Letter from Burma (No. 1)

Letter from Burma (No. 1)
by Aung San Suu Kyi

Mainichi Daily News
November 27, 1995

SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY FLOWERS IN RURAL BURMA

"The Road to Thamanya (1)"

Twenty miles from the town of Pa - an in the Karen State is a hill that was known to the Mon people in ancient times as "Paddy Seed Hill" because it resembled a heap of paddies. The Karen and Pa-o peoples who lived in the surrounding villages would go up the hill to chop wood and to bake charcoal. Often they met with strange experiences which made them observe that this was not a "thamanya" (Pali samanya meaning "ordinary") place. With one of those perverse twists of linguistic logic the hill came to be known as Thamanya.

In 1980 the Venerable U Vinaya, a 69 - year-old Buddhist monk of Pa - o extraction, went up the hill to the site of two ruined stupas that had stood at the summit for centuries. Stirred by feelings of deep devotion the aging monk decided to remain near the site of the long neglected stupas. Now 15 years later the extraordinary "ordinary" hill of Thamanya is known throughout Burma as a famous place of pilgrimage, a sanctuary ruled by the metta (loving kindness) of the Hsayadaw, the holy teacher, U Vinaya.

Two weeks ago I made a trip outside Rangoon for the first time since my release from house arrest. A party of us set out in three cars at four o'clock in the morning along the road to Pegu in the northeast. We were headed for Thamanya, to pay our respects to the Hsayadaw and to receive his blessings. There is a special charm to journeys undertaken before daybreak in hot lands: the air is soft and cool and the coming of dawn reveals a landscape fresh from the night dew. By the time it was light enough for us to see beyond the headlights of our car we had left the outskirts of Rangoon behind us. The road was bordered by fields dotted with palms and every now and then in the distance, wreathed in morning mist, could be seen the white triangle of a stupa tipped with a metal "umbrella" that glinted reddish gold in the glow of the rising sun. I was travelling in a borrowed Pajero: the young men in our party had assured me that this was the best kind of car for rough country. They said successive safari rallies had been won by a Pajero. I think there must have been a bit of difference between those Pajeros that emerged triumphant in rallies and the one in which we went to Thamanya. Our vehicle was old and in an indifferent state of repair and every time we hit a particularly rough spot there was a. vigorous and unpredictable reaction. Several times the light that did not normally work switched itself on abruptly; the car radio dropped off and could not be put back; a thermos flask full of hot water exploded in protest; a first-aid box which we had thought securely ensconced at the back was suddenly found nestling against my feet. I had to keep myself from bouncing too far toward the ceiling by holding on grimly to the headrest of the front seats. There were times when it seemed as though I was perpetually suspended in midair.

At about six o'clock in the morning we drove through Pegu. Once it was a capital city of the Mons and also of King Bayinnaung, the one Burmese monarch who left the heartland to settle in the south, demonstrating a rare interest in the world beyond the confines of his original home. Nowadays Pegu no longer has a royal air but it is still graced by the Shwemawdaw Pagoda and by a huge reclining image of the Buddha, the Shwethalyaung.

The road had become worse as we came further and further away from Rangoon. In compensation the landscape became more beautiful. Rural Burma in all its natural glory gladdened our eyes even as our bones were jarred by the terrible antics of our car as it negotiated the dips and craters. Fortunately all of us shared a keen sense of humour and the violent bumps seemed to us more comic than painful. Between rising into the air and landing back with resounding thuds on our seats we managed to admire the scenery: the tender green of the graceful paddy plants; the beautiful lotuses, pink, white and blue, floating in pools and ditches; the dark, violet-washed hills carved into rolling shapes that conjured up images of fairytale creatures; the sky shading from pale turquoise to bright azure, streaked with deceptively still banks of clouds; the picturesque thatch huts perched on slender wooden poles, sometimes half hidden behind delicate bamboo fences trailing a frieze of flowering plant. But these pretty habitations lacked comfort and the people who lived there were very poor.

Around eight o'clock we crossed the Sittang bridge into the Mon State. Passing through the small towns of Kyaik - hto and Kyaik - kaw we saw the signboards of the National League for Democracy gallantly displayed in front of extremely modest lit- tle offices. These signboards, brilliantly red and white, are a symbol of the courage of people who have remained dedicated to their beliefs in the face of severe repression, whose commitment to democracy has not been shaken by the adversities they have experienced. The thought that such people are to be found all over Burma lifted my heart

(This is the first in a year - long series of letters, the Japanese translation of which appears in the Mainichi Shimbun today)

VIDEO ADDRESS

TRANSCRIPT OF DAW AUNG SAN SUU KYI’S VIDEO ADDRESS
TO THE
GENERAL SYSTEMS PREFERENCES HEARINGS

Brussels, Belgium, 22nd September 1996 (VHS Pal copies available)
Produced by the IMAGES ASIA HUMAN RIGHTS DESK

The great majority of the people in Burma live in a constant state of fear and insecurity. Forced labour is only one of the fears with which we have to cope. If the European Union can do something to alleviate that one fear, that will be of great help to us. We have to struggle for our own cause. We know that it is up to us to achieve democracy, but in this day and age the help of the international community means a lot, and in the name of a common humanity we look to you to help us as far as you can.

Types of forced labour - portering.

This is a term which refers to people who are taken by the armed forces to work for them to carry their arms, their rations, and in many cases it has been clear they are used as human mine fields [sweepers]. They go ahead of the troops so that if there are any land mines, those land mines will blow up under them and therefore they clear the way for the troops. So portering is one of the worst feared things on Burma. People loose their health and even their lives if they are taken to do a stint of portering. And then, of course, there is the other kind of forced labour which is working on local projects. There in villages and in towns people are told you turn out on such a day and you help with building bridge, road, dike, and if they don’t participate in the forced labour projects they are fined.

Types of forced labour - Forced Labour Projects.

Practically all roads built by the government used forced labour. Roads, bridges, clearing of jungle - all this needs forced labour because there is no other way the government can get these done. And we do not have the kind of machinery that will enable us to get these kind of projects away quickly. So its human power that we need, man power, forced labour. Its very wide spread these days and it is being carried out systematically with the knowledge of the authorities (because it is the local authorities who organize these forced labour projects). Historically of course, we have had forced labour in Burma. I think, historically, there has been forced labour in almost every country where there is a government that is totally in control of the country and which can do whatever it likes with its people.

Can we talk about the Burmese practice of ‘Loke-a-pay’?

