Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Shan Herald Agency for News

Shan Herald Agency for News

Shan State municipal staff’s disappearance causes concern

Posted: 14 Jun 2016 03:56 AM PDT

Over 100 people gathered in Shan State's capital Taunggyi on Saturday to demand that senior Shan State municipal officials take responsibility for the disappearance last year of two municipal employees.  The group also called for allegations of unfair treatment of staff to be dealt with.


The head of Hsipaw Township's municipal section, U Aung Naing Win and his secretary Ko Naing Lin disappeared last year while they travelled home after receiving their salary in Mong Nong.

Ko Naing Lin's brother, who took part at the event, said he sent numerous letters to municipal officials about his brother's disappearance.

"They did reply but their letters were different each time they wrote to us," explained Ko Naing Lin's brother, who wished to remain anonymous.  "They said my brother was dead but sometimes they said my brother was arrested by a cow trader or he might have been killed by an armed group," he explained.

He added that the municipal officer only blamed others but refused to take any responsibility. He also said that after the disappearances took place he received a letter informing him that his brother and his colleague were laid off from their position.

Daw Khin Than Tar Win, the wife of U Aung Naing Win, said she and her family had requested an explanation from the municipal officer about the disappearance of U Aung Naing Win.

"My children and I went to Mong Nong municipal office many times to find the information about my husband. We don't know where he is. Until now we don't know whether he is dead or still alive," she said.

Allegations of corruption have also been made against some senior municipal officials.  Daw Myint Myint Maw, a municipal staffer from Kalaw Township, said that she requested to the Taunggyi municipal office that she be transferred to Taunggyi. She was told that she would have to give some of her land to a superior for this transfer to be carried out.  After she refused to do this, she was moved to another area and was later laid off.  She added that her husband, U Zaw Myo Win, is currently being sued by U Sai Tun Tun, the Shan State municipal director, under telecommunications law article 66 (d). According to Daw Myint Myint Maw her husband is facing the suit because he knows secret information about U Sai Tun Tun and kept it on his computer.

The Secession Issue

Posted: 14 Jun 2016 02:33 AM PDT

The Secession Issue:

To Part or Together

By U Htoon Myint of Taunggyi

Former Secretary General, Shan State People's Freedom League (SSPFL)

(Revised edition)

U Htoon Myint Whenever there is discussion about Panglong, one word our Burmese rulers don't want to listen to is 'Secession'. As Htoon Myint makes it abundantly clear here, the only way to stop people saying the word is by sharing and sharing alike — Translator

FORWARD TO THE SECOND EDITION

Secession is not a crime. It is a right provided by the (1947) Constitution, so that the constituent national groups and smaller races can safeguard their integrity.

Although the author is unsure about what is happening in the other states, secession has certainly become a critical issue in the Shan State, one that is poorly masked by threats and belittlement. It is analogous to an abscess which is eating into the innards of human body. The cure prepared by U Nu and Sao Khun Khio is not unlike the application of a drug to an external surface. If it is not cured from the roots, the abscess will become worse and eventually burst.

There has also been an atmosphere of fear surrounding the issue deterring people from discussing it openly.

Hence the secessionists are afraid.

The unionists are also afraid.

But what are they afraid of?

The secessionists think propagation of the secession cause will amount to a criminal offense. They forget that it is a legitimate right provided by the Constitution itself.

The unionists also do not, dare to propagate their cause. They know that without bringing to people's notice the means to do away with the Shan national grievances, and without describing how best to counter the Burmese Greater Nation Chauvinism, it may turn out to be a cause that overlooks basic Shan interests, and as a result, they cannot expect the support of the people.

If the sentiments of the people were measured, the answers to the call for secession would far outweigh those for the union. Therefore it should be realized beforehand that the call for secession is not simply by a handful of people

It should equally be realized that many of the secessionists are those who wish to secede by whatever means. A large number of them cannot even say what the grievances are. They also have no idea what they will do after secession, to make it better than the union period. They are also far from anticipating the dangers that lie ahead for the post-secession period. Such people are extremists.

