com·pla·cen·cy (n) a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.

It often feels futile to write posts on a small-timing blog about the major events in Burma. I feel as if I’m swimming in deep water, unable to hold my breath long enough to surface. I’ve neglected blogging for this reason.

The junta’s complacency, the United Nation’s complacency, the world’s complacency to Burma’s growing internal problems is enough to make anyone lose sight of what Burma needs, good governance that will reform and reconstruct the country’s civil society. We are transfixed by the images of bleeding monks, dead journalists and the infamous picture of Shwedagon Pagoda in the distance, shrouded in tear gas. But these sentiments do not translate to change.

I no longer know whether I should keep with these sporadic updates on Fifty Viss or abandon this pursuit. I will decide in coming days.

The headline “VOA and BBC, sky-full of liars” says it all.

Sorry I’ve been unable to update this blog for the past few weeks. I’ve been overloaded with school.

Today, I noticed a new addition to the Myanmar.com website, the official Burmese government portal. Titled “Photo @ Myanmar.com,” the page contains a series of images that attack the recent Burmese marches, the American government, Western media (particularly BBC, Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, three major radio broadcasters in Burma) and the War in Iraq.

There are 14 slides, all sending an obvious message, even to those who cannot read Burmese. I will translate a few of them:

Translation: Are we aiming for Progress or Decline?

Translation: What would you choose? This [arrow points upward] or that [arrow points downward]?

Translation: We don’t need the compassion of the world’s police [America and Bush dressed as a cowboy]!

Translation: The world already knows the true brand of democracy America gives.

Translation: The history of [Burma] will be written by [Burma]. The history that Bush is writing, [on the other hand] is not at all beautiful.

Half of the photos are recently constructed public works projects and administrative buildings in Naypyidaw, and staged rallies, while the other half are images of President Bush’s cabinet, the war in Iraq and the Abu-Gharib scandal. These shoddily-made slides, which look like they were made by someone who has little expertise in Adobe Photoshop, send an important message to the Burmese and to the world: “Watch out. Let America intervene and your country may be next.” By all means, this is an illogical message, but nonetheless one of the few tactics the Burmese government has to change public opinion.

Aung San Suu Kyi and Aung Kyi met at a government guesthouse today.

Aung San Suu Kyi met with Aung Kyi, the government official assigned to be the government liaison. The New York Times has two articles: “Opposition Leader Meets Burmese Official” and “In Myanmar, Fear Is Ever Present” and two slideshows (here and here) worth taking a look at.

I have been too busy in the past weeks to even begin to catch up on all of the latest news, unfortunately.

Monks hit the streets of Rangoon in protest. Photo by ogglog.

I’ve been busy this past week with homework, studying (I have a midterm in a week-and-a-half, unfortunately) and other commitments. In my spare time, I’ve been going to the Young Research Library, which has a number of interesting Burmese books, written in both English and Burmese (although Burmese books have odd English romanizations, like Si Hmat Phvay Ra Praññ Mran Ma that are quite hard to decipher from the bookshelves.)

Anyway, in light of the recent marches led by Burmese monks, the government has called for monks to restrain from being politically active. The book Myanmar: Beyond Politics to Societal Imperatives is a very good book for those who want to gain insight from Burmese analysts as well as Burma studies scholars. The following excerpt is particularly noteworthy:

The king had been not only the head of state and commander of his empire but was also the fount of authority for the Buddhist monkhood or sangha. Without a king to maintain the monastic hierarchy, the monkhood was soon bereft of any national disciplining institution. This led eventually to indiscipline of the sangha, stimulating sectarianism, wayward behavior, and involvement in nationalist political affairs, all in violation of the traditional regulations and principles of the monkhood. Not until 1980 would the Myanmar state once more regain administrative control over the monkhood such as Thailand had established nearly eighty years earlier.

The book also states this:

Monastic indiscipline faced little or no sanction, and the behavior of the monkhood [during the colonial era] changed, allowing members of it to become involved in secular activities, especially politics, in violation of strict Buddhist teachings.

What happened in 1980 was this: The First Congregation for the Purification, Perpetuation and Propagation of Buddhism. In May of that year, over 1,000 monks gathered to write up a constitution that officially recognized 9 Buddhist sects in the country without allowing any more, created a national authority to control and regulate the monkhood, and required all monks and nuns to hold national identity cards. (”Burma in 1980: An Uncertain Balance Sheet”)

There is no doubt that the so-called Saffron Revolution was political in nature. It may have begun as a result of economic hardship but accelerated into something entirely different, call for overthrows and restoration of democracy.

So the question still lingers. Should monks be allowed to participate in politics? I have mixed feelings about this. In 1980, when regulations were made to restrict monks from participate in politics, many Burmese Buddhists supported this. They felt that some monks abused their religious power under the “guise” of a maroon robe. Currently, members of the sangha are not allowed to join the National League for Democracy.

I can’t judge for anyone else, but as the saying goes, desperate times call for desperate measures. If anyone has any opinions, please comment. I’d be happy to hear your opinions.

“Free Burma” to me stands for freedom to speak, think, and act on one’s accordance and the freedom to live and work as one pleases. As in the words of Aung San Suu Kyi,

“The only real prison is fear, and the only real freedom is freedom from fear.”

Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai laying dead on a street in Rangoon.

A reader has just e-mailed me the following post from LAist, a blog specializing on Los Angeles, my hometown. The post “U.S. Media Blames Santa Monica College Professor for Burma Web Blackout,” describes the unfair sensationalizing of an innocent professor at a local community college who dutifully uploaded a video of the Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai killed by Burmese troops. The newswires, like Reuters (with its headline “L.A. professor triggers Myanmar Web shutdown”), directly connect the professor’s decision to upload the video to CNN to the shutdown of internet inside Burma. It states:

A Los Angeles academic may have been a driving force behind the move by Myanmar’s 19-year-old dictatorship to shut down Internet access after bloggers posted images of soldiers killing civilians.

