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
·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
·国民党马与民进党谢的选后感言
·温教授评缅甸公投与大选
·NCUB的缅甸反法西斯63周年声明
·达赖喇嘛发表“对全球华人的呼吁”
·“黃金甲--詩篇”
·寒竹点评 “达赖言论”
·缅甸另两大力量对宪法公决的声明
·缅甸在野另七党派反对宪法公决
·给斯宾诺莎的信
·缅甸在野众党派对停战集团的呼吁
·请国际监察员来缅甸察督全民公投
·缅甸钦族委员会第二周年大会声明
·分离运动与自决权问题
·缅甸僧伽新年祈祷民主快来
·Burmese Monks Pray for Democracy
·达赖、缅藏、僧伽喇嘛、背后黑手
·UNPO第九届大会将在欧洲议会召开
·缅甸僧伽昭告人民书
·缅甸国内外僧伽民众4月26日反宪法公投
·缅甸工联FTUB向国际控诉
·缅甸联邦民族委员会五一劳动节声明
·中国学者谈缅甸民主前景
·缅甸僧伽对国际救济的紧急呼吁
·送缅甸将军们上国际刑事法庭
·Deliver the Junta of Burma to the International Criminal Court
·缅甸新宪法、军政府、反对势力
·缅甸反对党派不承认伪宪法与公投结果
·熊飞骏:马英九胜选的十大启示
·民意转求真正缅甸联邦制——不闹独立了
·缅甸众民族团结阵线12党不承认伪公投伪结果
·缅甸风灾,丹瑞大将有话说
·缅甸妇联要扭送丹瑞集团到国际刑事法庭
·缅甸反对力量、军政府、国际刑事法庭
·缅甸军政府要吃掉停战集团了
·缅甸军政府逼迫停战集团缴械参选
·缅人与团体到国际刑事法庭状告缅甸将军们
·缅甸人民恳求联合国:驱逐非法军政府!
·缅甸掸邦第四特区不任军政府宰割!
·反对军政府代表缅甸出席联合国2008年大会
·缅甸民选议员致函联合国与安理会
·缅甸教授与书生座谈“德先生”
·缅甸人民为何痛恨8——尤其8888?
·明天会更老还是更好?
·悲欢离合+生老病死
·秘方:马铃薯胡萝卜苹果三鲜榨汁
·温教授貌强合述缅甸的过去与现在
·对温教授貌强合述缅甸史之补充-1
·缅甸是东南亚另一只经济小虎?
·为2010年大选,甘巴里再访缅甸
·缅甸军政府撕毁停战协定?
·联合国与欧美对风灾后缅甸改变策略
·缅甸东掸邦民族民主自治区岌岌可危
·看佤邦联军如何死里求生
·美国加州缅华移民思想言行录
·恸上世纪60年代南洋排华
·后溪穴治腰酸背痛近视眼花
·蹲功——改善糖尿血压心肺功能
·联合国须送缅甸将军们上国际刑事法庭!
·缅甸掸邦四大特区坚决保家卫邦
·缅甸17停战组织与民主联合党
·缅甸军政府对东北众土族磨刀霍霍
·中风要三小时内急救!
·KNU苏沙吉七访西班牙
·缅甸果敢特区被攻陷了!
·强烈谴责缅甸军政府对果敢人民的暴行!
·战争是缅甸军政府特意发动的!
·缅甸果敢,君知多少?
·缅甸佤邦联军枕戈待旦决战
·果敢已沦陷,下个受害邦该谁?
·赛万赛与貌强谈大缅族主义的民族压迫
·果敢彭家声与伊洛瓦底记者的谈话
·缅甸众土族以小人之心度君子之腹?
·来电为缅官白所成喊冤平反
·缅甸僧伽与学生要求军政府停止民族压迫
·缅甸果敢沦陷区昨晚的来电
·联合国的人权宣言,缅甸不用遵守?
·华夏人道主义救援队缅北来电实录
·缅甸反对势力在2010年大选前的动态
·缅甸反对党派反对2010年伪大选的联合声明
·缅甸新宪法判众土族死刑
·东帝汶总统对缅甸与联合国的疾呼
·旅美缅甸民主力量反对2010年大选
·看昂山素姬缅甸民盟如何进退
·速开缅甸三方会议
·缅甸将军们与众土族奇谋对奇阵
·缅甸十月29日的奇谋奇阵棋盘
·缅甸将军们这么快立地成佛
·赛万赛谈山姆叔叔访问缅甸
·由丹瑞大将斯里兰卡取经说起
·蘑菇——植物肉!上帝食品!
·脂肪肝如何自疗自养?
·缅甸布朗族革命47周年声明
·缅甸民族民主阵线NDF呼吁军政府士兵起义
·温教授针砭缅甸高等教育
·缅甸军政府管辖区鸦片种植激增
[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