‘Loke-a-pay’ is just a euphemism for forced labour. Its not voluntary labour. It pretends to be voluntary labour but there is nothing voluntary about the kind of labour in which we have to participate under threat. I have actually seen slips of paper that the local law and order restoration councils distribute to the people in which they say you are "invited" to come at such and such a time to take part in such and such a project, and if you do not turn up you will be fined or there will be dire consequences. They are threats in this so called invitation. If they fine you because you do not go, it is no longer voluntary. If it is voluntary you go if you wish to, if you do not wish to go, you do not go. But its not like this at all; if you fail to turn up then you’re either fined or in some places you’re even arrested for a short time as a lesson to others.

Types of forced labour - Children

To your knowledge have young children or teenagers also been used as forced labour in Burma?

Yes, very much so and increasingly so, because the families are getting increasingly poorer, which means that the parents cannot get time off from earning their living so they send the children to take their place in the forced labour projects. As I mentioned earlier, if you don’t take part in a forced labour project you are fined. That is to say each house hold that fails to send one person to participate in a forced labour project has to pay a certain sum of money. And since the people are already so poor they can’t afford that sum of money so they send their children to take their place.

Village Act, 1907

Section 12 of the Village Act, 1907 states: If any person residing in a village refuses or neglects to perform any of the public duties imposed upon him by this act or by any other rule thereunder he shall, in the absence of reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which shall lie upon him, be liable, and therefore the penalties.

But what is important is that in this original Village Act it says ‘in the absence of reasonable excuse’, and such things as having to gather in the harvest, or needing to work on the fields would have been accepted as reasonable excuse. Nowadays this law translated in Burmese has left out the phrase ‘in the absence of reasonable excuse’. So under this law, the authorities are able to force the people in the villages to do anything they like and to punish them in accordance with the so called law. With respect to farmers, if you are taken away at a time when you should be sowing, or when be reaping, when there is something that you have to do on your farm its a disaster. But the authorities do not accept that. Its so brutal, its as if they do not seem to care or they do not seem to be aware of the fact that by forcing people to take part in their projects the are, in some circumstances, they are leading those people to starvation. They don’t feed them, mind you, people have to come to forced labour projects with their own food and their own water.

If you go into forced labour and you get sick are medicines provided?

No, nothing is provided; if you’re not getting food and water would you get medicines and bedding? You have to provide everything yourself. You provide the labour, you provide everything else. In some places, theoretically, you’re supposed to be paid for the labour that you provide but whether you are paid or not depends very much on the whims and fancies of the powers that be.

Forced labour: links to tourism

With the current ‘Visit Myanmar Year’ campaign that is being launched by the government, is it feasible that the tourism industry itself may be linked indirectly to beautification projects or the clearing of roads?

Well, I’d say more than indirectly. In some cases: very, very directly, especially when it comes to beautification because the want to make the country appear prosperous and pretty. So the roads have to be rebuilt, bridges have to be built, sites have to be cleared away. Of course this is not really forced labour, but I might as well mention in passing that people are removed from their old houses where they have lived for generations in order to clear the place up and to make it attractive for the tourists. So forced labour projects and the suffering of the people of Burma are more than indirectly linked to tourism.

Workers rights in Burma

I think there was a law which came out in 1964 and this is supposed to protect workers, but you know we do not have Trade Unions in Burma. So this law merely remains on the books. That law of course dealt with things like maximum hours, minimum wages, compensation for disability and so on, but this does not apply at all these days, and particularly it does not apply to factories which are run by foreign companies. Foreign companies run their factories in any way they like; there is nothing to protect our workers.

G.S.P procedure of the European Union

Can we just begin by your acknowledgment of the European Commission G.S.P inquiry into forced labour in Burma?

Yes, I do know that hearings have been going on and that the European Union has been taking an interest in forced labour in Burma for some time.

What potential impact might G.S.P sanctions have both upon the government and what possible negative impact may it have upon the common people in Burma?

It will not have much of an impact on the common people of Burma, but it will have an impact on those who are involved in business with foreign companies. Now those who are involved in business with foreign companies actually happen to be the most privileged group in the country. So our assessment is that it will only effect those who are best off and most privileged. It will not in any way effect the people who are really suffering. I’m sure that G.S.P P sanctions would play a very large part in hastening democratic reform in Burma, because I think too many people are ignorant of the fact that this regime looks upon any form of cog-operation as endorsement of their policies. So if they think that the Economic Union is prepared to co-operate with them in terms of trade, business, investment, even though they are oppressing their people, then their conclusion is that the Economic Union does not care what they do to the people so they will go on doing it and worse. We do not think that it is a good idea for anybody to co-operate in anyway with a regime which is mistreating its people like this. So to give preferential treatment to any government that is mishandling its people, that is totally ignoring the rights of its people, is to encourage injustice and oppression. So we think the Economic Union should take a good hard look at what is going on in Burma, and we would like them to understand that the people of Burma need all the help that they can get.

FEARLESS AUNG SAN SUU KYI

by: Michele Manceaux
Marie Claire Magazine (May 1996, Singapore Edition)

Aung San Suu Kyi is very much her father's daughter. Despite being confined in a dilapidated house and separated from her husband and sons for six years, the daughter of General Aung San, who was responsible for liberating Burma from colonialism, refuses to budge from her political position and her determination to bring democracy back to her country. She is fearless and the title of her book Freedom From Fear is an eloquent testimony to that. Recently freed from house arrest, the youthful-looking 50-year-old is now allowed to give speeches over the weekend to those who will listen to her. Michele Manceaux talks to her about her newfound "freedom" and her plans for the future.

Michele Manceaux: You were locked up in this house for six years. Now that you are no longer under house arrest, what has changed for you?

Aung San Suu Kyi: I'm so busy now I don't get enough time to read books which is what I miss most of all.

MM: Is that the only change?

ASSK: I still feel I am always watched. I don't go out very often although I am allowed to.

MM: During your house arrest, did you feel that you were leading an empty existence?

ASSK: No, because I used to lead a very disciplined life. Each day was very full. I could arrange my time-table so that I could read, listen to the radio, sew, and exercise. It was a very regulated existence.

MM: Did you manage to do all you wanted?

ASSK: I could not achieve all the things I wanted to do.

MM: What, for example?

ASSK: Learn French!

MM: What was the most painful time for you during these six years?

ASSK: The most painful part had nothing to do with me really, but with others. I knew that a lot of my colleagues were in prison. Then, of course, there were my own children who had to cope without a mother, but they lived in England, so I was not worried for them.

MM: Your sons were 10 and 12 when you were arrested. Did you see them at all during those six years?

ASSK: I did not see them for about two-and-a half years, after which they were allowed to come and see me.

