政党社团之声
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    BURMA-缅甸风云
[主页]->[政党社团之声]->[BURMA-缅甸风云]->[Lian Sakhong's Martin Luther King Prize Acceptance Lecture]
BURMA-缅甸风云
·糖尿病民间验方
·心腦血管病的預防
·漫谈印欧语系
·2007年缅甸国内外微妙变化
·貌强:Harn Yawnghwe, EU, USA and Burma’s Junta
·从“Honsawatoi”亡国250年谈起
·缅甸孟族纪念“Hongsawatoi ”亡国250周年
·温教授问美国为何不出手
·缅甸封杀“缅甸华商商会”
·缅甸当局封杀百年华商社团
·貌强:Act Now or Regret Later with the Unholy Alliance
·缅甸已找台阶解除对华商社团的封杀
·论缅甸吴努政府与台湾阿扁政府
·缅甸众土族再三赴美寻求支持
·由印尼华人要人权民族权想起
·缅甸世道乱——坏人有好报
·社会主义“居者有其屋”
·丹瑞大将打坐差点走火入魔
·缅甸掸邦第一特区政府(果敢)网站与彭主席访谈
·缅甸丹瑞大将参禅新法:一念代万念
·中風救命法——针刺十指尖与两耳垂放血
·EWOB/AEIOU 的声明
·缅甸僧侣和平示威,丹瑞大将心乱如麻
·缅甸和平示威扩大,丹瑞家人领先逃亡
·反对无理威胁和平集会与游行
·缅甸民族委员会NCUB 对广大士兵的呼吁
·缅甸联邦民族委员会告人民书-3
·SDU’S STATEMENT ON RECENT SPDC’S CRACKDOWN/貌强
·SDU对军政府最近开枪镇压的声明
·缅甸军政府凶杀案将告国际刑事法庭
·恢复掸邦委员会支持缅甸僧侣与民众
·缅侨向联合国与国际机构火急呼救!
·制止缅甸军政府杀害僧侣学生民众
·请求教皇给缅甸人民雪中送炭
·缅甸医生专业医务人员呼吁总罢工
·教皇雪中送炭:为缅甸苦难人民祈祷
·正义要伸张!公道要讨回!
·众土族委员会ENC对缅甸当前局势的声明
·缅甸的华人悲歌
·缅侨恳求中国在安理会勿再投否决票
·全缅学生民主先锋谈缅甸危机
·缅甸律师委员会对甘巴里《缅甸报告》的看法
·缅甸民族委员会NCUB欢迎安理会声明
·缅甸当前急务纵横观
·感谢德国人民支持缅甸和平正义斗争
·缅甸动乱,丹瑞大将有话说
·缅甸众土族国际公开大学AEIOU急需捐款
·缅甸丹瑞大帝狞笑睥睨自豪
·老战友 Prof. Win 的心底话
·毒品枭雄昆沙盖棺论定
·老战友还有话说
·缅甸众土族最欢迎昂山素姬声明
·韩永贵在捷克国会的缅甸问题讲话
·众合法土族政党支持联合国代表代发的昂山素姬声明
·缅甸和平民主阵线10月18日声明
·人权特使会成为甘巴里第二吗?
·与韩永贵漫谈丹瑞昂山素姬走向
·赛万赛笑缅甸军政府杀一儆百
·对掸邦昆沙的另类盖棺论定
·缅甸丹瑞大帝笑评东盟宪章
·缅甸大帝与总理谈东盟来龙去脉
·缅甸众土族委员会拜访印度观察家研究基金会
·缅甸众土族委员会答印度记者问
·苦修我不入地狱谁入地狱的缅甸高僧
·巴瓯民族解放组织支持昂山素姬声明
·缅甸丹瑞大帝2007年12月3日语录
·缅甸民族委员会欢呼美国HR3890号制裁决议
·缅甸问题根源是彬龙精神不见了
·克伦族谴责缅甸种族灭绝内战
·缅甸丹瑞大帝笑骂民主
·缅甸学运领袖波昂觉永垂不朽!
·缅甸联邦土族与少数民族问题
·缅甸各族欢呼联合国原住民权利宣言
·缅甸若开邦人民致函联合国
·纪念缅甸独立节60周年
·缅甸掸族公主痛斥军政府
·缅甸土族哭祭60周年独立节
·古来稀大哥的前列腺毛病
·缅甸僧伽与人民,是鱼水关系
·缅甸僧伽们入世行动了
·钦族阵线谈印度与缅甸军政府
·缅甸民族委员会08年元月24日声明
·缅甸掸族拟加入众土族委员会ENC
·缅甸掸族领袖赛万赛答缅甸文摘问
·由红色高棉想到缅甸军政府
·缅甸掸族的61周年掸邦节
·克伦族掸族领袖游说欧盟6年15次
·平等、民主、发展——救缅甸!
·与赛万赛谈2008年初缅甸局势
·缅甸联邦民族委员会对曼侠被杀害之声明
·人倒下,但曼侠英魂永远活着!
·缅甸革命师生痛失曼侠学兄
·曼侠名列缅甸军政府刺杀单
·谈缅甸国民大会、公投、普选
·美国教授讲缅甸的过去现在未来
·反对缅甸5月公投与2010年普选?
·国际缅甸僧伽总会拜访海牙UNPO
·正视缅甸宪法公投与大选
·缅甸问题以和为贵、利民为本
·缅甸独裁政府——你不打,他不倒!
·缅甸联邦民族委员会有关“宪法公投”声明
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Lian Sakhong's Martin Luther King Prize Acceptance Lecture

