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
·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
·美国回亚洲开辟新冷战
·美国回亚洲开辟新冷战
·缅甸左拥中国右抱美国
·缅甸左拥中国右抱美国
·非缅族众政党向美国国务卿请愿
·韩永贵与昂山素姬的杠杆作用
·恢复四大功能就永離癌症
·恢复四大功能就永離癌症
·温家宝在世界未来能源峰会上的讲话
·勿背叛国父昂山理念!
·勿背叛国父昂山理念!
·赛万赛谈缅甸2012年初局势
·温教授谈缅甸独立后与现在
·中国改革须走出“转型陷阱”
·恢复四大功能就永離癌症
·非缅族政党对第二彬龙会议的看法
·昂山素姬在克钦邦重提彬龙精神
·缅甸华族2012年生活守则
·缅甸联邦人民要各族平等、民主共和!
·缅甸彭家声的果敢军也愿和解
·缅甸学运领袖对登盛国会发言的反应
·缅甸联邦有望持久和平吗?
·2012年三八妇女节感言
·赛万赛点评登盛总统的和平三步走
·Khin Ohnmar 剥缅甸伪平民政府洋葱
·昂山素姬外泄的竞选录音
·缅甸人民大谈民主
·广州人物周刊拜访昂山素姬
·昂山素姬竞选缅文原稿
·土司公主3月2日的神圣呼吁
·缅甸官方大谈为国为民反贪反橡皮图章
·缅甸补选点滴趣闻
·昂山素姬为何坚信登盛总统诚意改革
·昂山素姬民盟胜了不骄傲也不辱人
·少食+多菜少荤+快乐+早睡早起 =长寿
·未来吃什么?
·腦退化症
·缅甸国内外形势说变就变?
·缅甸掸族领袖如何看昂山素姬和登盛政府
·独裁者守望台对“新缅甸”的评价
·赛万赛对缅甸局势是否太乐观?
·掸公主 Sao Noan Oo 对英国有话说
·佤邦联合军保家卫邦不怕空袭
·匈牙利布达佩斯一日游
·捷克布拉格一日游
·缅军与克钦军交火不断 中国参与斡旋
·赠神州红尘众生的锵锵劝世良言
·忆10年前云南8日游
·最美教师张丽莉与日日向善的中国人民
·最美司机48岁吴斌
·普世價值的中國先知——方励之
·谈白岩松与昂山素姬为民请命
·悼六四硬汉李旺阳被“自杀”
·温教授貌强谈若开宗教种族暴乱
·谈缅甸古今大小民族主义
·1962年缅甸学生七七惨案
·缅甸前国防总长谈罗兴迦人来龙去脉
·赛万赛谈登盛政府一年多政绩
·温教授点评大缅族主义/缅甸军队
·嚴家其谈中国民主法治轉型
·掸邦众族民主联盟昆吞武讲话
·缅甸众少数民族点评停战和谈
·罗兴迦悲剧迴光返照众生相
·给8888学生领袖哥哥基的公开信
·赛万赛盛赞登盛总统最近言行
·缅甸民主同盟DAB对和解停战声明
·掸邦进步党成立41周年纪念
·缅甸2012年五大民主服务奖章得主
·缅甸联邦众土族在泰缅边境开会
·缅甸联邦众土族开会声明
·掸邦众族民主联盟主席昆吞武赴美领奖
·美国之音访问掸邦民主联盟主席昆吞武
·缅甸有了选举就成真正民主国家吗?
·赛万赛点评昂山素姬与吴登盛总统
·温教授点评昂山素姬与吴登盛总统
·廉萨空博士回缅甸参加研讨会
·赛万赛谈缅族缅邦一分为七
·鲍彤吁温总出面澄清家族财富
·缅甸若开邦又爆发新暴力冲突
·温教授痛斥大缅族主义祸国殃民
·从外援谈到非缅族众原住民的权益
·转基因与新瘟疫SARS
·中国缅甸油气管道
·美国逼中国在其中国近海包围圈开战
[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