Dear All,

Some people woke up from the wrong side of the bed and in the middle of the night without washing their face or the eyes , without cleaning their mouth, half asleep and accusing others of divide and rule. They are just like drunken man they don't know what they are saying, they don't know what they are doing. It is a false accusation.

Accusing Burmese leaders ( rulers) of divide and rule. Are those who says it know what they are talking about? They are not dividing anyone to rule. Many people talk about divide and rule many times in many occasions. Divide and rule is the method use by some rulers around the world , but not by the Burmese. No matter who they are. If the
Burmese rulers are guilty of something, they may be guilty of uniting the country not guilty of dividing it and its people for sure.

But Burma and the Burmese leaders or rulers in Burma in the past and at present never exercised any divide and rule method. Instead they may had used force to unite all people or all people to be one people they may had forced some animists to become Buddhist, yet not all Burmese are Buddhist in Burma today.

Looking at the thriving of Hindu , Christian, Muslim and other religions in Burma today proves that Burma forcing other religion to covert to Buddhist is not true, unfounded. It is clear this attack is purely politically motivated.

How could Christians and Muslim came to be in Burma in the first place may be very interesting. Before Christians missionaries came into Burma together with the foreign armies, Portuguese mercenaries and people from Chittagong hill tract came bringing the Christianity and Islam into Burma. When Burmese rulars annexed Assam and Manipur,there was no way of stopping Islam into Burma.

Coming back to divide and rule, through out the history, the Burmese rulers such as Anawrahta, Kyansitthar, Bayin Naung and Aloung Phyar etc in the past, Aung San , U Nu, Ne Win, Saw Maung and even Than Shwe in modern time are doing whatever necessary to unite all people in Burma as one people to live together under one roof, Some times they may have use force to achieve their goal to be united as one.

Burma is already a divide country, ethnically divided and religiously divided . No Burmese leaders need to divide anybody in Burma and just to rule them. Those who do not want Burmese to be united are dividing themselves and trying their best to disintegrate Burma into pieces creating racial and religious tensions.

Who is using divide and rule method , may I ask? I don't think the dividers who wants to rule Burma and Burmese are Burmese.

Burmese leaders know, these divided communities are breeding ground for extremists. These extremist are exploiting already divided ethnic people such as Shan, Chin, Kachin, Kayin , Kayah, Yakhine and Bamar. putting ideas into their heads. These few extremists from these groups are also the basis for racial and religious violence, these extremists what they grew into are warring ethnic gangs.

Without their shameless face, with their fork tongue, Christian extremists and Muslim extremists alike are talking nonsense about SPDC as it is dividing and ruling the people, They are attacking Burmese and the Buddhists.

How could anybody interpret that the efforts of all the Burmese leaders in the past and present who are trying to unite all people in the nation as one united family as divide and rule. Burmese leaders on the past even annexed parts of other nations to be part of Burma, some even bring in Islam into Burma.

How could they translate and misrepresent it into divide and rule, I could not believe what I heard and I will never understand what they are trying to say. Do they understand what they are saying by themselves?

How filthy and wicked and dirty could they be? I think that was a little too much.

Burma is going forward to be democratic. There is going to be elected civillian government and military personnels will be still in the Parliaments for check and balance. If everything go well as planned the future of Burma is bright, very bright and it will be beautiful as well.

The most important thing is the people. Beause they have to elect their representatives. Who will they elect, the one who they know , their friends, or their relativies or the one who is compitent and capable of doing the right things for Burma and its people?

I only hope future Burmese politicians are wise enough to stay away from any kind of extremism and give the Burmese people what they deserve, peace and prosperity, etc.

Shweminthar.<br><br>Post edited by: Shweminthar, at: 2007/02/01 11:41

Shweminthar,

Wasn't there already an election - in 1990? And did that election not produce very clear results?

A good start &quot;moving forward to be democratic&quot; thus would be to take a step backwards in history and respect the elections that were already held.

After doing that of course new elections could be held.

