政党社团之声
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    缅甸风云
[主页]->[政党社团之声]->[缅甸风云]->[Interview with Sai Wansai, General Secretary of SDU]
BURMA-缅甸风云
·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
·由缅甸布朗毒品报告谈起
·祝贺缅甸克伦族革命61周年
·缅甸众土族要民主联邦制
·缅甸NDF谴责军政府的军事胁迫恫吓
·缅甸军政府与众土族谈谈打打
·缅甸反对派2010年选战观
·杨奎松谈新中国的贫富与等级制度
·由阿利教谈到缅甸中国佛教
·缅甸局势与NDF七中大会
·仰光爆炸案的背后阴谋
·姚色克在掸邦反抗日讲话
·悠游土耳其12日
·斯德哥尔摩古城一日游
·中外史前巨石阵
·瑞典古城与郭沫若
·和瑞典学者谈社会主义
·清帝顺治与缅王丹瑞
·千万勿忘第一敌人!!!
·昂山素姬讲话一石激千浪
·掸邦欢迎昂山素姬的21世纪彬龙会议
·缅甸众土族欢庆昂山素姬获释公告
·昂山素姬对新闻工作者讲话
·昂山素姬答伊江编辑问
·昂山素姬获释近况略记
·缅甸民主同盟2010-1号战果报告
·昂山素姬答缅甸民主之声问
·中缅边境缅甸三特区风紧
·缅甸好汉的小国群英宴
·缅甸拟大打内战与滥印万元钞票
·缅甸正渡黎明前的黑夜
·三高外,提防类胱氨酸过高!
·缅甸三大力量摆开攻守阵势
·昂山素姬前途充满黑色13日
·中缅边区毒品业娱乐业及边贸
·中药虫草
·改革的鐘聲正在響起
·好人好事好国度永远值得热恋
·澳洲坚果(夏威夷果)Macadamia
·KNU对缅甸内比都炸弹爆炸之声明
·又一亲密战友去向马克思哭诉
·又一亲密战友去向马克思哭诉
·柏林的马克思坐着恩克斯站着
·缅甸国防军的种族奸杀灭绝政策
·缅甸国防军的种族奸杀灭绝政策
·昂山素姬呼吁尽快停火和谈的公开信
·缅甸联邦缅族与非缅族历史恩怨宿仇
·掸邦掸族断臂将军召吞英
·缅甸种族冲突能政治解决吗?
·缅甸是世界数二数三贪腐穷困国
·缅甸是世界数二数三贪腐穷困国
·缅甸的和平曙光
·93岁缅甸作家达贡达雅呼吁国内和平
·何谓和平?何谓停火?如何和谈?
·昂山素姬 Reith 第一讲:自由
·昂山素姬道高一尺,将军们魔高一丈
·昂山素姬边妥协边缓进
·缅甸三方对话才能全面和解
·昂山素姬 BBC Reith 第三讲
·昂山素姬 BBC Reith 自由第四讲
·缅甸众族并肩共和蓝图
·昂山素姬 BBC Reith 第五讲
·缅族需改唯我独尊心态
·昂山素姬 BBC Reith 第六讲
·抛弃彬龙协议将激发缅甸各族自决
·联邦众族团结委员会覆函缅甸联邦政府
·缅甸宗教自由吗?
·昂山素姬对中国缅甸伊江建坝的意见书
·昂山素姬 BBC Reith 第七讲
·缅甸掸邦众族关心狱中68岁领袖昆吞武
·缅甸要片面或全盘和解?
·昂山素姬BBC Reith 第八讲
·缅甸新政府似无意改革或和解
·缅甸乱世出英雄?
·安息吧!赛森尊好战友!好兄弟!
·缅甸要真正联邦制或大缅族独裁制?
·缅甸克钦邦克钦族反对中国支持缅甸政府
·缅甸释放政治犯才能加速民主进程
·近代中国缅甸恩怨
·缅甸政府对昂山素姬与非缅族众原住民的策略
·勿忘缅甸半世纪内战难民与狱中仟捌政治犯
·昂山素姬与丹麦师生谈领袖谈民主运动
·钦族老革命谈昂山素姬与缅甸政府
·国际缅甸民族院奠基会反对民盟参加政府补选
·对昂山素姬与民盟参加政府补选面面观
·非缅族众原住民委员会ENC欢迎民盟NLD重新注册
·缅甸民主力量FDB对民盟注册与补选发表声明
·昂山素姬允诺兼顾民主与各族平等
·旅加缅甸9团体支持民盟注册与补选
·缅甸改革风吹草低见牛羊?
·缅共呼吁人民对中美勿一边倒
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Interview with Sai Wansai, General Secretary of SDU

by BOXUN NEWS (S.H.A.N. & Burma's News Published by Burma's Chinese 貌强 )on 04 JUNE 2005

    Recently, an article advocating the forming of a federal union without theBurman state or Burma Proper have been publicized and it creates somecuriosity, if not alarmed, on this trend of advocacy.

    Maung Chan of Boxun News (S.H.A.N. & Burma's News Published by Burma's Chinese ) called on Sai Wansai, General Secretary of the Shan Democratic Union SDU ,who is familiar with Burmans' and non-Burmans’ political scenario, to clarify the motive behind such an outburst.

    MgChan - What is your opinion on Prof. Kanbawza Win's article of forming afederal union without the Burmans?

    SaiWanSai - Prof. Kanbawza Win, as an individual is entitled to express hisown opinion and it is not necessarily the political stand of the non-Burmanethnic nationality groups. But my interpretation is that he might like topoint out that many of the Burman opposition elements still cannot cleanthemselves of racial supremacy, chauvinism or big brother mentalityvis-à-vis the other non-Burman groups. This, in turn, leads to the thinking of "if the Burmans are so consumed by their own political agendas of placing themselves above the norms of "equality, restoration of democracy and the rights of self-determination, the non-Burman ethnic nationality groups might as well form a union without the Burmans". The outburst is more on the side of venting anger on the indifferent Burman majority stakeholders, both within the military junta and opposition camps, than actually wanting to exclude the Burmans.

