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)

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?

“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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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

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.

I would like to justify on your comment which you said “Just to clarify, John Moe was not expelled from Singapore because of his views but for breaking the law in Singapore.” http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=551572184&ref=name#/georgeyeopage?ref=ts

1) I had never denied my participation in protests. I was involved in a peaceful staged demonstration in Singapore together with over 40 Burmese national on 20th November 2007 at Orchard Road, I prepared banners such as “Listen to Burma’s desires”, “Do not follow junta’s Order” it called for ASEAN to stop while military soldiers brutal crackdown on the peaceful monk-lead Saffron Revolution. Here is video link for your ref; Burmese staged peaceful demonstration in Singapore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t3RYT6Xwds

2) I was also interviewed by Channel News Asia, Today Newspaper, The Straits Times newspaper and several Burmese news agencies where I highlighted that violating human rights during the referendum process arrangement was organised by the Burma Embassy in Singapore. Besides, I highlighted to the media that the constitution is not for the Burmese people and that is only for the military to prolong power all along. Here is video Link for your ref; BURMESE SAYS NO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcMLrKoIskI

3) Does it Mr Yeo clarify on it taking part in the protest is breached the Singapore law? If it is, why don’t take egalitarian action accordance with the law of Singapore rather than given impunity. That is not fare treatment if compare to ordinary Singapore citizens’ those who are still facing various trials for similar protests.

4) What about other Burmese still living in Singapore they took part in the same protests too? Why Singapore government given impunity? Why Singapore government acted selectively and told Burmese prodemocracy activists to leave the country instead of charge them like what Singapore government exercising on Singapore opposition such as Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).

5) Given the fact that Singapore authorities have not given any specific reason for Expulsion of Burmese activists despite two Singaporeans protested outside the MOM building. Here is video clip for your ref; “Singaporeans arrested for protest in support of Burmese” http://vimeo.com/2808270?pg=transcoded_embed&sec=2808270

With warm regards,

John Moe