The Salemkyrkan, Stockholm, Sweden

   15 January 2007

   Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Dear Friends:

   When I was told that I had been awarded for the Martin Luther King Prize for 2007, I felt extremely honored. When I first heard from the chairperson of the Martin Luther King Prize, I was speechless because I could not believe what I was hearing. I certainly never expected such a prize for my involvement in this struggle. I am involved in this movement for just two reasons; first, it is to achieve for my country a free and open democratic system, which I think is often taken for granted here in Sweden.

   Second, I am involved in this process for what I view as the very survival of my birth community of the Chin people in Burma and by extension the survival of my own ethnicity and identity as well as the other oppressed ethnic nationalities of Burma. So, it seems to me that what I am doing in this struggle is quite personal: reflecting my believes and struggling to achieve in the political context of Burma where those believes and my ethnic identity are valued and respected for my generation and the future generations of the peoples of Burma. You can understand that I did not expect any prize for working on something that reflects so much of my personal values. And I would like to take this opportunity and express my gratitude that it is one of the great privileges of belonging now to Swedish society that I have the freedom and a means to work and struggle to achieve what is important to me and the Chin people. To be associated with a prize bearing the name of one of the persons I most admire is an honor beyond anything I could ever have imagined

   I must admit that I was quite delighted when I heard the name of Martin Luther King, who was one of my heroes since my university days in Rangoon. It also brought back many sweet memories of student life when we were young and dared to think and challenge almost everything under the Sun. Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were the two theologians who inspired me personally, “daring in order to know” as they both taught us. Just before the fateful events of student-led uprising in 1988, I wrote a term paper at Theological Seminary comparing the non-violent strategy applied by Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Ethic of “Just War” applied by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Both of them dared to challenge unjust laws, and both did not survive their struggle. In those days, my heart was a bit closer to Bonhoeffer; may be it was because of the fact that the regime of Nazi Germany was more similar to the military dictatorship in Burma. However, both of them are my inspiration; and both of them received their inspiration from the teachings of Jesus Christ, who proclaimed that

   The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners,And recovery of sight for the blind, and released the oppressed.