A Japanese broadcast showing the video of his death is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdEIy9wuGNc.

Burma’s blogging community has by far been the most influential force in getting the news to the public. From evening news broadcasts in the U.S. to global news stations, amateur photographs and shaky video have provided evidence of the military government’s brutality. A query of “burma+protest” yields nearly 300 videos.

Since soldiers raided Burma’s ISP headquarters in the Rangoon University four days ago, news has been slower to travel. A commentary from The Irrawaddy explains everything.

Also, I also disagree with the convenient name given to the recent protests in Burma: “Saffron Revolution.” The name is too simplistic, inferring that these protests are religious in nature and that it is indeed a revolution. However, neither is true. Gambari still held hands with Than Shwe during their meeting in Naypyidaw. Thousands of monks are now arrested, in overflowing jails and makeshift detention centers. And the protests–which I would myself describe as marches–were initially economic in nature and became political. The media often forgets the bigger picture, sensationalizing stories of ordinary people who just want change for the better. Burma cannot be changed by an overthrow of a 45-year-long dictatorship (combining the current junta and the pseudosocialist one years ago.)

Ibrahim Gambari has since left Burma, after meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi and the State Peace and Development Council. The leukemia-ridden and recently incapacitated prime minister Soe Win, according to Mizzima News, has passed away. But that is unlikely to change the bigger picture.

Yellow journalism is dangerous. It makes the situation seem superficial, fantastic and unreal. It raises hopes that seem are truthfully far off. But the media needs to get grounded in reality and stop simplifying what Burma truly needs: a sustainable federal democracy that grants autonomy to all of its people.

It seems that I need to explain something to readers of this blog, especially since I have been contacted by the BBC World Service for an interview as Aung Htin Kyaw.

I have been blogging for the past year under my Burmese name “Aung Htin Kyaw,” which is neither official and is primarily used by my family (but is not my legal name). As a precaution, I opted not to use my English name, since the Burmese government has a habit of denying visas to those who criticize it (no matter how small my readership is). I believe in ensuring that nobody in my family, those who live in the States and those who are still Burmese citizens, is negatively affected by what I write. Also, I do not want to be denied a visa to Burma in the near future.

Some of those who have e-mailed me found out, perhaps because of my forgetfulness, what my English name is. For my sake, please do not refer to me by that name. I am willing to take no risks to endanger the lives of family and friends, no matter how trivial it seems.

Sorry for not being honest from the beginning, but I had my reasons for not disclosing my legal name.

Yesterday was my mother’s birthday. When I called her to tell her “Happy Birthday,” she had totally forgotten about her birthday. She was frantic and had been following news in Burma online at work. My mother has many relatives and friends in Rangoon, especially in Lanmadaw, where she was raised. She couldn’t reach them through phone or e-mail, but we all hope that everyone is okay. My mother is not a passive woman. She was partly angry that the protesters didn’t use force to combat force, angry at the cat-and-mouse game the protesters were playing with the armed policemen and soldiers. She doesn’t believe that passive and nonviolent protest would ever change Burma, even though nonviolence is one of the key selling points of the pro-democracy movement in Burma.

There has been a flurry of news in recent days from Burma. Countless heartbreaking pictures. Rubber sandals drenched in blood, Buddhist monasteries in ruin, and dead corpses lying on the street. Amid the heavy rain Rangoon has been experiencing are horrific scenes. Burma/Myanmar Genocide has a post with a greusome picture of what appears to be a young boy’s brain.

The junta fully knows that it could be prosecuted for its heinous actions by the UN, but probably it also knows that the UN has been too toothless in changing the situation in Burma. There are reports of Burmese army battalions deserting their superiors and protesting along with the people. There are reports of rumors that Maung Aye (No. 2 in the State Peace and Development Council) will be meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. There are reports that Maung Aye and Than Shwe disagree on whether to use force against protesters.

Internet was disconnected in Burma at 3 p.m. local time. Citizen journalists have been key in releasing new updates, photos and video to the rest of the world and within Burma.

I feel so guilty, not being able to update as frequently as I would like to. College life is hectic, moving from class to class, attending seminars and finding your way around. I’m glad that most of my roommates now know about Burma and the current situation, and that some are actually interested. For extraordinary photos of the protests in English-language blogs, visit these two: mongkol.wordpress.com and moeyyo.com/MM/.

I have just returned to my dorm, after going on a bus to a medical appointment. Inside the bus, there was a news clip of the clampdown on protesters in Burma. All I could hear on the broadcast were ordinary citizens yelling ‘Myitta po gya ba’–’send your love’–to the protesters.

I am speechless. What has been romantically called the “Saffron Revolution” is a far cry from the news I am reading right now. What began as a series of nonviolent marches, civilians and monks alike, is fast becoming violent. Just yesterday, over 150,000 protesters marched in Rangoon, with many calling for United Nations intervention, for fear of a violent crackdown. The UN News Center states this:

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced today he is sending his Special Envoy dealing with Myanmar to the region in response to the deteriorating situation in the Asian nation, and once again urged authorities there to respond to the ongoing peaceful protests with utmost restraint.

What took so long to act? Rumors of a violent crackdown have been making headlines for days. Burma’s ruling military does not listen to the words of its fellow countrymen. And violence is now almost synonymous with the State Peace and Development Council. There have been historical precedents. It was my wishful thinking, that Burma now had to heed the advice of fellow countries like China, that led me to believe there would be no violent ending.

Several monks have already been killed. Godspeed to them. As a Buddhist, as a Burmese, as a human, there is nothing more discomforting in the world than knowing that mankind may have been able to prevent this….