MM: Were you forbidden from writing to them?

ASSK: No, I was not forbidden. At first we could communicate but a lot of the letters were censored by the authorities. They also emphasized that they were doing me a great favour by allowing me to write to my children. But I said I would not accept any favours from them and stopped writing. Then, two-and-a half years later, they asked my husband and sons to visit me.

MM: I am surprised you are allowed to receive foreign journalists. How do you explain it?

ASSK: It is my new status. I am now free.

MM: You were given the option of returning to England. Do you consider that you made a sacrifice by not going back to your sons?

ASSK: It was my own choice, and I don't look upon it as sacrifice because other people have made greater sacrifices. My colleagues and their family are at greater risk.

MM: Did your husband accept your choice without protest?

ASSK: We don't interfere with each other's beliefs and priorities. For example, my husband is an orientalist and a tibetologist. I have never tried to stop him from pursuing his interest, although sometimes it was quite exhausting following him around the Himalayas. I did what I could to help him and I think he adopts the same attitude.

MM: Do you think political struggles are more difficult for a woman than a man?

ASSK: I don't think so. Of course, they attack me no the grounds of my gender, but even if I were a man they would attack me on other grounds, so I think it would all come to the same to the same thing.

MM: Do you think a woman has to choose between her public and private life?

ASSK: It's the same choice for everybody, but I think tradition has always dictated that men are more free to do public work. Women are expected to do both but it's not so in my case because I live apart from my family, so in a sense, I don't have a private life.

MM: Would you say you are more concerned about society than individual?

ASSK: No, I have a great concern for the individual, but as it happens, my family is not here, so the individuals whom I am concerned about are my colleagues but as friends. In a way, my public and private life are the same.

MM: Are you given total freedom to communicate with members of the NLD(National League for Democracy)?

ASSK: I see them all the time. We have endless meetings.

MM: Have these militants ever been arrested?

ASSK: Some people who belonged to a dance group were sent to jail because they took part in a ceremony. But people are not arrested just because they come and see me. There is no law that says they can't come to see me.

MM: Would you be ready to be the head of the State?

ASSK: That is not up to me to decide. We are a democracy, so it is up to the people to decide.

MM: Would you be ready to spend the rest of your life as it is now, without any change?

ASSK: Life is always changing. I am ready to accept life as it comes.

MM: Are you a Buddhist?

ASSK: Absolutely.

MM: Don't you think that religions in general and this one in particular encourages people to be resigned to their fate?

ASSK: No, I don't think so. No religion encourages anybody to accept injustice.

MM: Are you anxious about your own security?

ASSK: No, because there is no point in being anxious.

MM: Is that a realistic stand to take?

ASSK: If you want to be realistic, you should think of J.F. Kennedy or Yitzhak Rabin who had the protection of the best security forces in the world. Yet, they were assassinated. So I am being realistic in not worrying; in fact, it would be unrealistic of me to think that I could accomplish anything by worrying. There is no way of guaranteeing any politician or anybody in this world against attack.

MM: You wrote a book entitled Freedom from Fear. Are you writing another one?

ASSK: No, I don't have the time at the moment.

MM: Do you get any help from foreign countries?

ASSK: Lots of foreign organisations support our movement but we do not have and official representative abroad.

MM: How do you view the opening of your country to foreign investors?

ASSK: Well, it has not been done in a way that will benefit the economy in the long run. The investors themselves will not benefit much from it. People want to come and invest because they think, "Well, this is a new place", but it is not really an open market economy. It is only open to some people. Burma is said to have become much richer in the last six years. What has happened is that a few people have got very rich. We've never had people in Burma who could spend $5 on a cup of tea. But at the same time, we've never have farmers who could not afford two meals a day. There is a small elite and a growing gap between the rich and the poor. In theory, the opening up of the economy should lead to the development of a strong middle-class, which should provide the foundation for a strong democracy. But in fact, the middle-class is getting smaller. Burma has declined in the past six years. The level of education has dropped. The situation in the hospitals is not much better. According to a United Nations report, Burma is ranked fourth among countries which spend more on defence than on health and education. The Burmese government spends 222 times more on defence that on health and education.

MM: What is your hope for Burma in the future?

ASSK: That we will have a proper political system that ensures the rule of law and that puts an emphasis on health and education. At one time, Burma was the fastest developing country in Southeast Asia. Newly independent countries used to look up to us. I am very confident that with the right political system, we shall once again be able to achieve that position.

MM: Do you think that democracy will ever be achieved?

ASSK: I think the will of the people to achieve a system that guarantees their rights is getting stronger and stronger. Also, the rest of the world is on our side.

MM: How do you explain you liberation from house arrest?

ASSK: I don't know the reasons behind it but it was certainly not out of affection for me.

MM: A French magazine has published a portrait of you and entitled the article A Light in the Night. Would you agree that you are a light in the night?

ASSK: I do not like to be thought of as anything more than ordinary person.

MM: How do you fell about being considered beautiful?

ASSK: A compliment as always pleasant to receive. But I don't place that much importance on it. I am very interested in promoting Burmese textiles and I would like to preserve the Burmese costume because I think it is really becoming. Girls here are starting to wear Western clothes. I am not against it because young people like to be modern. But I do want to preserve Burmese clothes such as the lungi (a ling shawl that is wrapped around the hips), because I really think it suits us best.

MM: How do you fell about Burma being renamed Myanmar?

ASSK: No one should be allowed to change the name of country without referring to the will of the people. They say that Myanmar refers to all the Burmese ethnic groups, whereas Burma only refers to the Burmese ethnic group, but that is not true. Myanmar is a literary word for Burma and it refers only to the Burmese ethnic group. Of course, I prefer the word Burma.

MM: Do you have any contact with the different ethnic groups?

ASSK: Within the NLD, there are many people from different ethnic groups. We are not just a Burmese ethnic party. We want a number of seats for members of the ethnic groups who, in general, still have some reservations about the goodwill of the Burmese, because the Burmese are the majority group. It is our duty to win their confidence and we cannot do that unless there is a situation where they can express their grievances openly and without fear. The only way you can resolve differences is by talking about them. If we want our country to be united and stable, we need people to express their dissatisfaction.

MM: The government wants to open Burma to tourism this year. How do you feel about it?

ASSK: Well, the foreign companies who build the hotels will benefit from it, but the people will only get tips from the tourists. Our country is beautiful, and I hope foreigners will come. But this year may be a little too son.

MM: Your sons are now 18 and 22. Do they intend to come back to Burma?

