John Moe
I refer to the article published by The Online Citizen (TOC) on Sunday, 2 August 2009, reported by Ravi Philemon under the title, “George Yeo’s Meet the People Session at McDonald’s”.
According to the TOC report, Mr Yeo made some controversial comments about Burma’s pro-democracy icon, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, her husband and her family, including the much-loved father of Aung San Suu Kyi- Burma’s independence leader, General Aung San.
According to Ravi Philemon’s report :
“The focus then shifted to ASEAN and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Mr. George Yeo said, “It is very sad that she has been imprisoned for so many years.” But he was quick to add that we must not oversimplify the problems in Burma. He felt that as the country was very complex in its make up with the Burmese making up only about 50% of the total population of the entire population of Burma, only the military could hold the entire country together. He added that it was the military that had ruled Burma from independence and that it was Aung San Suu Kyi’s father, General Aung San, that was the original military man that had ruled the country since independence.”
General Aung San, the leader of Burma’s independence movement, was assassinated on 19 July 1947. Burma’s first constitution was established in 1948. Therefore Mr Yeo’s incoherent comments were completely incorrect. The Burmese military did not rule the country “since independence”, as Mr Yeo said.
Chronologically, Burma was a fully democratic republic from 1948 to 1962. On 4 January 1948, the nation became an independent republic, named the Union of Burma, with Sao Shwe Thaik as its first President and U Nu as its first Prime Minister.
Why does Mr Yeo owe an apology to Aung San Suu Kyi? Mr Yeo said “that it was also General Aung San who created the rule that a Burmese who married a foreigner cannot rule the country and that now Aung San Suu Kyi is married to a foreigner.”
Mr Yeo is thoroughly mistaken.
The 1948 Constitution stated: “No person shall be eligible for election to the office of President unless he is a citizen of the Union who was, or both of whose parents were, born in any of the territories included within the Union.” Aung San Suu Kyi’s parents were both Burmese. She was born in Burma and she is still a Burmese citizen. Therefore she can be President of Burma, as stated in the Consitution.
Mr Yeo’s comment is thus a great insult to Aung San Suu Kyi and her family. Also, Mr Yeo, who is Singapore’s Foreign Minister, has insulted over 52 million Burmese who hold the highest respect for General Aung San.
As Burma’s first constitution was established only in 1948, after General Aung San had been murdered, it is impossible for General Aung San to create a rule to ban any Burmese who married a foreigner from ruling the country . The military junta only introduced the rule in 2008, deliberately aimed at preventing Aung San Suu Kyi’s participation in the 2010 elections.
Mr Yeo would have Burmese adhere to the Constitution which was first suspended when General Ne Win came to power through a coup, and which was later amended by the junta for political purposes. Equally, should not Mr Yeo be demanding that the Burmese junta adhere to the results of the 1990 elections which Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD won overwhelmingly?
Mr Yeo’s comments, which shows his ignorance of Burmese history, has added fuel to the fire, especially at a time when Aung San Suu Kyi is in a politically-motivated mock trial for breaking the conditions of her house arrest. The charges were laid after an American man paid an uninvited visit to her home. It is widely expected she will end up in jail. The verdict of her trial is expected to be delivered on Friday.
Mr Yeo said: “It was because her husband is a foreigner and from the ‘western world’ that the ‘western world’ has come to support Aung San Suu Kyi and have failed to recognise the rule of the military”.
In 1972, Aung San Suu Kyi married Dr Michael Aris, a scholar of Tibetan culture, in Bhutan. The following year she gave birth to their first son, Alexander Aris, in London; their second son, Kim, was born in 1977. Following this, she earned a Ph.D. at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London in 1985.
Mr Yeo denigrated not only Aung San Suu Kyi’s personal life , his comments also cast aspersions on her family and her supporters. Mr Yeo’s labeling of Dr Aris as someone from the ‘western world” shows his lack of sympathy for Aung San Suu Kyi, her husband and their children.
Dr Aris died of cancer on his 53 birthday on March 27 1999. He had requested to see his wife one last time in Burma but his request was denied by the military junta.
The fact that the ‘western world’ supports Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing to do with her husband being a foreigner . The support for the Burmese cause and for Aung San Suu Kyi comes from all parts of the world, including Asean countries.
Mr Yeo added that “the problem in Burma is actually a very deep family dispute and the road to democracy for Burma is long and that the elections next year is but a small step towards that goal.”