The large-scale and unabated protests in Burma have probably caught many people by surprise. Led by angry young Buddhist monks who wanted an apology from the government for the abusive treatment of fellow monks who protested in Pakokku. The government has yet to stop these the majority of these protests–tear gas was thrown at monks in Sittwe (Akyab) in Arakan State, but aside from that, there has been little violence. The government’s current plan of action seems to be counterattacks on the scale of protests and the identity of the monks participating in them. The Burmese government’s English newspaper The New Light of Myanmar called the protesting monks cohorts of the West and claimed they were charlatans. According to news reports from a few small-scale news sources, the government and its civilian bodies (mass organizations) have been dispatching members dressed as monks to discredit the monks in small towns. In one instance, ‘monks’ went into a government-owned co-op store in a small town in Arakan State and wreaked havoc by vandalizing the store. According to its owner, the ‘monks’ appeared to be new faces in town, and according to the abbots of local monasteries, young monks had not been allowed to leave during the time the incidents occurred.

One of the most interesting things about the protests in Burma is that many monks have decided to boycott the military. As many newspapers have noted, in Burmese, “boycott” is the same as “upturned alms bowls”, both thabeik hmauk. In Burma, monks of the Buddhist order regularly seek food and rice from their local community, making rounds throughout nearby neighborhoods in the early morning, since monks cannot eat past noon. By refusing to accept offerings from certain individuals is a less severe form of excommunication. To combat this growing chorus of monks who refuse to accept rice and food from military families and government officials, the Burmese government has regularly featured monks who have accepted donations and food from the wives of military officials and other personnel. This is interesting–it only takes a scroll down a PDF file of the New Light of Myanmar (Burmese edition) to see how seriously the Burmese government takes this boycott. Throughout several pages are photos of monks accepting offerings from military officials and their families.

One of the New Light of Myanmar’s headlines for September 19 is this: “Destructive elements inciting instigation to grab power through short cut–foreign radio stations airing exaggerated news, trying to instigate public, launching propaganda campaigns–due to exaggerations, tricks and instigation by bogus monks, violent demonstrations break out in Pakokku, some monks stage protest walk in Sittway–Some Buddhist monks also march in procession in Yangon–people oppose any attempt to destroy peace and stability, wish Sayadaws to guide monks to follow Vinaya rules in interest of people.” Quite a mouthful.

Essentially, what the Burmese government wants the Burmese people to believe is this: the protesting monks aren’t ordained and that they’ve been influenced by the propaganda of Western media (BBC, VOA, DVB radio stations) that are inherently under the control of Western governments that have been plotting with NLD members to take over Burma and make it a sphere of influence for America, Britain and other countries of the West. A fanciful story.

The Irrawaddy has an hour-by-hour detailed account of protests that have occurred in Burma and ALTSEAN-BURMA has a detailed map of all the protests.

The Economist makes this conclusion:

This week’s, like other, smaller protests over the years since then, failed to budge the junta. Hopes have risen, time and again, that demonstrations would gather momentum and trigger an unstoppable revolt, only to fade away.

But if there is one group in Burmese society that the generals might hesitate to confront, it is the clergy. Not just because it might whip up the masses to overthrow their tyranny at long last, but because of the influence Buddhists believe they have over the process of rebirth. Giving alms to monks is one of the main ways to make “merit”, so if this is denied the generals, they may lose their chance of advancement in their next life. A punishment amply merited.

It’s best not to put all the eggs in one basket and hope that the Burmese military government will retire from power. But hopefully there will not be any more Burmese martyrs who die for the cause of democracy.

Coming across an op-ed from here, I came to the conclusion that most of the time, Burmese names are not done justice.

The op-ed states this:

Bush continued making us proud by thinking and saying that he was addressing an OPEC summit instead of the APEC summit. He thanked the Austrian army for providing security. Yes, of course, it was the Australians who provided the security in Australia not the Austrians. He got lost on stage and couldn’t find his way off and couldn’t pronounce the name of Myanmar’s democratic opposition leader; all grade A Bush material for late night comics everywhere.

Assuming that the “democratic opposition leader” is Aung San Suu Kyi, I’ve heard her name mispronounced numerous times. Firstly, there are news broadcasts or documentaries that refer to her as “ONG SAN SU CHEE,” using syllables that don’t even exist in Burmese. To understand the eccentric way the Burmese like to romanize would take a skilled linguist.

“Aung” is roughly pronounced “Oun” (rhymes with “sound,” without the ‘d’ and ’s’). Most Burmese people with the name ‘Aung’ spell it misleadingly with ‘ng’ because in Burmese, it is spelled with a silent ‘ng.’ “San” is pronounced close enough, but to be more exact, it has to be lengthened (so more “Saan” rather than “San”.) “Suu,” unlike the misleading lengthening of the vowel, is short and abrupt. So it’s more of a a snappy and quick “Su” rather than a long-voweled “Suu.” And “Kyi” is the one most people have trouble with. The pronunciation of “Kyi” does not even exist in English, so a “Chee” is the closest approximation. But for those who are familiar with Spanish or French, the ‘k’s in those languages are softened. But the “Kyi” is a combination of the soft ‘k’ and a ‘y’ sound, which is hard to explain.

Shortly put:

• “Aung” rhymes with “sound” (without the ’s’ and ‘d’);
• “San” rhymes with “sun,” except with a long vowel.
• “Su” ends abruptly, like French ‘zut,’ or less closely, to English “loot” (replace the ‘t’ with an abrupt stop)
• “Kyi” is a softened “Chee.” Like the French or Spanish ‘k.’

I do not understand why many news articles that include pronunciation keys for Aung San Suu Kyi’s name, like so: “democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi (ONG-SAN-SUU-CHEE)” are even put there if they bear little resemblance to the name’s pronunciation. I guess it’s sort of like simplifying her name’s pronunciation, but unfortunately that has become standard name pronunciation in most media outlets like CNN.

But considering even Burma’s other name “Myanmar” is butchered by the English-speaking world (for starters, Myanmar is two syllables, not three), I guess these pronunciation variants are supposed to occur naturally. By the way, for those who use “Myanmar,” please say “Myan-ma” or “Myan-mar” instead of “My-an-mar.” Nobody has an “an-mar” anyway.

