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
·中缅边境军民要以正视听
·缅甸蒲甘世界文化遗产一日游(1)
·缅甸中国边民有话说
·缅甸蒲甘世界文化遗产一日游(续1)
·绝密档案 招标中标 鸡的屁
·少吃长寿送煤气炉
·缅甸海归谈缅甸中国关系
·昂山素姬弃美投华?
·铜矿村民愤概昂山素姬调查报告
·缅甸斗士海归责怪昂山素姬
·独裁观察家点评昂山素姬
·缅甸评论家奉劝昂山素姬
·于建嵘与柴静的中国梦
·美国反式脂肪与中国粮油食品奶粉
·缅甸会成卢旺达第二吗?
·中国贪官与美国梦
·诺奖得主的健康长寿秘诀
·古人的劳逸养生与食疗
·中国摩登僧尼与时俱进
·中华五千年文明遗产馆
·吴内昂谈缅甸2008年宪法与人权
·与中国渐行渐远的缅甸
·为老外所描述的中国人而痛哭
·科学地话说杨桃
·中国人为何多会早死
·奥巴马应赦免斯诺登
·推荐斯诺登为诺贝尔和平奖候选人!
·习近平贺马英九当选国民党主席
·旅美华人谈美国生活和房价
·经济动物在英国皇家音乐厅表演
·中缅天然气管道开始向中国通气了!
·建滇缅公路为中印经济走廊
·赛万赛谈和平奋斗建真正缅甸联邦
·江山易改?本性难移?
·赛万赛谈缅甸宪法危机
·奥巴马力挺缅甸金宫寺
·赛万赛谈2013年缅甸和解进程
·温教授谈1947年彬龙协议
·公说公有理,婆说婆有理
·公说公有理,婆说婆有理(续1)
·南中精神照耀伊江莱茵河
·危害健康的加工食品与铝锅
·中国缅甸瑞苗胞波
·缅甸该学中国哪些?
·给参加2000论坛的昂山素姬一封信
·赛万赛谈缅甸全国内战停火
·携手平等合作,互利双赢共富共荣
·江西省四日游
·慟神州老少抢位打架
·从奥巴马竖毛泽东铜像谈起
·小乘、大乘、密教、喇嘛、达赖
·惊喜祖籍国与时俱进
·台湾民主基金会颁奖给缅甸克伦族人权小组
·天朝土豪游客天上来
·丑陋的 Chinese 败类
·天朝富豪精英傲翔天上
·缅甸中国健康饮食须知
·掸复委掸邦军姚色克说要退位
·中国人质素比上不足比下有余
·美国不像东南亚种族歧视与偏见
·从中国古今13尊大佛说起
·2014年初缅甸纵横谈
·缅甸内战为何停停打打?
·亡国奴与龙的传人
·纵浪大化中,乘流沧海浮
·中国农民工是贱民
·中国车以缅甸为基地进军东南亚
·父亲节笑活
·昂山素姬能当选缅甸总统吗?
·缅甸将复兴为世界米仓与中等收入国
·父亲节另版笑活
·中国快成科技创新大国
·缅甸空军将装备中巴“枭龙”战机
·中缅两国人民要爱国爱民爱传统友谊
·泰国克拉运河终于开挖了
·纪念缅甸学生七七惨案52周年
·缅甸贪官震宇宙惊天下?
·天大巨贪是缅甸或中国将军们?
·莫言的锵锵真言
·益寿抑癌健康蔬菜排行榜
·天朝神仙辟谷术与增寿功
·讴歌太平盛世中国夢
·从人民巡警爱人民讲起
·吃价廉物美的保健蔬菜!
·大资本家李嘉诚有话说
· 缅甸仰望中国巨贪巨腐
·龙的传人欧来欧去记
·缅甸华族看香港占中
·缅甸莱比塘铜矿惨案
·赤子心童年梦
·缅甸第67周年独立节
·知否您身价💲千万¥万万缅元超百亿?
·彭家声誓要打回老家果敢去
·赛万赛采访缅甸众民族武装组织
·缅甸和谈双方须互让共赢
·歌曲:习近平寄语中华儿女
·食人族与美韓中三俘虏
·缅甸UNFC对68周年联邦节的声明
·猜谜:诸子百家?三教九流?习大大寄语?
·缅甸是战是和,登盛政府是问
·能耳闻眼见心知又如何呢?
[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