Three Governments for one country

…

_ By Ko Htun Aung Gyaw
Burma has been facing ethnic tension within the country after it gained independence from Britain.  Because of the ethnic tension, the Burmese army used the tension as a tool to take over political power and ruled the country since 1962.  Some ethnic groups are indirectly supporting the regime by demanding to establish their own country.  The regime made an excuse that the country need a strong army to unite the different factions; similarly some ethnic groups are demanding separate country for their own which matches with the regime’s excuse.  In this essay, I will high lights three so-called governments and the out comes.

Some ethnic leaders’ resentment on Burmese military is so great that they could not categorize who is the real suppressor, the military regime or the Burman race.  They see the regime and Burmans as one and hated the Burman race.  In reality, Burman race is also suppressed by the regime; there is no difference whether they are Burmese, Shans, Karens, or Chins.  All the races under military regime suffered nothing less and nothing more.  Under military regime, no one has rights to stand up and said what he/she believes in and dislikes it. 
The Christians said they were oppressed, Muslims claimed it too, because the Generals have been repairing pagodas, donating alms to Buddhists monks, seem they are promoting Buddhism and ignoring the other religions.   But when the world witnessed the crack down of peaceful demonstrations led by Burmese Buddhist monks in September 2007, it proved that all the races and religions have no rights to express their will.  No single race and single religion has a right to practice what they believe under military rule.

1. The Military regime  or the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC)

The regime has no legitimacy after it lost the elections in 1990.  But it has the deep-rooted institution, the army.   Even though the regime has no legitimacy, they still have enough power to control the country by using well-trained army as its backbone.  The ruling generals only know how to give orders; they do not want to listen to what the country needs. The generals only know selling out natural resources such as tropical forests, fishing concessions, gem stones, food products; and favored its cronies to set up economic empires that no one has a chance to compete fairly. 

The Generals are afraid of student activism because students are intellectuals and they know what is right and what is wrong.  The fear of losing political power is so great that the regime finally shut down big universities and built small-scale colleges in remote places.  The regime is intentionally lowering down the student population by giving them a chance to pass every examination whether they do not attend the class properly or they could not answer the questions well. The reason is they do not want to see the universities and colleges crowded with students, it will create a hot bed of student activism.

Today, Burma education system is totally rotten and most of the college graduates are not qualified.  As a result, Burma will be named as the country with lowest education system in Southeast Asia in the near future under the SPDC rule.  It is not surprising under General Ne Win rule, Burma became one of the least developing countries around the world. Ne Win killed the economic system; but SPDC’s killing of the future generation by destroying the education system is far worst than Ne Win.

2. Interim Shan Government, Federated Shan States

On April 17 2005, Soa Hso Kham Pha known as Tiger Yawnghwe declared himself as the President and Hkun Seng Zed as prime minister of the Independence of the Federated Shan States without approval from Shan prominent resistance leaders including Col.Yawd  Serk.  Tiger said it was the will of all people of the Shan States.  After the declaration some Shan villagers supported the move but their villages were destroyed and more than a thousand Shan villagers fled from their villages to avoid SPDC’s attack.  After they arrived to the Thai side, they were pushed back by the Thai border police. 

What kind of political benefit that the so-called Interim Shan Government got after they formed the government?  Nothing, except it made them satisfied their craving to be Shan Leaders.  The consequence of the declaration is Shan villagers lost their homeland and landed in Thailand as refugees.   Another impact is the SPDC has a chance to point out this move to unite its troops that Burma is on the verge of disintegration and it needs a strong army.  The move made by Tiger is indirectly supporting the SPDC rule to strengthen the army, not to weaken them.

The Burmese Generals systemically brainwashed the soldiers and people that the country need the strong army to unite it, otherwise it will disintegrate into small countries.  This kind of excuse proved to be right that announcing the Shan government is not a wise move.  We all need to distinguish if we are doing what our people need or we are doing it for our personal satisfaction.

In conclusion, all ethnic leaders need to fight for the whole country and become the leaders of Burma, not only the leader of specific races.  It is time to change the old strategy and create a new one.  We all have to fight for the whole country, not only for one race.  If we unite as one under the name of Burma, we will topple down the regime.  Then we can write the Federal Constitution, which will allow all the races to live happily as freeman.

3. The National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB)

The NCGUB is comprised of six elected MPs from 1990 elections.   Two ministers are living in the USA; other ministers have been living in Thai-Burma border and New Delhi, India.  After forming its so-called government in 1991, NCGUB is still not recognized by any foreign country as a government.  In reality, NCGUB is a self-proclaimed organization, which has very few members to operate.  It has six ministers and lack of staff members.  It is difficult to call for the cabinet meeting and all the cabinet members rarely see each other because of their different distant locations. 

Formation of the NCGUB is to recognize and implement the 1990 election results, NCGUB interprets that all the appointed ministers must be elected MPs to honor the 1990 election results.  No one is permitted as a government minister if she/he is not an elected MP.  This kind of consideration is blocking the participation of skilled politicians and ethnic resistance leaders who are not MPs.

Many MPs are now living in the Thai-Burma border and abroad, even though they are elected members of the 1990 elections, they are not included in the inner circle of NCGUB.  The resentment between the MPs outside the NCGUB circle is growing when the NCGUB itself could not prove of any progress within these past 17 years.  NCGUB spread the news that if they include someone who is not the elected MP, this change will tarnish the reorganization of the 1990 election results.  When we look at the governments around the world, we did not see most of the ministers as elected MPs, instead most of the ministers are skilled bureaucrats.  They know the job better than the elected MPs because they are experts in their assigned field.

After 17 years without improvement, we need to see change in the NCGUB.  If we do not dare to speak about change in the exile government, we have to admit that we cannot bring change inside Burma because SPDC is a de-facto government and has 400,000 strong army. 
 
If someone does not dare to talk about change in front of NCGUB in the free world, how could we believe that these people have ability to fight against the SPDC? In fact, we need a real change and we need to speak out for the sake of our dragging revolution. 

NCGUB need to change for the better functioning entity by dropping the idea of “only MPs could form the government” and allow “capable and politically qualified persons to participate in the group” including more elected MPs from outside of current NCGUB.  We need to think about change bravely in the free world.  Nobody could harm you to talk about change in positive way; for a better exile government with a limited term. Four or five years?  One or two terms? We need to speak out for new leadership, new strategy and new ideas.  Then, NCGUB will go forward and be widely recognize by the activists circle.  This is my constructive criticism.

Htun Aung Gyaw
.