Burma’s political imbroglio is created by neither Aung San Suu Kyi nor her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) . The NLD had won a landslide victory in the 1990 elections organised by the military junta which, till today, has refused to hand power over to the NLD. Burma’s problems are created by the military regime itself such as forcing millions of ethnic minorities to flee to neighboring countries, ignoring humanitarian aid to cyclone Nargis’ victims and killing monks and protesters. The military regime imprisons thousands of political prisoners. News are now emerging that the regime is also seeking to build nuclear reactors with help from North Korea.
Mr Yeo said that “ASEAN has worked well in keeping the peace in this region, in subjecting the member nations to peer pressure and in trying to forge economic integration.”
Ironically, Mr Yeo’s statement is contradicted by Singapore’s Senior Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, who had said that “Singapore investors will likely wait until after Myanmar’s elections next year before pouring any more money into the country”. His comment came at the end of a four-day trip to Burma in June where he met with Burma’s top generals, including Senior Gen Than Shwe.
To conclude, Singapore’s Foreign Minister insulted Aung San Suu Kyi, her husband Dr Michael Aris and Burma’s independence leader, General Aung San.
Given the fact that Mr Yeo has gotten his facts wrong, Does he not owe Aung San Suu Kyi – and the Burmese people – an apology?
—–
John Moe is a Burmese pro-democracy activist who had lived and worked in Singapore for eleven years. He was expelled from Singapore for his involvement in a protest in Singapore in 2007. John can be reached at jmoekt@gmail.com
——
John Moe has done us a great service by setting the record straight on this matter.
Singapore’s history, too, has been selectively interpreted and many stalwarts of the past appear to have been forgotten. I hope one day the record will be set straight on our own history too.
Here Here Peter :)
History is subjective, and also fluid. I’m not sure how many of you were actually at the Minister’s coffee shop talk, but I was. And I believe that the Minister’s comments have truly been taken out of context. I also believe that he was sorely misquoted.
Mr. Philemon’s article quotes the Minister as saying that “..it was also General Aung San who created the rule that a Burmese who married a foreigner cannot rule the country and that now Aung San Suu Kyi is married to a foreigner.” I was listening very closely at this point, and clearly remember the Minister saying that “General Aung San was the one who said that a Burmese leader must not marry a foreigner.” The Minister never said that the General created a “rule” per se. Personally, when I was listening to the Minister’s response, I took it to mean that the General had advised Aung San Suu Kyi, or any Burmese leader, against marrying a foreigner. Not once did it occur to me that it was a “rule,” and neither did I hear the word “rule” at any point in time.
I believe that a lot of misunderstanding has been caused by this miscommunication, and that it’s important that we look at both sides of the situation more objectively and not be swayed by one single statement. I am speaking from a neutral perspective and hope that it will shed light on a more balanced view of the Minister’s comments.
- Wu Jiezhen
any of you peeps remembered when the unarmed monks were demostratin against the price of fuel that went up?
Aung San Suu Kyi plead with the singapore government not to support the military juntas
what happened next?
our secret service department marked all the brown shirts wearer
our manpower minister revoke/deported all the burmese freedom attendees foreign workers
now our senile minister is blamin her for bein the problemo
liked our fellow kaki here posted
was it not Aung San Suu Kyi elected by the people of burma
or maybe Aung San Suu Kyi won the election through the GRC process perhaps?
“Burmese military ruled the country since independence”.
I believe it is not wrong (or) it is correct to say that: because within 100 days of independence in 1948, Myanmar’s civil war has begun. First, the communists went underground and some Burmese battalions revolted. The Karens (KNU-KNDO) who were fighting against communists together with Myanmar Army took opportunity to seize the power of the country from the weak elected government of U Nu, by rebellion in Jan 1949. The communist and KNU insurgency goes on. While the civil war was raging, the KMT(Kuomington forces) intruded into Myanmar while fleeing from China’s PLA forces and seized large areas of North/Eastern Shan State. They bring along the “Poppy”, thus Drug War Lords and their armies were born.
Who do you think was dealing with all these problems and insurgencies? Of course “The Myanma Tatmadaw(Army)”.
Further more, the ruling party became cracked in 1958. So the Army act as a caretaker government for a few years. Not once, but twice.
There are many more “incidents of the country” that the Army’ve had to solve and maintain its intrgrity as a nation. Therefore I would agree with Singapore’s FM Mr Yeo that Myanmar Military ruled the country since its independence.