ASSK: I am sure they do. They may come to work, but definitely not to take part in politics.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI STRIVING TO BUILD A DEMOCRACY AMID THE HARSH REGIME OF MYANMAR

by Scott Kraft
Los Angeles Times

Aung San Suu Kyi had a rigid routine during the six years she spent under arrest in her family's lakeside home. She would rise at 4:30 a.m. for exercise and meditation, then spend the day reading biographies or autobiographies and listening to the radio. The only human being she would see was the maid.

Although free for eight months now, she still spends most of her days in that two-story house. But the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner is hardly isolated. Two appointments secretaries, one for foreign dignitaries and the other for fellow party members, have guided thousands of visitors to meet her.

"I'm afraid I can no longer keep to a strict timetable," Suu Kyi says. "I can't get up at 4:30 anymore because there are times I don't get to bed until 2 a.m. If I got up early, I wouldn't be able to operate full-steam for 12 hours."

Many here hoped her release was a first step toward democracy in Myanmar. But the military regime, which nullified her party's victory in the 1990 elections, still runs the country. It is stage-managing a constitutional convention while trying to attract foreign investment.

Suu Kyi is bidding her time and rebuilding her party network. Her weekdays are filled with appointments and on weekend, hundreds of supporters gather outside the gated compound to hear her speak and answer their questions. Soon, she says, the government will come to its senses.

Even as the government tries to ignore her, Suu Kyi, 50, remains the most-respected political figure in Myanmar. Her father, Aung San, is considered, even by her detractors, as the greatest hero of Burmese independence. He was assassinated in 1947, when she was 2.

Suu Kyi left Burma in 1960, at age 15, and later received a degree from Oxford University. She married a Briton, Michael Aris, who is now a professor and specialist in Tibetan studies at Oxford. In 1988, she returned to Burma to tend to her ailing mother and became a leader of pro-democracy movement.

Aris and the couple's two sons, Kim, 18, and Alexander, 22, who are in school abroad, usually visit Suu Kyi at holidays, as they did during her years of house arrest, if the government grants them visas. Suu Kyi is prevented from leaving Myanmar only by the certainity that she would never be allowed to return.

In person, Suu Kyi is low-key and polite, though her determination is evident. She always refers to the country as Burma and the capital as Rangoon, purposefully ignoring the government's decree that the nation be called Myanmar and the city, Yangon.

She meets visitors at home in a square room surrounded by 1940s-era photographs of her family and a wall-sized painting of her father. "The painting is a bit Andy Warhol, don't you think?" she says. "But it's really a very good likeness."

Question: How would you assess the eight months since you've been released? What are the positive developments and the disappointments?

Answer: Well, in politics, I don't think you ever get disappointed as such. It's an occupational hazard that things don't always turn out as you would wish them to. You hope for the best and prepare for the worst. That's politics. But we still have the strong support of the people and we manage to get along with our party building.

Q: Many in the West thought that when you were released, everything would begin to improve.

A: I don't think it's as simple as that. There are some people who say I was released because the government thought the National League for Democracy was dead. But in fact, it is far from dead. There have been miscalculations like that in the past by the government. In the 1990 elections, the government thought we might win a plurality but not an absolute majority. In fact, we got 82%, with the result that those elections have been totally ignored and our members persecuted.

Q: So you aren't disappointed in the slow pace of change?

A: I wouldn't say "disappointed" is the word. There is so much happening within our party that it does compensate for what is not happening on the other side. Of course, we know that the best thing for the country is national reconciliation, which can only take place through dialogue. And we hope that it will take place sooner rather than later. But that doesn't mean we just sit and hope. We have other work to do and we carry on.

Q: So you aren't impatient with the pace of things?

A: If you are very busy, you have no time to be impatient. If you ask us when do we want democracy, well, we want it now, of course. I feel just as strongly about that as anybody else. But because we are so occupied with our numerous jobs, we are not that impatient.

Q: Do you think the current constitutional conference, in which your party is not participating, is a step in the right direction?

A: No. That constitution is not headed for democracy. In the first place, they are not allowing political parties to operate effectively, and without political parties operating effectively there can be no multiparty democracy. The constitution they are writing really doesn't mean anything. A constitution is just a piece of paper unless it has the support of the people. Such constitutions do not last.

Q: So what can you do to get this government to change direction?

A: It is the will of the people that the country should become a democracy, and I'm sure the people will join in guiding the country to its democracy. We will do what we can as a legally registered party. We will use political means of reaching our goal. This is our constant.

Q: So you are talking about passive resistance.

A: We don't really believe that the way to bring about democracy is by encouraging popular uprisings. We believe that democracy will come through the strength of the political will of the people, expressed through political parties.

Q: How does it feel to be a free citizen?

A: I'm a free citizen but the country is not free. So I feel like a citizen in an unfree country. I appreciate the opportunity to be in touch with the people. That is what our work is all about. You know, I always felt free. I felt free when I was under house arrest because it was my choice. I chose to do what I'm doing and because of that. I found peace within myself. And I suppose that is what freedom is all about.

Q: Do you think that it is possible the government thought it could make you a non person by releasing you?

A: Sounds likely, doesn't it? Yes, it seems likely.

Q: The government often points out that you are married to a foreigner. How important is that criticism to the average Burmese?

A: I don't think it means very much. If I were married to a Burmese, they'd probably attack my husband's family for other reasons that he was foreign. Don't forget that they are also attacking --very, very viciously-- other party leaders who are not married to foreigners.

Q: Is your husband able to visit you?

A: He came for Christmas, but last year he was refused a visa for the Easter holidays. So he comes if he gets a visa.

Q: You have frequently called for dialogue with the government.

A: Yes, we believe in dialogue and we will always believe in dialogue because that's the way all political problems end up.

Q: Has the government made any overtures to you?

A: Our party has a policy that we will make no statements about dialogue until we decide we are ready to bring out an official version.

Q: So you're saying .......?

A: What I'm saying is that I'm not answering your question (laughs).

Q: If there is an election based on the government's new constitution, would your party participate?

A: We don't even know whether there is going to be a constitution or what sort of constitution. In any case, I don't think we should be talking about the next elections when the issue of the last elections has not yet been resolved.

Q: Currently, the government is promoting foreign investment, and many companies, including Unocal in Los Angeles, have investments here. What's your message to those companies?

A: We always said -- very, very clearly -- that Burma is not right for investment. The climate is not right because the structural changes necessary to make an investment really profitable are not yet in place. We have now acquired in Burma a small group of very, very rich people. We did not have such people eight years ago -- people who could go to a hotel and spend $1,000 on a meal. That was unheard of. And the gap between the haves and the have-nots is increasing. That does not make for social stability.