    MgChan - How many kind of conflict resolution outcomes could you envisage,apart from forming a federal union without the Burmans?

    SaiWanSai - Before we talk about conflict resolution, we should first lookinto the cause of conflict and type of conflict.

    Cause of conflict

    To understand the cause of conflict we could generally bundled the issuestogether into four major headings, namely: "Conceptual Differences,Constitutional Crisis, National Identity and Majority-MinorityConfiguration".

    1. Conceptual Differences

    The successive military dominated regimes, including the ruling SPDC, seeBurma as an existing unified nation since the reign of Anawratha thousandsof years ago. As such, all other non-Burmans – Shan, Kachin, Chin,Arakanese, Mon, Karen and Karenni - are seen as minorities, which must becontrolled and suppressed, lest they break up the country.

    On the other hand, the non-Burmans maintain that the Union of Burma is anewly developed territorial entity, founded by a treaty, the PanglongAgreement, where independent territories merged together on equal basis.

    Given such conceptual differences, the Burmese military goes about with itsimplementation of protecting “national sovereignty” and “national unity”at all cost. This, in turn, gives way to open conflict resulting in more suppression and gross human rights violations. The intolerance of themilitary and its inspiration to “racial supremacy”, political dominationand control has no limit and could be seen by its refusal to hand over power to the winners of 1990 nation-wide election, the NLD, SNLD and other ethnic parties. The genuine federalism platform, which the NLD and ethnicnationalities embrace, is a threat to its racist mind-set and obsession ofdomination and control.

    2. Constitutional Crisis

    The woes of Burma today are deeply rooted in the inadequate constitutionaldrafting of 1947. The Union Constitution was rushed through to completionwithout reflecting the spirit of Panglong. The ethnic homelands wererecognized as constituent states but all power was concentrated in thecentral government or the government of the Burma Mother state.

    Almost all the non-Burmans and Burman democratic opposition groups are inagreement that the ethnic conflict and reform of social, political andeconomics cannot be separated from one another. And the only solution andanswer is to amend the 1947 Constitution according to Panglong Agreement,where equality, voluntary participation and self-determination, of theconstituent states, formed the basis for the Republic of the Union of Burma.

    3. National Identity

    The views of successive Burmese governments, including the present regime,SPDC, concerning national identity has never been clear. They have been at a loss even as to what sort of name they should adopt; that is the reason why they are still using "Bamar“ and "Myanmar" interchangeably for what they would like to be termed a common collective identity, in other words,national identity. The reality is that when one entions "Myanmar", "Bamar","Burmese" or "Burman", such words are usually identified with the lowlandmajority "Bamar” and have never been accepted or understood by thenon-Bamar ethnic nationals as a common collective identity to which theyalso belong.

    Meanwhile, just a few years back, the present Burmese military regimechanged the name of Burma to Myanmar. Its aim is to create a nationalidentity for every ethnic group residing within the boundary of theso-called Union of Myanmar. But since the name Myanmar has always beenidentified with the lowland "Bamar", the SPDC effort the SPDC’s effort intrying to establish a common national identity among the non-Bamar ethnicnationals is only doomed to fail. On top of that, this national identity was not chosen with the consent of the non-Bamar ethnic groups, but coercively thrust down their throats by the hated Burmese military dictatorship.

    It has never been the case to hear anyone mentioning that he or she is aBamar Myanmar, Shan Myanmar, Kachin Myanmar, Karen Myanmar and so on. In the United States, by contrast, it is normal that one considers or acceptsoneself as an American; such as, the use of Chinese American, JapaneseAmerican, Afro-American and so on are common and widespread.

    Another crucial point that most tend to overlook is that the maintenance ofthe former European colonial boundaries as irreversible and sacrosanctnational state boundaries. This, in reality, only creates unending ethnicconflicts the world over affecting international stability. Burma is such acase, infested with ethnic and social conflicts.

    The point to note here is that the successive Burmese governments'nation-building process has totally shattered, failing even to take rootafter all these years, not to mention the forging of common nationalidentity. It would be more pragmatic to accept the existing diversified“national identities” of all ethnic nationalities as a fact and work for a new common identity in the future federal union with the consent andparticipation of all ethnic groups, Burman included.

    4. Majority-Minority Configuration

    The misconception of majority-minority configuration has been so entrenched;at least in medias and academic studies, it needs some clarification.

    The Burman are majority in Burma Proper and in numerical sense, but become a minority in the Shan States, Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karenni, Karen, and the Mon states, where respective ethnic groups are in majority within their own territories.

    Besides, Burma was formed in 1947 by virtue of the Panglong Agreement, oneyear prior to independence. This agreement was signed between the interimgovernment of Ministerial Burma, headed by Aung San, and leaders of the Federated Shan States, the Chin Hill Tract, and the Kachin Hill Tract. Itcould be said that this agreement is the genesis of the post-colonial,current Burma.

    Thus, the indigenous groups of Burma -- Shan, Arakanese, Chin, Kachin,Karenni, Karen, Mon and including the Burman -- are not minorities ormajorities but equal partners in a union of territories, the Union of Burma.

    Type of conflict

    Within Burma political arena there are roughly only two types of conflict.One is the ethnic conflict, which has a vertical nature in contrast tohorizontal one, and the other, the ideological conflict played out betweenentrenched military dictatorship and the democratic aspiration of thepeople, which has a horizontal effect, covering the whole political spectrum within Burma.

[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