The secession call however does not arise out of external conspiracies. It originates from real grievances. As the saying goes, "Where there is rot, there are flies". Hence, secession comes first. External threats, if there are any secondary.

Although secession is to a certain extent a proper way to settle national affairs, it is not advisable for those who are bent on it whatever happens later. This kind of secession can only serve as fuel for a world war that can destroy peace not only for Shanland, but for Asia and the rest of the world.

Secession is not the only alternative that can do away with Shan grievances. The author believes there is another choice for the Shan people --- to join hands with other peoples, including the Burmese who are against Burmese Greater Nation Chauvinism, to counter the AFPFL (Anti Fascist People's Freedom League), the roof of Shan grievances.

However, if the AFPFL obstinately refuses to mend its greater nationalist errors, and continues to resist the wishes of the Non-Burmese national groups, they will be forced as a last resort to use the secessionist weapon. And before using it they must be prepared for the dangers that will come in the aftermath.

The AFPFL and Greater Nation Chauvinism

The AFPFL's aims as stipulated in the League's constitution give no hint of Greater Nation Chauvinism. But, in practice, it has been extremely difficult for them to hide it.

The following words spoken by none other than U Nu, currently the AFPFL Chairman and the Union Prime Minister, at the People's Assembly on March 7, 1957, clearly eulogize the AFPFL's Greater Nationalism:

"…The proposed establishment of an Arakan State has been rejected, not because we hate the Arakanese. The fact is that we do not think having a state is a good thing. When states have been allowed to be set up, it was not because we thought it was a good idea. A country that is only as big as a plum such as ours should not be divided into several states. But we were being forced to agree to it because we wanted Independence, and because we wanted to settle the problems created by British divide-and-rule policy. We did not entertain the idea that having different states is the best system for the Union. But circumstances obliged us to accept it…."

Interference, domination and oppression of national groups and smaller races are acts originating from Greater Nation Chauvinism. A country may be as small not just as a plum, but even as a grain of sesame. But if a multitude of races is living there, rights of autonomy corresponding to their population must be granted. This is not demanded without reason. It is for people to safeguard their race from domination by bigger nations and races.

In a free and voluntary union such as ours, autonomy and secession are unquestionable prerequisites. And if the bigger nation or the majority race begrudge these rights, the diagnosis must be that it has been infected with the Greater Nation disease. The right of autonomy is the first line of defense for the smaller nations or races to successfully prevent domination. The secession weapon is put to use only when the first measure fails.

In a country where there are minorities and small races, demands for the rights of autonomy and secession are a natural and constant feature, particularly if they are being denied, e.g. in Ireland in the past, and Arakan at present.

I think that unless the AFPFL leadership adopts a proper policy that meets the wishes of all constituent national groups, peril on a vast scale is inevitable.

I would also venture to suggest that members of the AFPFL make a review of U Nu's recent speech and decide whether or not it is compatible with the AFPFL official line.

The AFPFL's policy on the nationalities, according to Chapter 1, paragraph 3, Aims and Objectives, is as follows:

As the right to self-determination belongs to each respective people, to unite all the indigenous races, their descendants, and all those who refer to themselves as being Burmese citizens for the achievement of Independence;
To establish Burma as a nation with the free consent of all the indigenous nationalities, and to recognize the right of self-determination of every nationality.
To reconstruct Burma in accordance with the wishes of the people.
As I see it, U Nu's speech plainly opposes the above policy.

Since each nationality enjoys the right of self-determination, the stateship issue should logically be decided by the majority of the nationality in question. It is not for the Burmese majority to make decisions for them in this matter, e.g. in the case of the Arakan and Pa-O states issues. The AFPFL policy in action pays little or no attention to the wishes of the indigenous nationalities. It is being implemented by offering favors, by dividing each nationality into two opposing camps and itself acting as balancing power between them.

