that the killings were the result of forced labour during the periodic operations to recruit porters for military troops operating in the region.

With new infrastructure projects underway, forced relocations and forced labour have driven thousands of refugees across the border to Thailand. In one of the refugee camps we went near Mae Hong Son on the Thai side, Sunshine, a 26-year old Karenni testifies. “I am unable to return to my village as it was attacked by troops. My parents are hiding in the jungles for fear of being taken as porters and workers for the troops.”

Win Myint Thant, a medical officer who has worked for six years said: “I have treated children who are forced to work from morning to night. They were only given rice water and had to sleep without blankets. Many were raped. Many died in my arms from malaria and starvation.”

As Myanmar opens its doors to foreign investments, development projects are taking away people’s lands, and instead, the people are forced to work in the projects as slave labour on their own land.

Violence and suppression of the Rohingyas Muslims in Myanmar are well documented by Amnesty International and other human rights organizations. In May last year, Malaysia Muslim Youth Movement (Abim) protested Myanmars entry into Asean. Abim secretary-general Ahmad Azam Abdul Rahman claimed the SLORC destroyed more than 30 mosques and properties belonging to Muslims in Myanmar. “Such suppression showed that the SLORC has no respect whatsoever for the constructive engagement policy advocated by Asean member countries,” he said.

The world is not blind to these human rights abuses, but neither has the world responded to the cries of the oppressed. The military junta continues to rule with an iron fist even without popular support. Its lost to the National League of Democracy (NLD) which commanded 82% of popular votes in the 1990 elections renders it an illegitimate government.

The irony is that now, the NLD has been recast, not only as an opposition party but thwarted from functioning as a legitimate party, says its secretary-general Aung San Suu Kyi. Many party leaders were jailed and she herself was on house-arrest from 1990 to 1995. The much-lauded “unconditional release” by the military junta turned out to be a sham.

“How can you call it unconditional release if the road to my house is blocked off and anybody who wants to visit me must get clearance from the authorities?” said Aung San Suu Kyi whose movement is still under constant surveillance by government spooks, the much feared Military Intelligence (MIs).

The NLD has called for economic sanctions against the military junta and the United States, Canada and several European countries have rallied to its support by imposing economic embargo on Myanmar.

But embargos are seldom imposed as a humanitarian gesture, but a political strategy. The United States that has been most vocal in condemning the military government and its human rights abuses is happily doing business with Myanmar’s dictators through its oil company Unocol. Its 28% stake in the Yadana Natural Gas Pipeline has caused the relocation of 11 villagers.

Closer to home, ASEAN countries have stood by SPDC causing a rift in Euro-Asia relationship. Recently, ASEAN celebrated its 30th anniversary fulfilling the ASEAN 10 with the admission of Myanmar. ASEAN started out as a government-to-government grouping of South East Asian countries, one of the reasons being to control the threat of communist influence in South East Asia. With the triumph of capitalism in the region, ASEAN functions more like a trade pact to promote trading among member countries.

In a show of solidarity, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Dr Mohamad Mahathir said: “If there is discrimination against Myanmar, it is discrimination against ASEAN.”

As ASEAN’s most vocal member, Malaysia acknowledge the human rights abuses and political suppression in Myanmar, but has chosen to turn a blind eye, citing ASEAN’s policy of non-interference in the domestic affair of a member country.

Local activists and international human rights bodies have criticized this policy of non-interference for allowing the violence and suppression in member countries, including Myanmar and East Timor, Indonesia to go uncheck. As a result, another political euphemism, the policy of “constructive engagement” has emerged in the ASEAN circle.

“We cannot expect changes in the short term. We have to give them some time. If we continue to isolate them, we cannot guarantee that the political situation in Myanmar will improve” said Malaysia’s foreign minister Abdullah Badawi, explaining the concept of constructive engagement with Myanmar.

University Malaya South East Asian expert Dr Shaharil Taib agrees, saying that ASEAN, by engaging Myanmar through trade will eventually lead the way to political change in the country.

“Democracy is being learned. We can’t measure it by British or American standards. The military government is trying to create a civil society and we must give them the chance. They are sending their ministers to learn form other South East Asian countries and holding meetings with other member countries. But they see threats and it is up to us to give them the assurance. We can give them trade. Trade has always been a harmonizing factor,” he says.

However, many would disagree. In South Africa, economic sanctions and worldwide condemnation of apartheid, and not economic engagement, played a role in the dismantling of the apartheid regime.

Aung Suu Kyi argues against ASEAN’s trade engagement with Myanmar saying that trade will only enriched the elites who are in power, and without a fundamental shift in the political framework, there cannot be sustainable economic development.

However, Teddy Buri, vice-president of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma sees ASEAN as a viable medium to pressure the military government for political change. Buri was an elected MP during the 1990 elections, but fearing persecution by the military junta when it took power, has lived in exile since 1992. The coalition which claims to be the legitimate government of Burma, constitutes elected parliamentarians and operates in exile.

He hopes that ASEAN will dialogue with the Myanmar military government on political changes. “ASEAN is not an island. It has to deal with the World Bank, the European Union, and other economic pacts. They must please their dialogue partners too. So I am optimistic that there will be pressure for change.”

While Myanmar takes timid steps towards opening up its market, democracy is still far from view. Malaysia champions human rights and advocates for democracy in the case of South Africa and Bosnia, but appears to turn the other way when it comes to Myanmar. As a maturing country, for Malaysia, the case of Myanmar begs for more consistency in foreign policy.

Published in the Sun Megazine, February 5, 1998