Unlike most Burmese exiles, Tun Oo sees next year’s general election as a chance for the NLD to refresh its old mandate. He recently spoke from his home in Fort Wayne, Indiana

Tun Oo, one of Aung San Suu Kyi’s sharp, work-horse lieutenants, was elected to Burma’s parliament in the 1990 general election, representing Kyauk Kyee Township in Pegu Division. A graduate of Rangoon’s Institute of Technology, he played a key role in the government-in-exile headed by Mrs Suu Kyi’s cousin, Dr Sein Win, after the ruling junta rejected the outcome of the election, helping to establish the National League for Democracy-Liberated Area (NLD-LA), the political twin of the NLD operating inside Burma. At Manerplaw camp in Kayin State near the Thai border, which was formerly the headquarters of all the ethnic rebel armies, he managed the united front’s counter-intelligence network.

LIVING IN EXILE: Tun Oo at his home in Fort Wayne, Indiana,

Always seen with a walkie-talkie in hand, he was the only Burmese politician in the camp who won the trust of Gen Bo Mya, the late supreme leader of ethnic Karen and arch-enemy of successive Burmese governments.

After the fall of Manerplaw in 1995, the government-in-exile moved its office to Washington. Tun Oo continued to work on the Thai border before he eventually took asylum in the US in 1999. Since then he has been living in Fort Wayne, Indiana, keeping a low profile, yet still well informed by his former operatives and partners far and near.

Now 53, Tun Oo works in an car parts factory, fixing the vehicles of the refugees who form the largest expatriate Burmese community in North America. He is also the chairman of the NLD in Fort Wayne.

Unlike most Burmese exiles who reject it, Tun Oo sees next year’s general election in Burma as a chance for the NLD to refresh its old mandate. His view is that rejecting the election principally denies voters’ rights and thus, denies “participatory democracy”.

In what capacity did you work in the exiled government?

When the National Coalition Government of Union of Burma (NCGUB) was established, I was assigned to the Labour and Social Welfare ministries. Originally MPs were assigned to ministerial positions in the exiled government by consensus. The whole leadership is collectively responsible for all operations. Later, I handed the Labour portfolio to U Hla Oo. After the murder of finance minister U Win Ko in China, I was given his office too. So I was in charge of two portfolios until 1996.

My other important function was in counter-intelligence operations of the Democratic Alliance of Burma (DAB), on the border and inside Burma in coordination with our ethnic partners.

Why was the parallel government instituted? Was it an attempt to realise the election results because the (then) State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) failed to honour its promise?

Back then, the situation was tense and complex. Mutual distrust was too high. One of our good comrades died while under government interrogation. We had the mandate to set up a parallel government entrusted by our MP colleagues after the historic Gandhi Hall Meeting. The original plan was to set it up right in that meeting. But the situation was not in favour of it. So we left for the Thai border.

When we proclaimed the parallel government we intended to launch an all-out struggle against the military dictatorship. But when Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, many of us felt obliged to change course to pursue a non-violent struggle instead of using force. We have sought worldwide diplomatic pressure against the regime in Rangoon. Since then the NCGUB has become, as many have said, one pressure group among many, playing a supportive role to the politics of the NLD inside the country.

How long did you work for the exiled government?

From its inception in December 1990 to mid-1996. In 1996, we had a meeting in Stockholm (Sweden) and the prime minister made a reshuffle. It was at the Stockholm meeting that my tenure in the exiled government was over. I then returned to the border and continued to work in various capacities.

COMRADES: A youthful Tun Oo, left, with Gen Bo Mya, right, and Dr Sein Win at the Manerplaw border camp in 1999.

Given that the outcome of the 1990 election has not been implemented, do you think the 2010 election is acceptable?

Well, you cannot reject an election. You can only opt out of it if it does not serve your purpose. An election is not only for you. It is for all.

We need to keep the two aspects apart in our case. First, the next election is long overdue – 20 years have passed without a single one. Normally there should be four or even five elections in such a time span. It is the democratic right of the new generation – those young people who follow us. Who can deny such a democratic right, and on what excuse? I think no excuse is good enough to keep it on hold indefinitely.

But whether the NLD will participate in it is another issue. The NLD and the military government are tied up in a context which is not yet untied. We all know it.

In this aspect the question also should be split into two. Firstly, should the NLD participate in it, and secondly, would the NLD participate in it eventually.

If you ask me, I would rather say the NLD should look more at the present and the future and less at the past. The NLD is out of the country’s political process partly by choice and partly because of repression. Since the NLD clearly cannot undo the junta-controlled process, it should seek the second chance in it. On the question of whether the NLD would cooperate and enter the election, I think it would do so eventually. I heard that U Khin Maung Swe, one of the NLD’s spokespersons, has told the media about practical difficulties. He said that they have to wait until the election law comes out, that the Central Executive Committee (CEC) have to call a grand meeting of all party representatives, to listen to them, and to collectively decide whether to stand in the election or not.

That was the way we proceeded prior to the 1990 election. The government still has to allow the NLD to freely meet among themselves, and with their leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

The NLD has been demanding a dialogue to revise the law.

The dialogue demand is a face-saving gesture. To revise the law is an excuse. Everybody knows it is unachievable. Nevertheless, the government should offer the NLD a certain way to save face before the nation as well as the global public.

US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell is going to visit Burma. He is said to be meeting representatives from both sides, including Aung San Suu Kyi. What do you think about this?

The Obama administration accepts the next Burmese election as the solution. So it is the NLD’s turn to lessen the pressure in the conflict; it may be a friendly persuasion in form.

SPEAKING OUT: Demanding the release of Burma’s democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, a protester displays a poster during a demonstration in front of the UN in New York.

What about the new constitution? Many say it is undemocratic.

I do not care much about the defects of the constitution. We need to have a constitution in the background to say that, this time, unlike 1990, we have the constitution. We can change, amend or revise it one way or another in the long run.

So my only concern is that the election must be free and fair, and must have international oversight.

What about the undemocratic elements of the new constitution?

No constitution is perfect in its original shape. Look at the US Constitution. It has been amended bit by bit. Therefore you have the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution). I remember we had a talk about the imperfections of the old constitution 20 years ago in the Gandhi Hall meeting. Then, U Kyi Maung (a late NLD leader and close aide to Aung San Suu Kyi) compared an imperfect constitution to a short guy. A short guy can add to his height by using high heel shoes. Likewise, he said, a law can be improved time and again.

I see clauses in the new constitution that allow changes, probably hard to use, yet they are there at least. Perhaps, the new MPs may have to attempt to amend the amendment clauses first.

What about U Win Tin’s (an NLD hardliner and member of the CEC) flat rejection against the next election, as he wrote in an article in the ‘Washington Post’?

He is entitled to his opinion, but he is neither a candidate nor a voter in the 1990 election. (He was in prison). The reality is how much he could resist it, since it is even acquiesced by the US and EU governments, our only supporters. I would say U Win Tin is resisting out of his personal bitterness, not so flexible at this point, which is an important policy concern of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. I remember a discussion back in 1989 in which she told me to be more flexible. Then I was openly against forming a political party and standing in an election as SLORC wanted. She said: “We need to be flexible with changing situations; we need to use different paddles on different waters at different river bends.”

About the author

Writer: Myint Shwe

Position: Reporte