Q: Do you think the government's hold on power will be strengthened as it opens up the economy?

A: Well, it is not a free market. Some are freer than others in their access to the market. The mechanism necessary for a really healthy open economy does not yet exist. And one of the most important parts of that is the rule of law. You have to know where you stand . . . Without that, there can be neither credibility nor confidence. And every businessman must agree that good business cannot be done without credibility and confidence.

Q: What do you do to discourage investment?

A: It's not just what I say and it's not just the support there is abroad for the movement for democracy. Potential investors who really study the situation the situation in depth, who don't just take a superficial view, will come to their own conclusion that the time is not right. They may want to put a little bit here so they can have a toe hold, waiting for the day when Burma takes off. Of course, that day will be when democracy comes.

Q: In your heart, do you think that will come? Are we talking five years?

A: I can't really say. But certainly I don't think it will be that long. On the other hand, I know there will be a lot of problems to deal with once we have democracy. In fact, I think we'll probably have more problems after we have democracy than before. This is always the case when a system changes from an authoritarian system to an open and transparent one.

Q: You tell the crowds that democracy is no panacea.

A: I tell them that under a democracy, we will have to be prepared to take responsibility for our country's problems. Once they have democracy, they can no longer blame the government because they are really the government.

Q: But won't there need to be pressure to bring about change here?

A: There is international pressure. But of course what is more important is that there is pressure from within. The Burmese people are tired of authoritarianism, and they have seen for themselves that authoritarian system has not done the country any good at all. Our standards of education are falling. Standards of health are falling. The fact that we have new hotels does not make up for the fact that our children are less well-educated.

Q: Were you surprised, after your release, that there was still strong support for you? Did you worry that you might have been forgotten?

A: No, no. I was not that surprised. It is nothing to do with me. It has more to do with the desire of the people for a system that gives them both liberty and security. This is what the people want, isn't it? People want to be free and at the same time they want to be secure.

Q: And you personally?

A: It is not me they are supporting in particular. The government seems to think it's me personally that the people are supporting. The government always gets things wrong. We won the elections in 1990 because the people wanted democracy. It was not because of me.

Q: Do you worry about your safety?

A: No. I don't worry very much at all. It's not because I'm all that courageous or anything. It's just that there is no point in it. If they want to do anything to me they can do it any time they like. ======= Note: Scott Kraft, Paris bureau chief for the Times, interviewed Aung San Suu Kyi at her home in Yangon, Myanmar.

How To Write to L.A. Times:

The Times welcomes expressions of all views. Letters should be brief and subject to condensation. They must include valid mailing address and telephone number. Pseudonyms and initials will not be used.
By Fax: (213) 237-7679

ICON OF HOPE

---

by John Pilger
The New Internationalist (June 1996)

---

The theme of this special issue is `Burma - a Cry for Freedom'.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI - Burma's elected leader - was born in 1945, the daughter of Burma's national hero Aung San. She was two years old when he was assassinated, just before Burma gained the independence to which he had dedicated his life. After her education in Rangoon, Delhi and Oxford, she worked for the United Nations in New York and Bhutan. She married an Englishman and spent several years raising a family in England. Then in 1988 she returned to Burma to care for her dying mother. Her return coincided with the outbreak of a spontaneous revolt against 26 years of political repression and economic decline. Suu Kyi quickly emerged as the most effective and articulate leader of the movement and the party she founded, the National League for Democracy, went on to win a colossal electoral victory in 1990. But the military junta refused to transfer power as it had promised and until last year kept her under house-arrest in Rangoon. From her home she now organizes weekly political meetings - but she is as much at risk as any other citizen in SLORC's Burma and the regime still finds ways of restricting her movement and her contacts with the outside world. John Pilger recently interviewed her in her Rangoon home.

JP: Three years ago an official of the regime said: 'You can forget about Suu Kyi. She's finished.' Here you are, hardly finished. How do you explain that? SK: I think it's because democracy is not finished in Burma. Until we finish this course for democracy, none of us who are involved in it will be finished.

JP: Do you think the regime is as confident now as it was?

SK It's difficult to judge. The authoritarian regime always takes the attitude that 'we are totally in control and anybody who is in opposition to us has no place in the country and they are finished'. But what really impresses me is the courage of the people who have already been in prison and who continue to work for democracy. They know what it is like to be in a Burmese prison and they know that they are liable to be put back there any day. And yet they do not give up. That's very inspiring. I always feel that even if only five such people remain we will get democracy - and there are certainly many more than five!

JP: What is the democracy that you and your people want?

SK: Well, it's a very simple kind of democracy. We want a system that will guarantee our rights so that we can live in security; so that we do not have to wonder from day to day what will happen to us if we do something that will annoy those in power. If you asked an ordinary Burmese why they want democracy the answer will probably be: 'I want to have the basic right to try to make a decent living for myself without being frightened all the time '

JP: How can you reclaim the democracy that you won at the ballot box from the uncompromising and brutal power that confronts you?

SK: We are not the first people to have had to face an uncompromising, brutal power in the quest for freedom and basic human rights. I think we have to depend chiefly on the will of our own people for democracy. In Buddhism we are taught the four basic ingredients for success: first you must have the will to want it; then you must have the right kind of attitude; then you must have perseverance; and then you must have wisdom. So we hope to combine these four. The will of the people for democracy is there and many of us have the right kind of spirit or attitude. A number of our people have shown tremendous perseverance; and I hope we'll acquire wisdom as we go along the way... But it still comes down to the fact that on one side there is a power that has all the guns... I think it is getting more difficult in this world to resolve things through military means. The fact that the authorities are so keen on attacking us in their newspapers indicates that they themselves are not depending on guns alone...

JP: Well, they are clearly frightened of you...

SK: (Laughs) I think the age has passed when the gun can solve problems and even the military authorities know that. Why are they using the pen if they think the gun can solve all problems?

JP: Burma - with 40 per cent of its population consisting of ethnic minorities - seems like an Asian Yugoslavia. How will the country be united in the democracy that you plan?

SK: We have been disunited in Burma' because there's a tremendous lack of trust between the, Burmans and the other ethnic groups and among the ethnic groups themselves. In order, to build up trust there has to be openness and that is why democracy is necessary. Yugoslavia is a very good example of a country where there was not sufficient openness to resolve the problems between the Serbs and the Croats. They were not provided with a framework within which they could discuss their differences and so they ended up shooting each other. In Burma we badly need the kind of framework that will; allow us to 'talk about' our grievances with out killing each other. l do not think there will ever be true unity, without democracy - as Yugoslavia has proved. For more than 40 years nobody knew what was going on there: under the surface. Because there was a strong government keeping everyone in order we thought there was unity. But unity comes from within, and unless we create a framework for all of us to talk very openly - and to generate trust we'll never get unity. It's not a question of 'how will democracy ever, achieve unity?', but 'how will we ever achieve unity without democracy?'