Until recently, there have been two opposing lines in the Shan State:

Secession no matter what, and
Union no matter what.
And I have tried to present a new line:

To stay in the Union if it is beneficial to the Shan people as a whole, and
To secede if it is not.
When this booklet was first published, a sense of apprehension was still the order of the day. It is encouraging now to see some of these fears fading out. This I consider as a major step in the course of democracy.

This new thinking has met with the support of the Shan people, both young and old. I have also received messages from Chin, Kachin, Kayah and Arakan expressing their support. My greater satisfaction is that even die-hard secessionists have begun to accept my proposal. They have not requested reprints, but have provided funds as well.

This second edition thus is the fruit of the general support. I have asked suggestions from my close friends, but since they have recommended publishing it as it is, I have done this with the exception of  a few corrections: (not translated)

It should also be made clear that the ideas presented in this booklet are not mine. Most of them correspond to the now defunct SSPFL's position.

The SSPFL's slogan was "Shanland is for the Shan nationalities". Its aims were:

For the Shan people to enjoy the Right of Self-Determination;
Total Freedom for Shanland in political, economic and social relations; and
Unity of the people of Shanland.
Today's situation, in my opinion, completely concurs with the SSPFL's slogan and aims. LET US ENDEAVOR TO RAISE THE SSPFL FLAG ONCE MORE.

Htoon Myint

Taunggyi, April 4, 1957

THE SHAN STATE SECESSION ISSUE:

To Part or Together

According to Articles 201 and 202 of the Union of Burma Constitution, the constituent states, if they choose to do so, enjoy the right to secede from the Union ten years after ratification of the Constitution.

And now on the forthcoming September 24, ten years will have passed.

It is therefore natural and the timing is right to bring the debate on whether states should secede or continue their existence in the Union.

----------------------------------------

Today's Union of Burma comprises, apart from Mainland Burma, the following areas of national groups:

The Shan State,
The Kachin State,
The Kayah State,
The Karen State, and
The Chin Special Division.
Among these, Kachin, Karen and Chin do not hold the right to secede. Only two states enjoy the right, namely: Shan and Kayah. In both states, there may be those who wish to remain in the Union. At the same time, there may also be those who wish to secede in order to set up their own separate nations.

Among the Pro-Unionists, there may be found two categories:

Those who wish to remain because of self-interest, and
Those who sincerely believe that it is in the interests of the people of their states to remain in the Union.
Similarly, corresponding categories in the opposite camp may be found:

Those who wish to secede due to lack or loss of private interests in the Union, and
Those who sincerely believe that only through secession, will progress and prosperity be worked out for the Shan people.
Accordingly, one cannot at a glance denounce everyone who supports unionism of being opportunists, office seekers, and lacking patriotism. Similarly, one can also not accuse everyone who upholds secession of being traitors and imperialists fifth columnists. Instead, each side should be open-minded, respect the right of freedom of thought and expression of other people, give the other side the benefit of the doubt and examine their arguments carefully. People in general must be encouraged to freely and broadly discuss the issue. The decision of the majority must be taken as final.

To me the rise of the secession issue is a most valuable eye-opener for the Shan people. It will also serve as a criterion for Shan democracy.

I read in the papers recently that one of the decisions reached at the Mongyai Conference of the Shan State Unity Party on December 28, (1956) was secession from the Union. However, no explanations were available as to how and why they arrived at the decision. It can only be guessed in context with other decisions. These were as follows:

Opposition to relinquishment of power by the ruling princes, and support in favor of each of the princes to continue rule over his respective domain;
Opposition to Shan State's deprivation of proportionate division of the Union Revenue;
Opposition to the ruling princes deprivation of proportionate royalties from business ventures in their respective domains;
Grievance due to the decrease in revenue in each principality, which in turn was due to the Profit Tax Act that prevented the princes from imposing the traditional household taxes.
Not long after this, there appeared in the papers a press release by the Shan State United Hill People's League headed by Sao Khun Khio. The gist of the release is as follows:

"The SSUP's decisions do not concern the SSUHPL. As such, the SSUHPL is not responsible for their decisions, and it will definitely not cooperate with the SSUP on the Secession Issue."