A long-time and seasoned Foreign Minister commenting and making remarks upon a foreign country without having the full grasp of its background history is a true reflection of the real standard of our minister.
Definitely, I would say, he is not a top notch talent who deserves the world’s highest salary, but a make-belief ‘outstanding talent’ whom somebody would want all of us to believe so.
This is not only embarrassing but also unfortunate. Unfortunate because such an incident will not go down well for Singaporeans and the Singapore Nation as a whole in the long run.
How can such a blunder be so easily made in the first place? Is it due to the eagerness to please the winning side and therefore have no choice (mentally blinded) but to find words to put the other party down?
Don’t ever forget, in any foreign relation, there is no such a thing as a long-term friend nor enemy. There is only long-term interests.
Today, the Burmese Military may have the upper hand, but who knows, one day Aung San Suu Kyi or someone from her party may, with the relentless and full support of the Burmese people, be the ruler of Burma (not Myanmar as renamed by the Military Junta).
And also, don’t ever forget, the PAP cannot and will not be in power forever!
George Yeo was not talking about the Presidency. He was talking about election as an MP under the 1947 Constitution leading to leadership of the winning party and nomination as Prime Minister. It was General Aung San who introduced a clause, not about marriage, but about loyalty to the State. Joe Moe and George Yeo have been talking at cross purposes. Joe is right (about the Presidency) and George is right (about the Premiership). Simple as that.
There are a few things we all can agree on, which is that the military regime of Burma is illegitimate, corrupt and tyrannical.
Everything else is contentious. What George Yeo said about the military holding Burma together is plausible. What would happen to Burma if a civil war were to break out, and all the races were to start fighting against each other? We would probably get a human disaster something like the Congo wars after the fall of Mobutu.
What is the logic behind holding the sanctions against the military regime? The logic is that you want to piss the people off so that they rise up against the miilitary regime and overthrow them. The chances of that happening are approximately zero. What is so abhorrent about doing business with the Myanmese? People live, people do business. People living in corrupt dictatorships also have to fill their stomachs. Singapore welcomes Myanmese labour – what’s so bad about that? Burma is a land of great natural resources. Do you think that economic sanctions are going to hurt the regime? They can consolidate their power, even if they were to become a purely autarkic state
Look at sanctions in Iraq – did that get rid of Saddam Hussein? It just became a big eyesore. People just suffered. Saddam Hussein just got more powerful.
All this freedom for Burma stuff, it’s a great emotional release. It’s great to use as a stick with which to hit people. As a measure to overthrow the military regime, it ain’t worth shit.
Wu Jiezhen@55: You should probably read the FB exchange with GY on this issue: http://singaporesocialactivist.blogspot.com/2009/08/george-yeos-response-to-my-article-on.html, where the Minister admitted that “I stand corrected whether the inspiration for that provision (Burmese marrying a foreigner) originally came from Aung San; that was certainly suggested to me by Myanmar ministers I met.”
OK, first I want to acknowledge that Aung San Suu Kyii is the democratic elected leader of Burma, whatever that means because that was 21 years ago.
That being said, the fixation on her is extremely unhealthy. Burma has moved on. Or rather it is trying to move on but not really succeeding.
China is an abhorrent regime but the world is dealing with China. Why is it different with Burma? Deal with China, trade with China, eventually it will be a more free and liberal society. Shut away from the regime, then it will become all powerful with respect to the Burmese people. When you consider that Burma is neighbours to 3 of the most dynamic economies in the world (China, India, Thailand) you have to wonder how on earth it became so screwed up.
Aung San Suu Kyii is not going to live forever. Maybe there’ll be progress when she’s gone, and then maybe 50 years later we can really think about what her real legacy is.
I think George Yeo thinks people who go to MacDonals are stupid. He can hsien anything he does not know or choose not to know. Thank goodness for the internet! Can you imagine him getting away with all the smoke he throws (which he must have done many times in all the years before internet, like all the rest)?
To 62) Breeder,
“Everything else is contentious. What George Yeo said about the military holding Burma together is plausible. What would happen to Burma if a civil war were to break out, and all the races were to start fighting against each other? We would probably get a human disaster something like the Congo wars after the fall of Mobutu.”
>> We all know that Peace, prosperity and freedom do not come free; you need to fight for it (All Singaporeans’ male has to serve NS, what do you think it is for?).
>>Is the notion of freedom worth dying for? I don’t live in Burma, I don’t presume that they should be “grateful” to the junta. Maybe you want to check that out first.