JP: Is it not fair to describe your release from house arrest as an entirely cynical decision by the regime to give itself a human face in order to encourage foreign investment?

SK: I think perhaps they also miscalculated the situation. They may have calculated that the National League for Democracy, was a spent force and that releasing me was not going to make any difference.

JP: Should foreign investors come?

SK: I do not think they should come yet - and I am speaking for them as well as for the people of Burma. From the point of view of the people of Burma, there is hardly any investment coming in now that will provide employment and better standards of living for those who really need help. From the point of view of the investors, the basic structures necessary for sustained economic growth do not yet exist in Burma. Investing now may go against economic growth because it may make the authorities think that the half-measures they have taken are sufficient... but they are not and this will lead to social and economic problems which will work against the interests of the investors themselves.

JP: What do you say to foreign politicians who say that Burma is heading towards democracy and therefore investment is justifiable?

SK: Investment is not justifiable now. But I am convinced that Burma is heading towards democracy because it's what the people want - and inspite of investment not because of it.

JP: A lot of Western politicians say that through commercial contacts with democratic nations the Burmese people will gain experience of democratic principles.

SK: Not in the least. The so-called 'open-market economy' is only open to some. Commercial contacts are certainly not going to help Burmese people get democratic ideas. New investments help a small elite get richer. I would have thought that this would work against the very idea of democracy because the gap between rich and poor is growing all the time.

JP: Should tourists stay away?

SK: Burma will always be here and when it is democratic it will be a place that I think tourists will enjoy visiting. They will [then] need have no qualms or guilt feelings.

JP: You've become quite an extraordinary icon of hope. Is that a burden?

SK: Yes and no. Yes, because if people base their hopes on you, then of course it's a responsibility. No, because I've always said that I can't do it alone and neither can the National League for Democracy. We need the help of the people and we need the rest of the world. I have always said I would do my best. I have never promised that will get the people democracy.

JP: No, but It's what people expect of you. The people I've spoken to clearly regard you as something of a saint - almost a miracle worker.

SK: I am not a saint and I think you'd better tell the world... I would not like to be thought of as a saint...

JP: What are your sinful qualities then?

SK: I've got a short temper. I'd rather sit down and read than really be engaged in public meetings and things like that...

JP: Your husband Michael Aris has written movingly of his early commitment to you. Could you tell me something about that?

SK: It's not all that complicated. I just said, 'I am Burmese and there may come a time when I have to go back to Burma and when that time comes I would expect you to be understanding and sympathetic', and he said, 'yes'. It was very simple - not a big negotiation process at all...

JP: But you couldn't - either of you - have foreseen the events that were coming to you, or could you?

SK: No. But I always had every intention of coming back to do what I could for Burma because that's where my roots are. When I got the phone call about my mother's illness it was a matter of coming home and making all the practical arrangements necessary I had no time to think of it as a 'day of reckoning'. I knew my mother's life was probably coming to a close, but I did not know how long I would be in Burma...

JP: Could you tell me about the first day you were placed under house-arrest?

SK: There were a lot of people here. We were all in good humour... There wasn't a scurry to burn incriminating material because we didn't have any incriminating material. My two sons were here and I remember them playing Monopoly with some of the students. The older people sat around and talked and while the phone was still usable made calls to their families... It was not unexpected and we just thought, 'well, yes, this is it...' I thought I would be taken to NC [the maximum security prison] and was rather disappointed when I was left here and the others were taken away...

JP: During all those years when you were under house-arrest did you ever waver in your resolve not to accept exile?

SK: No, of course I didn't. I had promised the people I would do everything I could do to get democracy... So there was no question of going into exile...

JP: What was the most difficult time for you personally during your house arrest?

SK: There isn't any particular time that stands out... I was worried for my colleagues, about our people out there when there was a lot of repression ... And of course, I missed my family and I worried about my sons very much... My youngest was only 12 and had to be put in boarding school. But I would remind myself that the families of my colleagues were much worse off, some were in prison, whereas I knew my family was safe...

JP: Were you able to keep in touch with Michael during that time?

SK:There were times when we were out of touch. The longest period was two years and four or five months.

JP: No letters or anything during that time?

SK: No

JP: No letters from the children?

SK: No

JP: Were you concerned about the impact this would have on your two boys?

SK: Yes, of course. It's very difficult for children to cope with a situation like that. My youngest son is a very home-loving child. He's not the sort who enjoys boarding-school life at all, but these things had to be done...

JP: There were times when you did not have enough to eat. Is that correct?

SK: Yes, but I don't think of that as tremendous suffering. I generally don't eat much anyway. One does get weak and it's inconvenient. I did worry about my heart because I had difficulty breathing. I couldn't lie flat because I found it difficult to breathe after I became very weak. But I think that's quite normal.

JP: Well, it's normal if you're not eating... You were cut off from family, friends and colleagues; surrounded by a hostile force. Weren't there times when you were actually terrified?

SK: No, I didn't feel hostile towards the guards or soldiers surrounding me and I think fear comes from hostility. So I felt quite relaxed...

JP: You hadn't been able to speak to your husband or sons for two whole years. That must have produced an aloneness that in itself is frightening, surely?

SK: Yes, well I didn't feel really alone because I had the radio, you know. I listened to the radio five or six hours a day and that kept me in touch with the rest of the world and of course I had my books. And I think loneliness comes from inside. People who are free and live in big cities often suffer from terrible loneliness...

JP: You've written about fear and fearlessness. Was there a point during your house-arrest when you actually had to conquer fear?

SK: No, not during my house-arrest, but when I was small. It was in this house that I con-quered my fear of the dark.

JP: How did you conquer your fear of the dark?

SK: By wandering about in the dark, at night, for about two weeks running. In the end I got a bit bored with the whole idea.

JP: During those days of house arrest what were the ordinary pleasures you looked forward to?

SK: I had a busy timetable, although this might seem strange. From 4.30 am when I got up to meditate right through until I went to bed at 9 pm. There was always something to do with every hour. I liked listening to music on the radio. I would look forward to continuing with the books I was reading and, of course, meditation was very calming and strengthening. I have never been a very athletic type and so I didn't enjoy doing my exercises so much. But I did them regularly after meditating.