   Since I joined the movement, I have written many letters and statements calling for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners in Burma but not to avail. Since the popular uprising in 1988, the entire people of Burma “are the prisoners in our own house”, as Aung San Suu Kyi said. Burma under this military regime is just like a blind man who lost his sight intentionally, for it was covered by absolute darkness with extremely negative attitude. And there are millions of oppressed to be released. This is what our struggle is all about.

   In this struggle, we are fighting for freedom, justice, peace and fundamental human rights. We want “freedom from fear” because we live our lives under this military regime in constant fear. We want “freedom of expression” because freedom of expression is a huge crime under military dictatorship. We have over one thousand political prisoners in Burma, who committed no crime but daring to express their free will. We want “freedom from want” because the peoples of Burma are destitute living under extreme conditions of impoverishment, hunger and disease without remedy in the land that used to be known as the “rice bowl of Asia”.

   We want “peace” because the regime in Burma has been at war with its own people for more than five long decades. Yes, we want peace but the peace that we want is not just in terms of the absence of conflict but in terms of the presence of justice.

   We want “justice” because there is no such thing as the rule of law under a military dictatorship. Martial Law, according to General Saw Maung, is no law at all but the use of force. In today’s Burma, law and order exist not for protecting its people but for sustaining dictators in power. We want basic “human rights” because human rights abuses have become part of the political system in the so-called “law and order restoration”, as the military junta used to call itself the “State Law and Order Restoration Council”.

   Finally, we want to live with human dignity because when all kinds of rights are abused people lose their dignity, integrity and identity. And what we want is to live just like a human being who is the image of God. So, our struggle is a struggle to be an authentic human being again.

   Our struggle is not just for changing the government in Rangoon, or in Naypidaw, but for restructuring the country into a Democratic Federal Union as it was agreed by General Aung San and ethnic national leaders in 1947 at the Panglong Conference, when the Union of Burma was founded at the first place. The root cause of political crisis in Burma is not just ideological confrontation between military dictatorship and democracy; it also involves constitutional problems rooted in the denial of the rights of self-determination for ethnic nationalities who joined the Union as equal partners according to the Panglong Agreement. The only solution for political crisis in Burma, in our view, is to establish a genuine Federal Union of Burma, which will guarantee the fundamental rights for all citizens of the Union, political equality for all ethnic nationalities, and the right of self-determination for all member states of the Union within federal arrangement.

   In this struggle, we also challenge the notion of “nation-building” in which the concept of “nation” is blended with “one ethnicity, one language, and one religion”. As such, nation-building belongs to what social scientists call “subjective values”, that is, culture, language, religion, ethnicity, homeland, shared memories and history, etc., which differentiate one group of people from another­values that cannot be shared objectively between different peoples. From its process, the very notion of “nation-building” excludes other ethnic groups, cultures, religions and everything related to multiculturalism and diversity. Thus, by accepting only one homogeneous set of cultural and religious values as its political values, the process of nation-building can produce only a nation-state made by a homogeneous people or nation that claims pre-state unity based on culture, history or religion. As a result, a nation-state made by a nation through the nation-building process cannot accommodate other cultures, religions and ethnic groups. What it can do at best is it can tolerate non-integrated minorities as guests, but not as equal citizens. The status of fully recognized citizen can be attained only by integration.

   In such circumstances, minority groups have only “either-or” choice: either integrating within the majority culture after paying a big price of destroying their original cultural roots, or resisting integration but after paying a big price of being denied the opportunity to enhance their cultural identity through political means. In both cases, minority groups must pay a big price because the only choice for them is between assimilation and resistance. Assimilation in such situation is nothing but ethnic and cultural extinction, and resistance can be anything in between life and death. Thus, it is obvious that the nation-building process is impossible to implement in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious plural society like the Union of Burma. The only way to implement the nation-building process in a plural society is to use coercive force for assimilation. However, using force for ethnic assimilation will definitely be resulted in confrontation and conflict, because the very notion of nation-building is hostile to multiculturalism and diversity. Unfortunately, this conflict is exactly what is happening in Burma during the past fifty years.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场