However, they did not elaborate on their stand as to the issue itself.

Response in opposition to the SSUP by the pro-union All Shan State League soon followed in the papers. It denounced the former as Union destroyers, traitors and Imperialists' fifth columnists. They also demanded dismissal from office of one of the Shan ministers, Po Hmon, whom they held responsible for the affair. This also is not an appropriate response, because there is no law which says a state minister cannot speak in favor of secession.

The Shan State Council -- the legislative body of the Shan State – and the Shan State Government enjoy self determination in matters concerning their state. And if any such matter is to be decided, the opening decision must be taken by the Shan State Council and its Government.

Moreover, as the Shan Council Chairman as well as Shan ministers are not permanent government servants but politicians, they have the right to decide and support either: Secession or Union. The All Shan State League would do better to objectively explain why Secession is wrong, what disadvantages it will cause, and how it will benefit the Shan people to remain the Union.

As a former General Secretary to the SSPFL which was largely responsible for the Shan-Burma Alliance, I will try my best to objectively present the issue, praying that readers will discuss and comment on it open-mindedly.

First of all, does the Shan State possess the characteristics needed to set up a separate independent nation?

The reader will find that:

The Shan nationalities have, since ancient times, lived together;
They have a common language used by the majority;
They also have a common territory with defined boundaries;
Its natural resources are rich and abundant, and the economy strong and sufficient;
They have a common culture and common traditions.
These characteristics acknowledge the validity of a separate Shan nation.

However, this does not necessarily existed as a separate and free nation. From the days of the Nanchao Kingdom to the forced exile of the Burmese King, Thibaw Min, Shanland was a tributary state. From 1885 onwards, the Shans followed the Burmese and came under British colonial rule.

From 1921 – with the introduction of Dyarchy, Mainland Burma gradually began to enjoy more autonomy. But the Federated Shan States, as Shan was known in those days, as well as other frontier areas, subject to the Divide-and Rule policy, remained under a colonial-cum-feudalist system.

Sixty years under British rule brought no political, economic and cultural advance to the Shans. Politically, social rights considered normal in democratic countries were not introduced to them, let alone a measure of an accountable administrative system. Economically, no economic projects were launched to boost the Shan people's living standards despite the abundance of the natural resources.

Cottages were rickety. In terms of poverty, the Shans could even compete with the poorest among paupers. Their daily fare was, apart from rice, just soybean and mustard. Their clothes were invariably made of red and blue cotton.

In the field of health, a population of over one and a half million in an area of more than 60,000 square-miles had less than half a dozen senior physicians and less than a dozen junior physicians. People were ridden with malaria from the day they were born, and many died young. The average lifespan was said to be only 24. 400 infants out of every thousand died before they were one year old.

In the field of education, only 12 out of every hundred, including those who could read only the alphabet, were literate. There were no colleges, let alone universities.

The colonialists has greedily sucked the blood of the Shan people. And they had the nerve to call Shanland a backward country.

It was also interesting to note that during the sixty-year British rule, no individual rose up to call for development and freedom.

The SSPFL

In 1947, the first mass organization -- the  SSPFL -- came into being. Only then, slogans such as "Shanland for the people of Shanland" and Total Independence for the Shan" began to spread across the land.

The first problem encountered was whether the Shans, in the struggle for Independence, should go alone or join hands with the Burmese. The SSPFL, then the vanguard of the Shan masses, put forward the slogan, "To overthrow Colonialism, the Shans and Burmese must unite."

The Shan princes at once denounced the SSPFL as having sold out to the Burmese. And they began to spread their own anti-Burmese propaganda.