“What is the logic behind holding the sanctions against the military regime?
>>The logic of not holding the sanctions against the military regime is so that Singapore can benefit from trading with Burma – that I am sure.
“The logic is that you want to piss the people off so that they rise up against the military regime and overthrow them. The chances of that happening are approximately zero.”
>>History has shown us that’s call “revolution”. That how humans have fought for their beliefs. It’s not a matter of how, it just a matter of “when”. No “dictatorship” last forever. The WWII memorial signifies exactly the same thing during the Japanese’s rule; unless you tell me these people are “morons”; US then should “trade” with the “Japs” during WWII instead of “fighting” against them.
“That being said, the fixation on her is extremely unhealthy.”
>>ASSK won the election 21 years ago; the junta refused to surrender the “power”. ASEAN leaders “embraced” Burma into ASEAN…. what does that tells you? The junta is right not to surrender their power? “Money” is the only thing that matters now? The people of Burma “deserve” to live under the dictatorship of the junta and be grateful?
>>Hence, you may want to ask yourself why the leaders of ASEAN only “talk”? “Talk” is “cheap”. Without “action”, it shows a lack of will or might to enforce what you “preach”; or it’s “doublespeak”.
>>Nonetheless, the fixation on her is about her “goal” to liberate the people of Burma under the current “dictatorship”. Same notion as our War Memorial. How can it be “unhealthy”?
“What is so abhorrent about doing business with the Myanmese? People live, people do business. ”
>>You are “blurring” the line. You are attempting to say that the “junta” and the “people of Burma” is now one and the same. How can they be the same? Slaver and slaves – are they the same even if they live under the same “roof”?
“People living in corrupt dictatorships also have to fill their stomachs.”
>> And they also need to “liberate” themselves from these “corrupt dictatorships” as well.
“Burma is a land of great natural resources. Do you think that economic sanctions are going to hurt the regime? They can consolidate their power, even if they were to become a purely autarkic state”
>>You are “blurring” the line again. “Sanction” means I don’t agree with you – from a country’s perspective with a “bite”. Natural resources is not the only thing a country needs, you need “technology – medical, scientific, bio-engineering” and stuff you don’t produce yourself; hence, you have to trade.
“Look at sanctions in Iraq – did that get rid of Saddam Hussein? It just became a big eyesore. People just suffered.”
>>Iraq is a “poor” example. Who thinks US goes in to “liberate” Iraq? I thought they went in for the “oil”. US went in with UN’s approval? Why not?
“Saddam Hussein just got more powerful.”
>>Saddam is dead. I don’t think Iraqis loves Saddam; they “dislike” US as they are the “aggressor”. The notion of “freedom” is here again. The “rebels” branded themselves as liberators.
“All this freedom for Burma stuff, it’s a great emotional release. It’s great to use as a stick with which to hit people. As a measure to overthrow the military regime, it ain’t worth shit.”
>>Definitely not worth anything to you. Maybe you want to ask John Moe or the people of Burma to see if he cares.
Unfortunately, Burma’s problem is the burden that the people of burma has to bear. Just like singapore’s is singaporeans’s responsibility. You decide your future.
to Anawrahtar :
Having an army rule a country for a long time is like having a maid/mother look after a guy since he was a boy until he is an old man. How is he going to grow like that?
Unless you think having the military rule the country is appropriate.
also, did the military organise any elections that they won effectively?
So, why are they still there if not because they have the guns?
that country certainly have years of political stability but is it growing?
Anawrahtar is confusing the means and the ends?
Anawrahtar :
Another analogy: your mother might give birth to you (assuming you are a guy) and she wears a bra.
That doesn’t mean you need to wear one too.
(actually, you shouldn’t by conventional wisdom)
Ravi Philemon@61: I had already read the Facebook exchange prior to posting my comment, but thank you for posting the link. However, I believe that for Mr. Yeo to say that he stands corrected should not be seen as any form of admission. Also, please know that my intent was not to accuse anyone in particular of misquoting Mr. Yeo, but rather to clear up what I felt was a misunderstanding. My comment was an attempt to state what I recalled to the best of my recollection, and I believe that the Minister saying that he “stand[s] corrected whether the inspiration for that provision (Burmese marrying a foreigner) originally came from Aung San; that was certainly suggested to me by Myanmar ministers I met” doesn’t exactly correlate with what I had mentioned in my comment either. I still do believe that what the Minister had said during the Coffee Shop Talk was taken out of context, and in turn it agitated a number of people. Once again, I hope my being there will be able to give the readers a more objective perspective on the articles/comments regarding the discussion that took place that day.