Anyone curious about the extent of protests against fuel price increases in Burma will find this map, created by the Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN-BURMA) interesting. The map provides dates, arrests, number of protesters at each protest that has taken place thus far.

The link, once again is: http://www.altsean.org/Photogalleries/ProtestsMap.php.

A 1970s tourist souvenir from Burma (oddly enough, Burma was closed to the outside world during this time). From left to right: Kayah, Karen, Chin, Burman, Shan, Padaung, Naga, Kachin.

Burma, despite its wealth of ethnic diversity, has largely neglected the issue of multiculturalism. Burmese may be the national language, but more than 10 million people (25%) within the country do not speak it. Burma, as most people know it today, is an artificial creation made by the British, who colonized territories (Burman-dominant Ministerial Burma and ethnic minority-dominant Frontier Areas) in modern Burma and tied them together during independence.

The Burmese government nominally embraces ethnic diversity. And for good reasons too. Ethnic minorities make up from a third to a half of Burma, according to Multiculturalism in Asia. The government has promoted Burma’s ethnic diversity for its tourism campaigns and even built the National Races Village, a sprawling human exhibit of Burma’s ethnic races in Thaketa, a poorer suburb of Rangoon. On the streets are billboards of a Padaung woman holding a can of coffee beans and on state television, there are karaoke music videos with women dressed in colorful ethnic costume extolling Burma’s ethnic harmony. But this is superficial.

There is mutual distrust between ethnic minorities and Burmans. Although not always the case, many from ethnic minorities, especially those in rural and border areas, have a sincere belief that Burmans are trying to dominate them, by all means possible, through cultural assimilation or through ethnic genocide, as in the case of the Karens. This excerpt of a documentary, by Front Films, shows an example of the alienation Karens feel. Genocide, mass murders of an entire ethnic group, in Burma is hard to define, partly because the military claims to be weeding out ethnic rebels by attacking their bases, which often are small villages where civilians live. A large portion of Burma’s armed forces is dedicated to eastern Burma, where many Karens live.

In contrast, many Burmans distrust ethnic minorities because of the prevailing belief that without military control or force, Burma, as everyone knows it, will be dissolved. They believe that ethnic minorities want to secede from the Union. The inner core of Burma is made up of 7 Burman-dominant divisions, which are surrounded by an outer core of 7 ethnic minority-dominant states. A sizable portion of Burma’s natural resources lie outside the divisions, including gems (Kachin and Shan States), natural gas (Arakan State) and oil (Arakan and Mon States).

It is unlikely that Burmese states would secede from the Union of Burma, but it remains one of the primary reasons the military government has used to stay in power. In effect, it is a scare tactic. Plastered on propaganda billboards of the country are the National Causes, one of which is ‘non-disintegration of the Union.’

The right for a state to secede has remained a sticking point for many ethnic groups. The 1947 constitution states this: “…every State shall have the right to secede from the Union in accordance with the conditions hereinafter prescribed.” I believe it is more symbolic, that being a part of Burma is voluntary and not forced. But since military rule began in 1962, that right has disappeared, fueling discontent.

Also, Burma’s form of government has never been a federation, where government powers are constitutionally divided between the provincial and national levels. The Kachin Independence Organization, which participated in the National Convention, made proposals to ensure the creation of a federation. According to Mizzima News, negotiations are underway in Naypyidaw. The main reason that many ethnic minorities want a federation is to ensure political sovereignty, such as the right to control local education (like teaching local languages) and to prevent the national government from overriding them.

And culturally speaking, Burmans have little in common with many ethnic groups, especially those that predominantly practice Christianity or Islam. In Burma, there are many cases of forced conversion and reports of Christian women forced to marry Buddhist soldiers and convert. Buddhism is favored, in the workplace and at school, which further alienates Christians, Muslims and animists, who are many times more likely to be from ethnic minorities. That is not to say intermixing does not exist; for centuries, Burmans have readily married Karens, Mons and Shans and many Burmans today are mixed. I wouldn’t be surprised if I am part Karen, since my maternal grandfather’s family comes from near Bassein (Pathein) and one of my great-aunts married a Karen man.

In popular culture, many actors and musicians are not in fact Burman. The Burmese have a cultural preference for light-skinned individuals and people from certain ethnic groups, like the Shan, tend to be lighter-skinned than the Burmans. This phenomenon is similar to that in Thailand, where many actors are light-skinned Eurasians or Thai-Chinese, who are disproportionately represented in that industry.

The military government has claimed that there have been much progress made in the living standards of ethnic minorities, that “Union of Myanmar [is] where all national races have been living together in peace and unity since yore.” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs). I disagree with the former and the latter. A good place to start making amends is with the constitution, although it seems unlikely. Bangkok’s The Nation has a detailed article on the constitutional guidelines finished by the National Convention. It seems little has changed since I last wrote about how Burma’s government (I used documents from before 2007) will be under the new constitution.

Burma’s military has little understanding or consideration of Burma’s ethnic minorities. Its history shows that it is incapable of preventing discrimination, assault and coerced assimilation of fellow Burmese. To give it more power is ridiculous.

If Burma’s military truly wanted to keep the Union together, it would have learned to share power with its 50 million people. Since Burma became an independent nation in 1947, ethnic minorities, like Burmans, have had little to no political sway. It will take more than good governance for Burmans, Shans, Arakanese, Karens, Kachins, Chins and a myriad of other ethnic groups to walk together in true harmony, but giving the military lawful right to rule is certainly not the way to go.

This Christmas break, I will be going to Asia. It’s my first time going back in two years and I am excited. Since I was 13 when I last had my passport made, I had to go in person to renew it, and I will be expecting the new passport (chip-embedded and all) in two months. At least this time, the passport will expire in 10 years. Hopefully my passport will be renewed, since I forgot to bring my driver’s license/ID card as verification on the passport application (I know, I’m an idiot.)