John

well my dear John, u should perhaps go back 2 ur old forum n read what Jean Marc wrote on eletion n perhaps ex UK embassador Derek presentation then if u like do ur own history digging then u know what was 90 election about. putting this aside, as a moderator voicing ur point of view, well noone can stop u but its rather disappointing I'd say. u held the administrator post where forum is supposed 2 b free n &quot;neutral&quot;, but u hav ur opinion which may or maynot b valid n there isnt any1 2 stop u voicing this or stopping frm removing their messages as u c fit. Isnt that wonderful?
yes there r many things Myanmar needs 2 do btw, the country name is Myanmar officially n recognised by UN. I c u prefer 2 call Burma.
anyway,let's c how this forum go.

I do not as a moderator remove messages because I disagree with people, but because rules of conduct in this forum are not being followed. Any point of view is welcome in the discussions here, as plenty of old postings will confirm.
That being said, I don't see any problems with the fact that I raise my own opinion in some of the discussions.

Cheers,
John

but of cos, obviously u dont. I aint saying u do either. but I think u missed my point, where judge n jury r the one, say somewhere in the planet homosexual is against the law, where judge him/herself is homosexual, would it be unbias judgement according 2 that givn law?
same go 2 religion/politic/etc etc where contentious issues r normally based.
I dont say u cannt voice or cannt hav ur own opinion but what I m saying is, this world is of more perception n generalisation than reality in most cases where public is concerned.
I m buddhist but when I undertake my duties I wont voice my opinion on my belief publically. period. however it may b valid or true. if that opinion is invalid n rather doubtful more dangerous.
this is ur forum so u call the shot. just point 2 consider. I did hav high opinion of old forum(with exception of cos).

Lord Buddha, look who is crying foul?

Burma is one of the few countries in the world where a sentence can be changed after sentencing had been delivered. Where the law and rules are at the whim of the military dictators. No just as a jury and a judge but also as an executor, interrogator &amp; arresting officer.

And everyone in this forum knows where Mr O sympathy lies with,????????

Now, Mr O is speaking out bravely because the forum moderator has voiced an Opinion or failed to call the country as Myanmar.

If the moderator has deleted any posting because of different opinions from him, I think we all will be jumping up and down and denouncing him, crying foul.

We all were frustrated because he allowed the Forum lunatic to go on harassing even when many members voiced their opinions strongly, asking for removal.

Where was Mr O when the government thugs killed the young innocent activist where his skull was opened in several places? And when kyunt Phuts attacked Daw Suu and then the junta turned around and arrested Daw Suu and many of NLD members? Arresting the victims instead of the aggressors!!!!!

Why was Mr O missing in action when his beloved greens were committing those injustices or crimes?

Is it a hypocrisy or what? he he

Dear John,

My subject was “ divide and rule “ but you came in with 1990 elections. So be it, John so be it. It is also a relevent subject. When you had nothing to say against my view on “ divide and rule “I have to be happy.

I have to take this opportunity and reply to you respectfully. My answers may or may not be what you were looking for. Of course that is my view. It’s always been, it from my perspective.

I do not know how much you understand Burmese language John. We Burmese say, “ Jutt Aye Thu Amay Yite . That is a song which goes round and round it never ends.

In universal language, merry go round, you can go round and round don't know where to stop. We can’t keep on going like that John it has to stop somewhere.

Your question was “ Wasn't there already an election -in 1990? And did that election not produce very clear results?”

To answer your question , yes or no won’t be enough it won’t make you happy. I have to go into a certain length. Whether you accept it or not is another matter. I know you want water. I can’t fetch the water with a hole in the bucket John. If you don’t want to know the difficulty I am having, you just want water, I don’t think it works like that
It clear on the table if you take it as face value.
Yes , there were elections in 1990. And there was a clear result. Is that make you happy?. No, that won’t, I don't think so.

But what you and some people are not clear about is that those election were not to hand over power to the winning party, in this case NLD of course the party led by the most popular Ma Su Kyi. Those elections were to elect the representatives to draft the New Constitution. That was the official line John. If anybody is talking about anything else. That is their problem.

The answer is already there but you don't accept it. The question been asked time and time again, It's been answered time and time again. If you think that question will put me in the corner or SPDC in the corner, you will be wrong John.