The Singapore government and George Yeo can’nt think outside an authoritarian government system . ( well he is ex military and it shows) The only reason they support Berma , they want the trade and investment possibilty , Singapore has never ever been a supporter of human rights or freedom of speech , and that goes down well in SE Asia .
One day the truth will come out and be published , and hostory rewritten
I believe that BG Yeo has done it on purpose,the usual bull shit to con thee that PAP practices,if as he claimed he listened to the murderous Generals who did mass killing on record,then he ought to be sack immediately.he has rock bottom judgement.
I remember vividly that Spore Chartered Industry was the first company in the world to rush arms after 8.8.1988,the date when army of Myanmar opned fire andkilled hundred of thousand students,civiliansd,I hope people of Myanmar remember this,all these are recorded in Far Eastern Economic review.
BG Yeo has to answer to my GOD,our GOD!
BG Yeo who earns more than $2 millions a year,6 times more than what USA President Obama earns,cliamed that he based his conclusion on what the murderous Generals in Myanmar told him.
I still rememebr vividly how MM LKY described those murderous generals of Myanmar,he said talking to them was like talkigng to DEAD BODIES.
Yet BDG Yeo claimed that he took thier cock talk as gospel truth,can we believe?
Thanks to jmoekt and all.
To add little more for information.
Only NLD led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won the only free and fair election in Burma in 1990.
The elected parliamentarians (law makers) should be writing new constitution after handing over power to them (Elected parliamentarians).
I do not think Gen Aung San had to create the rule which ban a Burmese who married foreigner to govern the country. It was current Military regime. (New government with the old guards should be regarded as old Military regime.).
I would like to ask ASEAN if there is any time frame for constructive engagement? What are the progress of the constructive engagement in essence, quality and quantity? Please read on internet all the atrocities committed by Military and government thugs, USDA.Military government ignore all the problems and hardships of all ethnic nationalities as well as Burmans of Burma. Simply there is no representatives of Military government when people needs help. But they are there to demand, torture and create more problems for people.
There is only Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who is respected leaders accepted by all races and ethnic nationals of Burma. She is the only one leader who can organize and reconcile all the citizens of Burma. He has also her colleagues and party elders to support her cause.
If UN and USA can organize a poll which is fair and free from fear and ask the citizens (including ranks and files soldiers, civil servants) of Burma if they want the present government resigns and handover power to NLD. The world can see the true desire, intention and will of Burmese citizens.
I would not mind Mr Yeo any way.
IP Moe Aung
When U Nu became PM of Burma in 1948, he appointed General Smith Dune, (he is a Karen and may be a Eurasian), CIC (Commander in Chief) of Burmese Arm Forces. He resigned when Karen rebelled Union Government. Then U Nu appointed General Ne Win, CIC.
Then one BG T. Clift was the Chief of Air Forces when Gen Ne Win took over power.
To Simon Ng,
You mentioned as follow.
“I still rememebr vividly how MM LKY described those murderous generals of Myanmar,he said talking to them was like talkigng to DEAD BODIES.”
I would add,
“They are living dead. When rise up as Devils, they torture the ordinary citizens and children of Burma (Burmese and ethnic nationals}. They set the villages fire, kill the people, drive of children, elderly and women as well to neighbouring countries such as Thailand, Bangladesh and India. There are a lot of refugees in Malaysia also. Mae Tao Clinic of Dr Cynthia Maung and the Mae-La refugee camps are the living evidences of the present Burmese Junta’s atrocities.” In my opinion, the ASEAN’s Constructive Engagement causes more destruction in Burma. But the ASEAN leaders are still insisting to give more time for Junta to change. After admission to ASEAN, the junta become stronger as they got ASEAN endorsement as if getting license to kill it own citizens. It is the time to review this policy of “Constructive Engagement”.
To Simmon Ng and All,
Please visit the following sites to witness the atrocities of the Burma Military Junta.
http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&biw=1002&bih=540&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Mae+Tao+clinic&oq=Mae+Tao+clinic&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=28004l35206l0l25l17l0l7l0l0l210l1158l4.5.1
http://www.google.com.sg/search?q=Mae+La+refugee+camp&hl=en&biw=1113&bih=600&prmd=ivnsm&tbm=isch&tbo=u&sou