The SSPFL then, through its chairman, Tin Aye, expounded its Shan-Burma Alliance theme. The following are the excerpts from his speech contained in the AFPFL Bulletin, February 6, 1947 special issue:

"…Independence is all right. But how do we go about achieving it? One thing seems to be clear. We cannot, alone by ourselves, hope to achieve it. So we must look for an ally who has the same aspirations… The Burmese people fell under British Colonialism together with us. Therefore, the Shans and the Burmese share the same boat, the same journey and same aims. Logically, we should put aside other problems, such as future cooperation, for the time being, and work together in the meantime for the achievement of Independence. On this point, we need not hesitate. We should all vigorously call for independence simultaneously with the Burmese, work for it, and organize the people on this policy… As to the question of future cooperation and separation, the AFPFL and other progressive Burmese elements like the Communists have already recognized our Right of Self-Determination as follows:

The present cooperation shall not affect future cooperation or separation
Despite agreement to join the Union, the Shans shall reserve the right to secede if and when they choose.
The Shans can still join the Union even though they shall choose to defer their decision to do so until after the convening of the Constituent Assembly.
Full autonomy for internal affairs.
No prejudice against the customs and traditions of the Shans.
No one could be more broadminded than this. We should sincerely support this stand.

"…To be honest, we cannot hope to achieve Independence with a short-term struggle without joining hands with the Burmese. Similarly, without the participation of the Frontier Areas, we do not believe Burma's Independence will be genuine and lasting, Therefore, it is everyone's duty and task to join hands together for the overthrow of colonialism. …To be frank, if the Burmese attempt to replace the departing British colonialists, we can join together with other non-Burmese such as Chins, Kachins, Karens and Arakans to overthrow them. We can, if we choose, also exist as an independent nation. There is no cause for worry on these questions…

"…But these problems will arise only after the achievement of Independence from the British. These are future problems. However, the immediate problem is the overthrow of British Colonialism. So let us --Shans, Burmese, Karens, Chins and Kachins -- join together to struggle for independence…"

Also in the SSPFL's proclamation No. 4 which was issued on February 5, 1947 under the headline "Let us join Burma to get Independence", the SPFL unequivocally outlined its stand:

"Due to the present Burmese political situation, it is imperative that we Shans together with other frontier people decide on our own destiny.

…We have become slaves together since 1885, so we wish to be free too once Burma achieves freedom… our policy concerning the Burmese is as follows:

We firmly believe that Shanland can exist as a separate sovereign country;
We also believe that the Shans' present strength is insufficient to expel colonialism. Therefore as long as Shanland and Burma are not independent, we wish to stay with the Burmese. Only through the unity of the nationalities - - Shans, Burmese, Chins, Karens etc. - - can colonialism be successfully overthrown, and both Shanland and Burma be totally free.
In order to strengthen both countries after Independence, we believe that discussions must be conducted among the newly free Burmese, Shan, Chin, Kachin, Karen etc. in the Constituent Assembly to provide for equal fights, firm mutual pledges, Self-Determination for internal affairs and the right of secession. We wish to join with Burma on this basis…"
This line came to be accepted by the Shan princes and other national groups.

The preamble of the celebrated Panglong Agreement declares "…believe that freedom will be more speedily achieved by the Shans, Kachins and Chins by their immediate cooperation with the interim Burmese Government…"

Again on March 23, 1947, the Shan, Chin and Kachin leaders attending the Supreme Council of the United Hill Peoples' meeting took the following resolutions (at the residence of the Prince of Yawnghwe):

"2. To take part in the Burmese Constituent Assembly on a population basis, but no decision to be affected in matters regarding a particular area without the two-third majority of votes of the representatives of the Areas concerned.

equal rights for all;
full internal autonomy for the Hill Areas;
right of secession from Burma at the any time after attaining freedom…"
To the Frontier Areas Committee of Enquiry (FACE) headed by Rees-Williams, the SCOUHP presented a memorandum, in which its views regarding the Shans' future relations with Burma are contained:

"3. Association with Burma shall be on a federal basis with:

equal rights and status;
full internal autonomy for the Shan States;
right of secession at any time after the attainment of freedom…"
The report of the FACE also concludes that the majority of witnesses who supported cooperation with Burma demanded the right of secession by the State at any time.