Not sure whether I will go to Burma, since the political situation there is precarious. But I hope I will get to at least make a quick stop in Rangoon.

But if school keeps me bogged down during my Christmas break, I will most certainly have to delay my plans.

Map of protest sites in Burma, from TIME magazine’s article “Burma on The Edge.”

Reading articles about Burma from mainstream magazines always make me feel a bit optimistic, that change will come soon. The protests that have occurred throughout Burma in recent weeks is fascinating; the latest, in Pakhokku, by monks who retaliated the treatment of fellow monks who were jailed or physically assaulted, is especially aggressive. Although I believe that nobody, including Buddhist monks, should use forms of violence and force, by destroying cars and homes, holding government officials hostage, I can only emphasize with them. The government’s response, both logistically and politically, was quick. It sent troops to keep nearby Mandalayans from being inspired to take to the streets in peaceful protest (it has not even flagrant by any means; most of the protests have simply been marches). The New Light of Myanmar claimed that these protests were the result of media manipulation, from foreign governments that want to colonize Burma yet again (also adding that fugitive protesters [, namely Htay Kywe] were being harbored in Western embassies.)

This vigorous response, on the government’s part, reflects a change in tactics. Burma can no longer do as it pleases, restrained by its ties with other countries. Even China has responded to the recent protests and clampdown, urging reconciliation between dissenters and the government. All of this makes me feel excited and optimistic, that perhaps nationwide protests are coming soon.

The USDA, which has played a major role in repressing protests, through civilian members, is an obvious propaganda arm of the government. On its English website, readers can find statements such as “No people in Myanmar go hungry” and “There were only 4 robberies recorded [in the nation] this year.” And the USDA is powerful, headed by the generals themselves.

And today, there is news of another small protest by NLD members. The government’s attempts to discredit the NLD as a foreign and seditious entity that is working with Western nations to take over Burma (hence the commonly-seen ‘neocolonialism’ in Burmese state newspapers). Something must change, or so I think while I read all of these articles, that give me hope that the Burmese people have finally become fed up and will demand political change, or at the very least, secure better living conditions.

But then reality sets in. When has the government really cared about its people? It went on a building spree to build numerous universities throughout the country, for two purposes: to move students away from city centers and make congregation and protesting more difficult and to bolster the government’s stance on education through numbers. It was simply killing two birds with one stone. The government routinely stages drug-burning ceremonies, where kilos upon kilos of drugs are burned in front of military officials. Yet it maintains a deep friendship with Lo Hsing-Han (and his son Steven Law and the AsiaWorld company), wanted by the U.S. for drug trafficking ($2 million USD reward.)

And when will the government change, anyway? There are some Burmese who are optimistic that the next generation of military rulers will be more benevolent and more educated. But that will unlikely lead to political change in the country. Western countries have made fruitless attempts and Asian countries have stepped up their economic partnerships with Burma, filling the void of Western nations. And the United Nations has failed previously, through its envoys, to bring about political reconciliation. Burma seems destined for many more years of military rule, either cloaked through the executive and legislative branches or simply straightforward rule.

I’m no Burma studies scholar. But all I know is that the international community, China in particular, needs to get serious about Burma. Ignorance is not bliss.

The following is a good article from The Economist on Burma’s completion of its first step on its Roadmap to Democracy:

A charter for thugocracy
Sep 6th 2007 | BANGKOK

The curtain falls on a long-running farce, with Myanmar no nearer democracy

AFTER 14 years of intermittent meetings and tortured prevarication, a constitutional commission appointed by Myanmar’s junta has come up with the answer it first thought of: to entrench military rule in the benighted country. This week the 1,000 members of the National Convention wound up their work, producing a document outlining the principles to underpin a new constitution. It will give a thin democratic façade to continued military rule. After the actual drafting of the constitution, it will be put to a referendum—probably next year, say officials. Elections would then be held in 2009.

At the closing session of the convention, Myanmar’s acting prime minister, General Thein Sein, presented its conclusion, offering what the regime regards as “disciplined democracy”, as a roaring success. Yet the country’s most popular politician, Aung San Suu Kyi, who leads the main opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), is under house arrest and has in effect been excluded from the process. So have the numerous groups representing ethnic insurgencies.

Under the guidelines, a quarter of the seats in parliament will be reserved for military appointees. The president will be a military man, and the army will control important ministries, including defence and home affairs. The army would set its own budget, and would retain the right to declare a state of emergency and seize power whenever deemed necessary.

The charter would ban Miss Suu Kyi, as the widow of a foreigner, from holding elected office. It has also disappointed the hopes of the country’s various rebel ethnic groups for greater autonomy. Most of these used to wage armed insurgencies but now have ceasefires with the junta. Many are now so dissatisfied with the charter that they have begun to rearm and are threatening to resume fighting.

On the pretext of “national security” the guidelines also severely curtail civil liberties and the rights of political parties, which, as yet, are unable to operate openly in Myanmar. With the exception of its headquarters in Yangon, Myanmar’s main city, the offices of the NLD have been shut by the junta for years. Amnesty International, a human-rights watchdog, estimates there are more than 1,000 political prisoners in the country.

On a secret visit to Beijing earlier this year, the country’s army chief, Thura Shwe Mann, told Chinese leaders that Miss Suu Kyi could not be released as she remained a big security risk. It is still unclear whether her party, the NLD, will be allowed to run in the elections. Last November, Myanmar’s most senior general, Than Shwe, said it would be allowed to field candidates. Most probably, however, the generals will find a pretext to disqualify them.

The NLD convincingly won the last elections, held in May 1990, taking more than 80% of the seats. But the army refused to recognise the results. Now the regime insists it is committed to introducing multiparty democracy. But diplomats in Yangon and the pro-democracy opposition in Myanmar think Miss Suu Kyi got it right back in 1995, when she called the convention “an absolute farce”.