JP: Burmese society is very male-dominated. How would you change it if you were leading a democratic government here?

SK: People keep asking me about women's rights and I always find it a little difficult to answer because the men in Burma have no rights either. I feel that first of all we have to get basic rights for everybody and then we have to attack this area. Women are particularly discriminated against. It is clear that women do not get what they deserve. There are very few women in the Civil Service, for example. You see very few women in high positions. And yet if you look at medical school, where the brightest students go, about 50 to 60 per cent of students are girls. So girls are not lacking in ability or education, but they don't get as far as they ought to. Obviously these areas will have to be studied

JP: Is Burma going to be free in your lifetime?

SK: I can't tell what my lifetime is going to be so I can't answer that question.

JP: All right, then. Will Burma be free within the foreseeable future, let's say within the next ten years?

SK: I think so, yes.

JP: What can people around the world do to help?

SK: First, think about the situation in Burma. Then I would ask them to study the UN General Assembly Resolution on Burma and to help implement it. It's a good resolution: it calls for the early and full restoration of democracy, for the acknowledgement of the will of the people in the 1990 elections and for the full participation of the people in the political life of Burma. And, of course, it calls for the release of political prisoners and observation of basic human rights.

LIVE INTERVIEW WITH AUNG SAN SUU KYI

---

by ABC Radio National
Australia, AM-729 (June 6, 1996) 10:15 p.m.

---

ANNCR: Our next guset is right up there with Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Mandela; I speak, of course, of Aung San Suu Kyi, secretary general of the National League for Democracy and Burma's most famous dissident. It just under a year since she was release from six long yearS of house arrest, now that release was supposed to be unconditional, but her movement remains severely restricted. Of course for years, the military demanded that she leaves the country forever - that was going to be the condition of the release. But her resolve to stay in the country and try to bring democracy to the country remains firm. Not that it is likely to happen over night. The military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC - wonderful name - remains firmly entrenched, possibly a little more so than when they first incarcerated Suu kyi because of despite being immensely unpopular within burma, the regime has been [...] by the fairly high level of foreign investment in the country, the sort of investment energeticelly endorsed, regrettably, by our austere prime minister Bob hawke. As ASEAN nations are thinking of including Burma into their association; and the countries like u.s. and Australia, despite denouncing the regime and speaking very highly of our guest , do nothing of discouraging the investment in that mineral rich land. Now last night report by Pilger, John Pilger, revealled the widespread use of slave labour by Slorc, to built their road, the rialiways and their [...] business and tourist hotels. Imprisonment without trial for dissidents remains, and, there is brutal harrassment of minority groups. So things are croocked. And the person who people hoped to bring to democracy to Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, joins me now from her tapped-phone-line in Rangoon. Suu Kyi, it is great pleasure to speak with you to night. the situation does seems bleak. Slorc is, I believe, threatening you to put back under house arrest. Do you feel that the National League is failing in its attempt.

ASSK: I don't know why you called it bleak. It has been quite clear from what happened in the last two week that we have widespread support of the people of burma, that our movement is strong, and we have many people who are commited to democracy. So I do not see that the picture as bleak at all. And I am afraid I can't agree with you about all the investment coming into Burma. Economists and people who have been studying business situation in burma have said that the economy started stagnating at the end of 1994. And that is no longer such an attractive place for would-be investors.

ANNCR: What kind of dialogue are you hoping to achieve, with the slorc, given that the response so far have been to ignored the overture made by your National League ?

ASSK: The aim of dialogue is to find common ground, to find an answer that will be best for the country, that will be acceptable to all political forces concerned. So we have put no pre-condition, we've set no pre-condition. We are prepare to talk about anything that will lead to national reconciliation and a better situation for our people.

ANNCR: there are some time ambiguous signals from the Slorc, there was for instance a recent editorials in the last couple of days which described as you are appropriate [...] ? Are you seeing some sign of movement from their side ?

ASSK: As I understand, that article was not written by anybody in SLORC. It was written by a member of a political group. And I do not think he represent the views of slorc.

ANNCR: So its clutching a straws to read, to read too much into that.

ASSK: Well, of course, it is interesting that the [.....] who print that article, as I understand it, the author of the article, which he has been circulating, whether they could put it in the news paper. So it is interesting that they wanted to print it.

ANNCR: Lets look at the slave labour - apparently is commonplace within Burma, in terms of people known to have support you and the persecution of the minority groups like the Karens. There is a lot of anger within the Burmese populous. Do you believe that there will be more uprising and demonstriations, at the magnitude of 88/89. Indeed do you think it would be wise to have that?

ASSK:I hope that there will be no more of uprisings the kind that happened in 1988, that because the people who suffer as a result. But ofcourse, I am not an astrologer, I do not believe that can fortell the future. So I can not say for sure what will happen and what will not happen. But it is true that people are suffering a lot from the forced labour, and that the people of the country where there is no rule of law suffer from all kinds of frustrations and resentments.

ANNCR: Suu Kyi, is the regime completely impervious to the vast outpouring of support for you and criticism of them from the outside world ?

ASSK: I don't think it is impervious to all that criticism. Otherwise it would not have been so annoyed about it.

ANNCR: Yes. What's an interesting response, but the annoyence is not thus far, expressed in terms of the movement towards reconciliation ?

ASSK: I think it is in general very very difficult for an authoritarian regime to budged from the position they have taken, especially for authoritarian military regime, I think, there is a certain rigidity in their outlook. So I do not think you've got to expect immediate response to whatever happens. I think it takes time for the situation to really [...] in.

ANNCR: Of course you know quite a lot about military mind. Your father, considered the father of modern Burma, was himself general; that he saw the risk of military gaining too much power.

ASSK: I am not sure that I know that much about military mind. But I do know a lot of military people. Of course my father and many of my colleagues in the NLd, the Chairman U Aung Shwe, the Deputy Chairman U Tin Oo and U Kyi Maung and the Secretary U Lwin. They are all ex-military officers, but, they are all the kind of people that you would call the officer and gentleman. So let us say that I know one kind of military mind, that of those are both officers and gentleman.

ANNCR: Is there within, is Slorc utterly monolithic ? or is it possible to detect within in it, .. suttleties .. perheps ... factions ... some of those might be more amenable to your arguments.

ASSK: We believe that people are individuals. And looking from our point of view, we do not see slorc as monolithic. We think there must be individuals within Slorc, with the independently way of thinking. But it is possible that they all think that their interest lie in one direction. And perhaps that does limit the way in which it you think.

