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
·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
[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