Recent protests against rising fuel and food prices were put down brutally. Several thousand vigilantes, armed with wooden batons, attacked protesters in Yangon, leaving them badly beaten. The authorities have arrested hundreds of people for organising or taking part in small protests that have taken place all over Myanmar in the past few weeks. This week around 1,000 marchers joined the latest demonstration, the biggest so far, in central Myanmar, before pro-government thugs dispersed it.

The vigilantes are part of a pro-government “community group”, the Union Solidarity and Development Association, whose thugs attacked Miss Suu Kyi in 2003, when she was touring in the north of the country. The regime that deploys them seems little interested in democracy. But nor does it seem self-confident.

I wrote about the the constitutional charter a few months back, and it seems the latest version is no different, at least according to The Economist. Except for one thing: the Burmese national flag’s star is in the center, not on the upper left-hand corner, as I had written earlier this year (and the colored stripes have switched places).

I guess the government really does believe it can fool the world by presenting a ‘disciplined democracy.’ I read an article in The Irrawaddy some time back about how the SPDC had studied Indonesia’s dwifungsi doctrine (according to GlobalSecurity.org: a doctrine of their own evolution, under which they undertook a double role as both defenders of the nation and as a social-political force in national development.), to allot military participation in politics. The Burmese government’s reasoning is this: without the military, Burma as we know it today would fall apart, with the Shans, Karens and the myriad of other ethnic minorities calling for independence and dissolving, “the Union [of Burma].” Also, the military justifies its presence in politics to make sure Burmese voters don’t elect charlatans and what have you, sort of like how Americans indirectly elect the President, because the Founding Fathers believed voters might not elect proper people for the position.

But I have to ask one question: has the military government ruled to the benefit of the Burmese people? It may have created temporary stability, by brokering a series of tentative ceasefires with ethnic militias, but throughout the course of its rule, has only worsened Burma’s economic state. Inflation has increased. Unemployment has increased. Drug use has increased. The majority of people have not benefited from a more open economy. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees, millions of people without citizenship and scores of people with HIV/AIDS (Burma is #3 in Asia for HIV/AIDS cases, after Cambodia and Thailand).

How long will the military government think it can fool itself? Its leaders are uneducated but very clever. They have little experience in policy-making and good governance. But there’s a general misinterpretation of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) leaders. They have been able to retain power for so long because they are smart and calculating. Each move they make is done for a good reason. I personally believe that the increase of fuel prices in Burma was done so that pro-junta parties can use this as a political platform for lowering prices. Or it may be used to rouse the Burmese people.

But protests continue, sprouting like mushrooms throughout the country. In a very recent one, 500 Buddhist monks in Pakkoku protested, only to be met with brute force by USDA and Swan Arr Shin members. A day later, Burmese officials went to the primary monastery to apologize for physically assaulting monks, but the monks took the officials hostage, in exchange for 10 monks in jail. Things may be getting out of hand and I pray they don’t. The last thing the Burmese people need is another repeat of the 8888 uprisings or something similar. The government cannot repeal the fuel price hikes–it would prove that protesting works.

Superfluously entitled “DVB Broadcasting Station airs fabricated news titled ‘Hluttaw representatives of NLD and its members stage protest walk in Mandalay’ — Mandalay Division NLD makes fabricated news to save its reputation as there were no protests in Mandalay people comment that NLD should not make such attempts to mislead the people,” the New Light of Myanmar (NLM) tried to discredit the Democratic Voice for Burma and the National League for Democracy simultaneously.

The article, instead of focusing about what was actually newsworthy, emphasized the lack of a protest in Mandalay. Obtaining accurate news from within Burma is difficult, because often times, news is confirmed by a single phone call from a witness or a prominent person who can verify that the event has happened. Only through the advent of internet in Burma have people been able to record and upload videos of police/civilian brutality against protesters on Youtube (here) and Myspace (here and here).

But the NLM writes of an “investigation” that found that no such protest did occur. The newspaper states:

In the broadcast, it was stated that 12 Hluttaw [Parliament] representatives of Mandalay Division NLD and its members together with 30 people staged a one-mile protest walk from 1.30 pm to 2.30 pm on 30 August, in support of the protests demanding the fall in fuel prices; that it was the first of its kind staged because of their being criticized as there were no protest walk in Mandalay; that the incident is under investigation whether there are people and monks or not in the protest.

The article also makes a claim just as baseless: “As regards the fabricated news there were attempts made in advance among internal and external anti-government organizations.” Where did the NLM receive this information? Through its investigation of the protest incident? That seems just as fabricated to me. I could hardly believe that there is a conspiracy against the Burmese government, that a single news item on a radio broadcast had the intent of inciting civil unrest throughout the country. That is what nobody wants, not the Burmese people nor the government. If anarchy breaks loose, the people will have more to suffer. They know this. If they did not, the Burmese people would have wreaked havoc years ago.

This is a classic example of Burma’s propaganda–drawing attention away from the central issue: the government’s inability to govern (like making economic decisions, like sudden fuel price increases as opposed to incremental increases over a period of time, as suggested by the UN and economists). By blaming opposition groups of lying, the state-run newspaper NLM villianizes them and can detract from the situation at hand. These recent small-scale protests are big news–a few hundred protesters at most may have protested, but the government is shaking. It has dispatched policemen on every street corner of every major city. Yet none of these make it into Burma’s newspapers. Only that 50-word headliner did.

A compiled map of general locations (sorry about the poor quality of the map; I scanned a small map, which shows a general picture of the Rangoon townships rather than all of the streets) where protests in Rangoon have occurred since the increase of gas prices in Burma.

To my amazement, protests calling for an immediate decrease in the prices of gas in Burma have continued, for the second week. There have been incidents throughout Burma, in particular Rangoon, where a junta-funded paramilitary group that calls itself “Swan Arr Shin” (Masters of Force) and Union Solidarity and Development Association members have been dispatched to quell protests and in many instances, use brute force to do so.