ANNCR: NOw, you return to Burma in 88 to look after your mother. Until then you live a happy and a comparatively comfortable life, your academic husband and two kids. Do you have any sense that in 88 what is going to happen to your life ? Were you infact, consciously preparing yourself, staying in Burma and leading the democracy movement ?

ASSK: No, when I came to Burma in April 1988, I have prepared myself for a long stay looking after my sick mother. Because, although I knew that she was very ill, we do not quite know for how long there is going to go on for, whether she get better of whether it will be just long drawnout process of dying. So I was prepare to stay on in Burma for many many months. But I certainly do not think that there going to be a democracy movement.

ANNCR: Now, of course, on your return you faced death quite literally. Given the magnitude of the task, with the great personal danger, did you ever consider, just, surrenderering into leaving Burma and giving up the struggle ?

ASSK: No, of course not. Because, I am not the only person in the struggle, there are others with me. I have friends, I have colleagues, who are very honorable and who have suffered much more than I have and who have made great sacrifices, I would never think of abandoning them.

ANNCR: Now you gave to your first democracy speech, in front of-it was immense- some half million people. In August 88. Why did you decided to give speech then, why choose that moment. What was the factor in considerations ?

ASSK: This is the time when the whole country was in [momentum]. The people of Burma had decided that they want to change. We were, there were a group of us who are trying to to make sure that tremendous outpouring of the energy was channelled in to the positive direction, in a positive way. So it is just part of our asset to channel all this energy, in the positive way.

ANNCR: Now you are under house arrest from 89 to until last year. Now mandela's time in prison wasn't exactly wasted - it was very productive time in many ways. Were your years of incarceration comparably fruitful ?

ASSK: Well, I was only in the detention for six years. So I cannot claim that I achieve as much as mr mandela did because he was under the detention for 27(years). But I think of those years as very fruitful, yes.

ANNCR: What would you do during those years, Suu Kyi.

ASSK: Well, I followed very strict time table; self discipline was very important. I thought that if i have to live for alone for years and years, I did not know for how long I would be kept under house arrest, I better start learning to live with myself. So I follow a strict time table everyday; meditations are very important; and regular exercise; a lot or reading; a lot listening to the radio - that my only contact with the outside world.

ANNCR: What could you read ? Do you allowed to read whatever you wish or did house arrest involve the censorship of your reading material ?

ASSK: Not exactly. My husband at one time was allowed to send me books. I don't think they kept like any except an issue of the time magazine which my photograph on the cover.

ANNCR: Probably no great loss, I guess. The Your approach to slorc clearly echo or, resemble, the Ghandi's non-violent civil unrest policy. How much does the Ghandi influence you ?

ASSK: I don't think Ghandi has influenced my practical politics to that extent. I think he has influenced me spritually, if you like. But what we are doing here now in Burma, we do as political party, as a political organization. The National League for Democracy is a legal political organization, a democratic party and we take our decision as a democratic party. So I am simply implementing the policy of a party.

ANNCR: And what about Buddhism. How important is Buddhism to you ?

ASSK: It is very important. As I mentioned just now, meditation means a great deal to me during my years under house arrest. Buddhist meditation, I think is very important, because it teaches you some awareness and the self discipline.

ANNCR: Now in those years some would argue, some believe that the organization you have - the National League for Democracy - was inevitably weakened. It is now strong enough now to exert real significant pressure on Slorc?

ASSK: We would like to think that we get stronger and stronger by the day. It is difficult to assess exactly what are the strengths at the moment. I think one can never tell, except for retrospect, how strong one is at a particular period.

ANNCR: I don't want to dwell on this, but here have been great discussion here to day about the scale of masscre in Burma. What do you believe the death tall was in during the military crackdown ?

ASSK: I believe it was in four figures. But I cannot say exactly what the numbers were. Because we have not been given a chance to collect a data.

ANNCR: Now, I'm told that your name, which is beautiful to say, but even more beautiful in translation that it to mean a bright collection of strange victories. Are your parents obviously prescient ?

ASSK: Well, I think, I don't know whether they were thinking of the meaning of name I suppose. Aung San is my father's name, but it just is not my Sir name. In Burma we don't have family names. My name is pretty unusual. Because there is man's name, Aung San is a much mascular name at the beginning; and Kyi at the end is part of my mother's name; Suu in between represent my grandmother's name, and also represent the day of week on which I was born.

ANNCR: Well, of course, your birthday is rapidly approaching. I understand that we should be singing happy birthday to you on the June the 19th.

ASSK: (laugh) I didn't realized that you knew my birthday.

ANNCR: Oh no. We know a great deal about you out here. You've got great numbers of fans and supporters. What can we usefully do here in Australia to help your cause, Suu Kyi ?

ASSK: We really want the world to be aware of what has been going on in Burma, and to think of us, not just as a something in the news but as people, there are people in Burma who are suffering, who are struggling for democracy. Our main strength in the country, inside, is the support of our people people here. But we are great believers in the international community. Because the time has past thet we can afford to live isolated. We do believe in the no man in island are unto himself - No nation in the island are into itself.

ANNCR: I am looking for some guidence from you. Do you wishes to continue to oppose the investment from our country ? Take the issue of tourism. The junta is announced this is the year of tourism. You surely would not want to encourage that.

ASSK: We are certainly not supporting the "Visit Myanmar 1996", which it begin only on the 18th of November. Apparently it is supposed to go on until the end of the tourist season, which will be somewhere around the April 1997. Certainly we do not want to support that and we would like the international community to demonstrate the solidarity with our struggle by not supporting the "Visit Myanmar 1996".

ANNCR: Well, I think all the listeners to this program here by make the promise of the fact that standing up all over Australia, with hand on hearts. Now, let me ask .....

ASSK: (laughs) You can't see them(the listeners) doing that. Can you ?

ANNCR: Well - er - actually, I hope they are, Suu kyi, I hope they are. Now what about your children ? Contact with them possible ?

ASSK: I do speak to my younger son who is at home quite regularly. The other one is at the university. So the contact is not so easy. My husband and younger son were at home ring up every week.

ANNCR: Of course, every time you pick up the phone, you be aware that others are listening.

ASSK: Oh Yes. That this isn't worried me. that doesn't worry my family either.

ANNCR: It just like having [...] extended family, I guess.

ASSK: Well, lets just put it as extended family. I do not look upon them as [...] It would be really nice, really nice, friendly family.

ANNCR: Well, look, happy birtyday for the 19th and I am much grateful for your time.

ASSK: Not at all, thank you for your good wishes.

---

ANNCR: YOU ARE LISTENING TO THE LNL(Late Night LIve), ON THE RADIO NATIONAL.