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
·缅甸果敢:温2009年知2015年
·停战!建设缅甸Federal邦联!
·缅甸全国停火会议五月初续开
·缅甸边签全国停火协议边打内战
·缅甸佤邦五月初续开全国停火会议
·缅甸UNFC主席给登盛总统的公开信
·缅甸众少数民族维护果敢兄弟
·缅甸佤邦五月初和平会议困难重重
·缅甸果敢军四月战果
·缅甸五月初佤邦和谈任重道远
·望缅甸联邦和平复兴
·缅甸佤邦棒桑全国停火会议开锣了
·缅甸佤邦棒桑全国停火会议首日
·缅甸佤邦棒桑和平会议第四天
·缅甸佤邦棒桑和谈会第五天
·缅甸佤邦棒桑峰会胜利闭幕
·缅甸民族武装组织邦康峰会公报
·缅甸三分鼎立,看谁出奇制胜
·缅军誓要以果敢之血洗其臭脚
·缅甸温教授谈“联邦”
·看中国如何应对缅军逼民地武缴枪
·从果敢战事痛忆白华红华互屠
·Great! 世界宗教议会!
·缅甸内战源于大缅族极端主义背叛彬龙协议
·缅甸独裁将军们四两拨千斤
·谈昂山素姬首次访华
·昂山素姬与女强人妈推姬
·昂山素姬与女强人妈推姬
·缅甸将军们放下屠刀就立地成佛?
·缅甸学生七七惨案永不忘!
·煎炸烘烤动植物食品极不健康
·笑+思考+运动 = 健脑强身
·KNDO 六十七周年建军节讲话
·缅甸阿尔茨海默症
·缅甸CNF正义的呼声!
·缅甸EAO不忘小兄弟民族
·缅甸和平夜长梦多险恶
·怀念王毅诚老师
·湖南窃贼偷佛国玉坠
·缅甸众民族武装怒吼了 !
·克伦民族抵抗组织怒吼了
·韩国逍遥游
·登盛政府会平稳移交政权吗?
·寄厚望于昂山素姬新政府
·且看登盛军民政府如何逊位
·Q类败类在神州复活
·克伦民族节68周年讲话
·缅甸UNFC扩大会议文告
·赛万赛谈缅甸联邦
· 赛万赛谈缅军最近动向
·温教授继续炮轰缅甸将军们!
·赛万赛谈掸邦掸族团结自救
·缅甸老华人忆过去盼未来
·伟哉!一穷二白的缅甸佛国金塔善良村民!
·赛万赛谈缅甸新总统新副总统新政府
·上座部佛教与孟缅掸柬寮泰滇
·赛万赛谈缅甸联邦的过去和现在
·缅甸与大东亚共荣圈
·仰光大学与缅甸联邦独立
·“缅甸历次战争的实质”读后感
·灵魂工程师、未来主人翁、天下大同、天下为公
·7-JULY与母校仰大学运传欧
·缅甸德佑续游瑞列匈土
·赛万赛谈缅甸民地武大会
·赛万赛谈国内和平与中缅友好
·赛万赛谈昂山素姬访华
· 掸民盟昆吞武与中共宋涛面谈
·缅甸彬龙会议风波
·缅甸内战受害者的呼声
·21世纪彬龙会议举步艰难
·彬龙会议的石破天惊言行
·21世纪彬龙会议言论集
·缅甸UNFC柳暗花明又一村
·缅甸UNFC建议开三方会议
·让佛光普照大地
·缅甸不愿常任LDC欠发达国家
·对老怨天尤人者只好避而远之
·温教授呼吁正确认识缅甸
·赛万赛谈缅甸全国全面停战协议
·赛万赛谈缅甸议会补选与政局变化
·缅甸华人
·温教授谈Rohingya罗兴亚人
·温教授由七月七日惨案谈起
·赛万赛忆掸邦学友
·与掸族兄弟夜谈掸族掸国掸史
·游加拿大感概万千(一)
·游加拿大感概万千(二)
·游加拿大感概万千(三)
·游加拿大感概万千(四)
· 游加拿大感概万千
·廉萨空博士的暹粒讲话
·天主教生根缅甸已五百多年
·话说阿那比隆缅皇
·缅甸真的有135原住民吗?
·缅甸联邦第一任总统苏瑞泰
·读“此昂山非彼昂山”有感
·读“中国式思维”感概万千
·缅甸暹罗两大战争史
·话说缅甸佛塔
·暹王缅王储骑象单打独斗?
·缅甸人民跪求国泰民安
[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