You have heard it before but good story never gets old. We read it agauin and again, don't we?
1948 Constitution which was a threat to the Union was abolished in 1962 and in 1974 one party state and centralized socialist system was introduced. Again that 1974 constitution was also abolished to make way for New Constitution. Military take over in 1988 . since then military was ruling with no constitution that I kmnow of.

Present National Convention which is drafting New Constitution actually started in 1993 Prior to the NC, meetings and discussions on convening NC were held with legally existing political parties, representatives -elect and independent representatives-elect to the full satisfaction of all participants. The meeting reached the agreement on designation of delegate groups it should invite and number of representatives from delegate group each. They are known to all.

In 1995 when the NC was gaining the momentum with political developments an suddenly representatives of NLD turn their back on the NC on their own accord to disrupt the NC The party (NLD) betrayed the national cause for no apparent reason. They were instructed by Ma Su Kyi to withdraw from the NC. who happened to came out from house arrest that time That was interpreted into the instigation of internal and external elements. NLD violated the rules and regulation. NC had to suspended temporarily.

In 2003 SPDC adopted seven steps road map to democracy and NC resumed in 2004 and according to latest news it is nearly finish, elections could be held in 2008 the earliest.

Somebody has to do something and that something has to start from somewhere John.
If you were following the NC and New Constitution you will know. No matter how good the start would be there are always rooms for new things.

How true it is . You can’t kick the ball even it is right on your toe. You have to take a at least step back and then you kick the ball.

True again , respect is needed everywhere. Everybody have to respect everybody. That is the way it should be. The views, opinion, will always be different among us. As long as we are discussing the matters in a civilised ways and manners, everything will be fine.

I always said, if it is democracy for Burma , it must be the best. How will they look after it, how much they will treasure it is totally in their hands. Because they had it before, they nearly had it again and now they are going to have it today or tomorrow.

Another Burmese saying John, I don‘t mean to be rude, no offence to anybody, take it as a joke OK? When the Burmese had democracy for the first time in 1948 it was like they were holding their fart in their hands, they smell it with our nose, they breath in with their nose. It wasn’t sweet for them. With that experience they can do better this time. Because that time they got it free, this time they earn it.

May be in 2008, there will be new elections. SPDC or new SDDC ( State Democracy and Development Council will hold new elections. I don't think your wishes will ever come true.

In my view NLD if its survives, might have power in next elections, but not on the result of 1990 elections.

Military coupe in Thailand a few months ago was very interesting, don't you think so John?

Thanks,

Shweminthar.<br><br>Post edited by: Shweminthar, at: 2007/02/04 01:07

Khin Thiut Sar,

Or what do you want me to call you , sar, sar ?

Why are you acting like an ignorant. Your knowledge on judicial system of Burma or any other country is very poor, I should say. Lord Buddha, look who is crying foul?

When you said, &quot; Burma is one of the few countries in the world where a sentence can be changed after sentencing had been delivered. Where the law and rules are at the whim of the military dictators. No just as a jury and a judge but also as an executor, interrogator &amp; arresting officer.&quot;

For your information, in every country the highest authority, the head of State, Kings , Queens or Presidents have authorities/power to commute the sentences of anybody, or to pardon them. It got nothing to do with SPDC or SLORC or undemocratic governments.

Who side are you on? Mr O or anybody has a right to support or go against anybody, the same as you are. You should know better. Why don't you respect that right at least? Just because you don't like SPDC. all people must not like it, is that what you are after? Remember not everybody likes you. don't prey for that either.

You still don't understand about democracy and human rights. You think shouting at the top of your voice and pointing your fingers at others is democracy and your rights.

It would be very nice if you discuss one subject seriously, constructively whatever your view is for once in your life.

How can you afford to waste time like this, I don't know, while Burma needs your contributions at least through this forum. There are so many other people who are wasting time.

Lord Buddha , Jesus , Mary and Joseph, Mohammed help them, please.

Shweminthar.

<br><br>Post edited by: Shweminthar, at: 2007/02/05 00:49