However, some have criticized the way these seemingly spontaneous protests are being coordinated. There are several groups that have been leading protests in Rangoon, namely the 88 Generation Students Group and the National League for Democracy (NLD). But both groups have been severely set back by the arrest of their respective leaders, who include Min Ko Naing and Aung San Suu Kyi. I read an article that criticizes the NLD’s failure to bring about new leaders to run the opposition movement. As I have said before, for all the respect I have for Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, they are more figureheads, symbolic of Burma’s democracy. They may garner accolades from the international community, but they have little say in Burma, where the majority of people want better livelihoods. Democracy may be a tantalizing idea for them, but it is not at all a priority, as the recent protests have suggested. The article states the following:

Without Aung San Suu Kyi or other leaders like her, the opposition movement in Burma must continue under a strong leadership. If the NLD leadership seriously thinks it has to change its policy with reflecting the desire of the people, it’s time for change at the top.

Indeed so. It’s time to restructure the Burmese opposition movement. Time to move away from seeing a celebrity supporting Aung San Suu Kyi as a victory, seeing Laura Bush tell the UN Secretary-General to condemn protest arrests, and seeing a Star Trek actor visit a border refugee camp as victories. These stories may be good publicity, but they do little inside Burma. What I am writing now is doing little.

The protests have slowly dwindled, as many of the protest leaders, their families and individual protesters have suffered harassment, arrest and beatings from fellow Burmese, who as one article put it, share the same struggles but are still on opposite sides. The courage of these people is enormous. From Meiktila to Sittwe, from Mandalay to Pegu, the Burmese people have signaled their intent for change. But what order? Economic before political, more factory jobs versus free elections, international investment versus government welfare?

Today also marks the completion of the first step of the (7-step) Roadmap to Democracy, after fourteen years of on-and-off-again sessions of the National Convention. (The Irrawaddy reports that the National Convention will end next week.) The Burmese government sees itself, the military wing, as a major component of the democracy it is creating. In a few years, or even the next year, Burmese voters will have the chance to vote for the constitution: either the military government as is or a democracy created by the military government. I have little doubt that the constitution will be approved, but I believe that the military’s creation (democracy) will curtail the human rights of the Burmese people.

These small-scale but politically important protests are unlikely to create revolution. More likely, the government’s mandates will take effect and the Burmese people will be herded through its version of a democracy. Maybe through that version, the Burmese people will finally be able to create change to ensure better livelihoods and more.

The Las Vegas strip, from a pedestrian bridge between the Venetian and The Mirage hotels.

I have been absent from blogging for the past few days, because went on a road trip with my family to Nevada and beyond, staying three nights in Las Vegas. I never bring my laptop with me on vacations, so I was essentially disconnected from news in Burma and have been completely overwhelmed by the amount of developing news in Burma. Apparently, CNN only likes to cover Burma when a celebrity like Jim Carrey decides to voice his support for Aung San Suu Kyi on Youtube (I videotaped the news story with my camera, but the file size is too big for Youtube, so I can’t upload it.)

Las Vegas, in one word, is suffocating. Inside the casinos, passersby are suffocated by the overwhelming stench of cigarette smoke. Outside, pedestrians are choked by the desert heat combined with the smell of gasoline and cigarette smoke. I felt like I was being baked inside a parking garage at 11 p.m. after seeing the Cirque du Soleil show “Mystère.” At nearly $100 a ticket, the show was a bit disappointing, but nonetheless amazing (the acrobatics were stunning). I did not really understand the abstract ideas, though. Next time I visit Las Vegas, I hope to catch all 5 shows of Cirque du Soleil. Anyone who has been to a Cirque du Soleil show will agree that they are much more than fancy visuals.

Anyway, I’m back but may be a little delayed in terms of updates in Burma.

Mizzima News has a very interesting article on an alternative explanation for the sudden price increases of fuel last Tuesday. To put it shortly, the article claims that an anonymous group named “Counter Strike Group” said that the recent price hikes of Burma’s diesel, gasoline and natural gas are to invoke civil unrest in Burma. It claims that this maneuver was deliberately done by the Burmese military government, to create an atmosphere similar to that of the 8888 uprising, during which the military usurped power and has held on since.

Burma’s military government has many factions, all vying for power. With the top generals, Than Shwe, Maung Aye and a few others who are now old, a new band of generals and commanders may be inching toward seizing power, through civil unrest and claiming to do so for “national security.” This could be likely, since any major unrest and dissidence would be a good cloak for Burma’s younger and more educated military leaders to stage a coup.

It does seem odd to me that the government did not arrest Rangoon protesters demanding the lowering of fuel prices on Sunday. Even activists who have staged innocuous acts of defiance have been arrested or severely harassed. Anything is possible–and Burma’s military élite are not as insipid as pro-democratic movements like to depict them: they are conniving and very clever.

Mizzima News’ analysis can be found here.

UPDATE: Mizzima followed with news today that a number of student leaders in the 88 Generation Students Group have been arrested by plainclothes officers and USDA (Union Solidarity and Development Organization) members, following protests in Rangoon. The Irrawaddy also reports that number of National League for Democracy activists have also been harassed by the USDA and a paramilitary group that dubs itself “Pyithu Swan Arr Shin.”

Minaret of a mosque in the background, Sule Pagoda Road, in Rangoon.

Burma seems like an unlikely safe haven for extremist terrorists. Its society is tightly controlled, with many residents forced to notify their village headmen of any guests for merely staying the night (in 2005, after a small explosion in front of the Traders Hotel in Rangoon, the government clamped down and restricted travel and lodging for citizens and required residents of some townships to post a family portrait in front of their home to ensure nobody was hiding.)