Therefore, it was clear from the beginning the Shan-Burma alliance did not mean lasting cooperation.

In genuine federation, the right of secession is an essential complement.

As General Aung San said, "The right of secession must be given, but it is our duty to work and show (our sincerity) so that they don't wish to leave". It is Burma's responsibility to prove their sincerity so the states do not wish to secede.

During the drafting of the Constitution, it  was proposed in Chapter 10, Right of Secession, Clause 202: "The right of secession shall not be exercised within ten years from the date on which this Constitution comes into operation". The representatives from SSFPL had strongly protested against it, but only because they regarded its inclusion as detrimental to genuine federation and prejudicial to the rights of minorities.

Contrary to propaganda, the SSPFL did not betray the Shan people. Its clearcut stand was: To unite with Burma in order to overcome colonialism, to maintain the alliance if it is in the interest of the Shan people, and to withdraw from it if it is not.

Due to the SSPFL's guidance and efforts, the Shan-Burma Alliance is now ten years old. And during these years, the SPFL was destroyed due to feudalist suppression.

Also thanks to the SSPFL's guidance, the Shan-Burma Alliance freed both Shans and Burmese alike from the yoke of British colonialism. And the time has come now to make an assessment of the ten-year period. The time has also come to consider whether we should remain in the Union or withdraw from it.

Let us first make a comparison with the colonial era.

During the colonial days, no responsible administrative power granted. The people enjoyed no democratic rights. What they had was merely a colonial-cum-feudal rule.

The Shan people in general were in destitution during the colonial period. They still remain so today. They have not yet progressed from soybean and mustard. On the contrary, they have become more and more poverty-stricken.

British colonialism exacted the riches of Shanland for a handful of capitalists. And today the AFPFL Government is doing the same for themselves. The prospects of Shanland sharing the benefits are still hazy.

Before the War, the whole of the Shan States had 196 schools. (90% of these were private and missionary schools.) In 1947 only 138 remained. Literacy was 12% . Today the number of schools has certainly increased: 17 high schools, 19 middle schools, and 391 primary schools, according to available information. However, the State Government is yet to release a statement as to how many are literate now.

During the colonial days, the whole of Shanland had 33 hospitals and dispensaries, including those operated by missionaries and private sectors. The annual report of the State Council Chairman, however, does not disclose how many of them there are now.

Postal and telegraph services, and roads and communications have seen no progress. In fact, they are even worse than during the colonial period.

This I believe is the objective assessment of the post-independence period.

Those who sincerely want to secede seem to be unhappy owing to this assessment. They more than likely think the Shans could have gone far on their own.

On the other hand, those who sincerely support the Union seem to consider the ten year period as a bonus in favor of the Shan people. They seem to think this benefit will increase with the continuation of the union.

There are those among the secessionists who wish to be independent just because they have never experienced independence before. They are subjectivists.

There are also those who insist Shanland must be for Shans only. They are simple-minded patriots.

There are also those who want to secede because they are dissatisfied with the AFPFL.

However, the people have yet to learn from the secessionists what form Shanland would take after secession, and what sort of development programs are in store for them. Some of them say they do not dare present it right now.

Meanwhile, the unionists also have yet to present to the Shan people how and when this land and its people can expect to realize progress and prosperity through continued union. Some of them try to evade the question by saying, "It is like water and lotus. Shans will prosper in step with the Union, of course." Some of them even try to beat around the bush by muttering, "We don't yet feel comfortable presenting our views."

In this situation, how can one expect our people to make the right decision?

As for me, I can frankly state that I am not at all happy with the present conditions: the princes still retaining their traditional powers, development projects still unforeseen, establishment of institutions for high learning and vocation still not in the offing, etc.

If there is no hope of alleviating the present situation, I would rather leave the Union and consider myself a secessionist.

All the same, I cannot support the secessionist lines adopted by the SSUP and the SSUHPL. They are likely to set up an American-dominated Shan where the princes retain life-and-death power over the respective domains. Even as a secessionist, I shall have to oppose this form of secession.