Recently, I wrote about Burmese antagonism toward Burmese Muslims and their alienation in Burmese society. So it is no wonder that some Muslims would resort to extremist Islam (it’s such a cliché in America now, especially with presidential candidates reiterating a phrase of that sort.) The DPA reports that today, 10 suspected al-Qaeda operatives from Burma were arrested in the northwestern state of Manipur, India:

“The group of 15 Muslim migrants had entered Moreh from Myanmar without valid documents. We shall be handing them over to the police Monday for further interrogation,” defence spokesman Lalit Pant was quoted as saying by the IANS. No arms or ammunition were recovered from the group, which comprised 10 Myanmar and five Bangladeshis who were planning to enter Bangladesh from Manipur’s neighbouring state of Assam.

Burma has had a handful of Burmese nationals suspected to have ties to Muslim terrorist organizations in the past. In 2003, the Myanmar Times reported of a Burmese national arrested in Pakistan, suspected of being tied to al-Qaeda. In 2004, another Burmese man was arrested in Lahore, Pakistan, according to the Myanmar Times, for possessing “vital documents” linked to al-Qaeda operatives.

In 2003, the Burmese government released a statement in response to the U.S.’ sanctions in Burma. According to the Myanmar Times, it states the following:

The Myanmar people are primarily Buddhist, a religion notable for its peacefulness and tolerance. We have 135 different national races living together in harmony.

The Burmese government does not classify the millions of Chinese (except, strangely enough, for the Kokang, who speak Mandarin and live in Shan State) and Indians who live in Burma as part of its national races. And nor does the Burmese government practice a policy of tolerance of other religions. Tourist guides may boast that Rangoon has more mosques and churches than pagodas, but that is irrelevant. As long as the government propagates or simply ignores Buddhist monks who preach hatred and violence against Muslims, tolerance does not exist.

So, it’s not wonder there are Muslim extremists within the country. Years, or more succinctly, decades of neglect and discrimination have outcast an immense part of Burmese society, comprising 5% of the population. The Burmese government needs to count its blessings–there have not been major rifts between different religions and ethnic races and needs to adopt religion-blind and race-blind policies. I believe in precaution, and I truly believe this is in the best interests of the military government itself. I am not blaming the government solely–these men, if they are in fact al-Qaeda operatives, are responsible for the poor decisions they’ve made.

Sorry about the following rant.

I am completely irritated at one of my closest friends, P. I, along with another friend, D, had the notion that P would be rooming with us at UCLA in the coming fall. When I found out who I would be dorming with, I was mildly surprised, since one of the names listed was Wilson, someone I do not know. I called P immediately to ask what was up, and he claimed that it was an administrative error and that he would try to switch with Wilson. I slightly did not want him to room with me for this single reason: P’s mother is overbearing and completely controlling–she basically dictates what he does and does not do, and was very unwilling to send him to UCLA (in his words, if there were not laws, his mother would keep him at home all day). Not to be wrong, P is a nice guy who’s always willing to help.
But today, Wilson, my new roommate called me. He seems like a nice guy, from Northern California. And so I called P after, asking him if we should explain this matter to Wilson and whether he should seek to transfer rooms. P said to wait until we moved in–I called D to explain the situation.

Tonight, P began IMing me about his orientation experience. I asked him whether he still wants to transfer rooms, pushing him to make an immediate decision so that I know who’s bringing what to the dorm. Then, P sends a bombshell, telling me this (online and not on the phone either):

xxxxx (8:28:52 PM): actually
xxxxx (8:28:55 PM): to tell you the truth
xxxxx (8:29:18 PM): i withdrew from UCLA

What the hell? And he goes on, explaining how his tummy ached during orientation and how he was exhausted of walking around and that he thought UCLA would bring about too much suffering:

xxxxx (8:30:11 PM): i felt like there’s gonna be a lot of suffering and work ahead
xxxxx (8:30:14 PM): too much walking
Me (8:30:31 PM): so you thought you could fool us until then?
xxxxx (8:30:36 PM): got a stomach ache the second day

xxxxx (8:37:14 PM): after orientation
xxxxx (8:37:25 PM): i just felt differently
xxxxx (8:37:39 PM): after experiencing a few days on my own
xxxxx (8:38:08 PM): and coming back to my dorm really tired

I wanted to slap some sense into him right that moment. Did P really expect to tell Dand I when we move into the dorms in late September, or was he going to try to just fake it and act like we don’t notice? A tummy ache should not be the source of withdrawing from one of the most prestigious public universities in California, let alone in the United States. Nor does orientation reflect how college will be like. Feeling tired is no reason to quit, unless you’re in a vegetative state. It is truly mysterious to me that a friend as close as P would not confide in anyone, especially his friends on this matter and would just want to take the easy way out.

I am truly pissed at him. He had the nerve to ask me to tell D that P’s withdrawing from UCLA, so I did and called him. D was completely shocked and flabbergasted. I totally understand. I am still shocked and pissed as hell. And P no longer knows what he’s going to do with his life. He’s going to squander his potential (P is seriously a math genius) and live at home with his mother until either he or she dies. This sort of pathetic life, I do not want for my friend. He’s not even thinking about a local university to attend. But I have no idea on how to convince him otherwise.

P only tried out for a local state university and UCLA, and by those odds he should not be going there. Considering his meager SAT score, lack of extracurricular involvement and otherwise, he was very lucky to have been accepted. And to withdraw at the last minute, without telling his friends and without consulting with anybody aside from his mother, he is making a truly big mistake.

I cannot force him to act otherwise, nor can I compel him. What can I do? There’s only so much convincing I can do. I nearly strained my voice talking with D on how to have him seriously reconsider.

Anybody who would withdraw from UCLA, unless they got a better offer, is nuts. P has to learn to grow up and face life, suffering and get back down to reality. I can already imagine him 10 years from now: complaining that the McDonalds restaurant is too far away and quitting his job just because he hates long drives. P needs to face reality before something else devastates him and leaves him unable to cope.