My Secessionist Line

The following is my own proposal:

Shanland possesses the characteristics necessary for founding a separate nation.
Owing to both the geographical conditions and its natural resources, Shanland has a high potential to become a developed nation.
If there is little or no hope of benefitting from the Union, we would like to secede and set up a republic on the following basis:
The secession must be free from external intrigues and interference;
It must not come under neo-colonialists and feudal powers;
Shanland shall enjoy equal rights with other nations, and in turn be beneficial to world peace.
Though basically we are secessionist, we shall keep an open mind to Burmese efforts made in the spirit of Aung San's saying. In other words, they need to show their sincerity so that we won't wish to secede.

Also according to the Constitution, the progress and prosperity of the Shan State rest primarily with the Union Government.

Looking at the statistics in State Legislature and Revenue, we find that states can do very little to introduce development projects. What little they can do is limited to the agricultural field. The principal revenue comes from land taxes and  forestry taxes. And they have to rely on "Union Subsidies". What they can obtain from their own state is plainly not enough to cover their normal expenditure, let along introduce development projects.

1956-57 Estimates (in Kyats)

States         State Revenue            Union Subsidies              Normal Expenditure

Shan            4,127,340                     12,500,000                         17,211,000

Kachin         3,904,230                     7, 500,000                           12,069,000

Kayah          506,390                        2,000,000                            2,938,000

Karen          2,008,430                      3,800,000                            6,916,000

Even with the Union Subsidies, it is still not sufficient to compensate for the normal expenditure.

Actually, Union Subsidies are not subsidies. They are liabilities, rightful and proportionate shares for the states from revenue taxed directly by the Union Government, such as sea custom duty, beverages, lotteries, etc. Nobody is certain in what proportions they are being divided and shared. But one invariably finds that they are being divided according to the whims of the Union Government. This led to my calling the subsidies "cow-at-the-mercy-of-the-tiger subsidies" in my previous book "Whither Shanland?"

If we continue to depend on such subsidies, the world may come to an end, but progress and prosperity can never become a reality.

The Union Government is totally answerable for the progress and prosperity of the states.

They must bring in modern communications, agricultural techniques, mining, technology, institutes for advanced learning and vocational training at college and university to the states.

Industries must also be set up in accordance with the location of natural resources. For instance, iron and zinc ore extracted near Taunggyi should not be transported to Rangoon, where iron smelting plants and steel factories have been built in a nearby town.

Also, the proceeds from the industries must be spent mainly for the state concerned.

Social impediments such as feudalism must be abolished as well.

This I believe is how the Union Government should induce the states not to leave the Union. However, in matters where it want to shirk responsibility, the Union Government tends to say, "It's your internal affair. You should not expect us to meddle. "But in matters in which they wish to interfere, they do so without compunction, e.g. the 1952 Martial Law of the Shan State, and the 1956 Burma-Israel Agreement to "develop" one million acres of the Shan State.

The Basics

If one were to observe the real basis of the Shan Secession issue objectively, one would be surprised to discover that the main question is not secession itself, but PROGRESS and PROSPERITY in the Shan State. It is for these basic aspirations the secessionists wish to secede. It is also for these aspirations that the unionists wish to remain in the Union. Recitations of the sacred incantations i.e. "National Unity" and "the perpetuation of the Union" will not remove the secession issue. It should not be taken for granted that the Shans dare not secede. Threats accompanied by proverbs like "The tiger bites those cattle that leave the herd" will not have any effect on the issue either.

There is only one solution: the implementation of Aung San's immortal saying.

Long live a Union where all the indigenous groups enjoy uniform progress and prosperity.

Htoon Myint

January 23, 1957

IN POLITICS, "IDEAS" ARE NOT TO BE FEARED. "IDEAS" MUST BE COUNTERED WITH "IDEAS", AND THE RIGHT IDEAS WILL PREVAIL IN THE END.

(From WHITHER SHANLAND? 1995)
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)