Interview with Ajarn Sai Aung
Tun
By Anselm Feldmann, RCSD, CMU
Ajarn Sai Aung Tun was one of the presenters at “The 1st International
Conference on Tai Studies” in Mae Hong Son. He is the author of “History of the
Shan State: From its Origins to 1962” (2008, Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books). I was
able to conduct an interview with him some time after the conference. I’ll give
some short marks of the interview here, while you’ll find the full interview in
the intranet of SEATIDE.
Anselm:
First I want to thank you to have found time for this interview. The
project, that the RCSD is part of is a project funded by the European
Commission studying processes of inclusion and exclusion within ASEAN and the
upcoming AEC. How do you think will the AEC affect ethnicities within the
region? You are an historian and know the Shan and their role in Myanmar very
well. What kind of experiences of the Shan might be important experiences for
the people in ASEAN to learn from?
Sai
Aung Tun: Yes, you’ve been to Mae Hong Son and attended the seminar. You see
there are a lot of Tai Yai people at the conference. This is the first time
they had this kind of conference; talking about their problems, ethnic
problems, social problems, educational problems…Well I should say that the Shan
people who had migrated to Thailand have better living., because they don’t
have to worry about security, education, anything else. This is a good
opportunity for them to learn whatever is available to them in this area. For example
education: they can go to school, lower level, middle level, higher level, to
university. If they learn, they try their best that is an opportunity. That’s
why I told them, you must take this opportunity to improve yourself
educationally, tuitionally or any other aspect. They have migrated not only to
Mae Hong Son, but to other parts of Thailand, so many of them. Some being
refugees, some being workers or engaging in other activities. Some migrated to
earn the money, to send the money and maybe they like to go back to settle at
their hometown, their native town. But the thing is, at the moment, here they
have everything at their disposal. They try and work hard, they are getting
money and they engage in many other manual works. This is for some something to
learn about, it’s good for them. They acquire the technique of building and
also of other activities. So if they go back it will be good for their country.
But I don’t know if they want to go back or not. So in our country, they
introduce many reforms, if they are effective or not, I’m not quite sure, but anyway
they come and try to introduce many reforms to upgrade or uplift the standard
of living. The people do try to upgrade the economic condition, but I would say
this is the beginning only. Later we might get the momentum, too, but not so
soon. This is what I like to say, this is my point of view.
Anselm:
When talking about the Shan, they are an ethnicity without having
their own nation rights, in the sense of having their own nation state. There are
several other ethnicities like this within ASEAN. What kind of opportunities
can ASEAN provide to these ethnicities to probably improve their situation?
Sai
Aung Tun: Well, if you know, Myanmar has many ethnic groups, more than a
hundred. Out of these, Shan are a majority. Even in Shan State we have other
minorities living together since the beginning of the Shan State very
harmoniously. But the thing is, as you see, our system of running the
government is neither centralized nor de--centralized; it’s a picture of both.
But ethnic people would like to have what we call the de--centralized system of
administration, what we call federal administration. They don’t want to loose
their identity, they don’t want to loose their language, their tradition and so
on. But to have a separate nation is not possible, because we have the right to
stay within the Union not outside the Union. So that should not be mistaken
about that concept. So the central government should also realize this, the correct
type of policy on minorities. If the policy on minorities is correct and if
equality is given to everybody and equal chance, equal standing, there will be
no problem, either in education or administration or in economics or other
aspects, too. But in the old constitution of 1947 there is one chapter, chapter
10: the right of secession. The right of secession is included in that chapter
10. But there are a lot of procedure to go through to exercise this right. But
people forget all these rules and regulations how to exercise this right.
People thought it is easy, but in fact it is not easy. Legally we have to
settle our differences, not illegally, not to take an arm and do the job. You
have to go through proper procedure, proper legal procedure and then you’ll
come to the final solution. It is written in the constitution, but there is no
way to exercise at all. The central government is so afraid of this clause it
would like to abolish this clause by all means, either honestly or un--honestly.
They are too scared of this. But in fact it’s not easy: we have a written document,
but exercise this right is not easy. So this is how they made a mistake in the
interpretation; so they are too scared. At the same time, how to solve this
problem? How to solve this problem? According to the constitution, they have
many procedures, democratic method or procedure. But since the government is a
military government, they tried to solve the problem through military means and
nothing else. That is the problem that we are having now. Poltics in Myanmar is
not in the hand of politicians. So the thinking is different. If you are a
military man you are thinking in a military terminus. But this is a political
terminus. So how do you decide it? So the military is in power, so they will
interpret everything based on the concept
of their thinking. That’s all. That’s
not a solution. So what will be the solution then? Us, the people. Is this the
correct solution or not correct solution? They have practice this since 50
years, it hasn’t work. So you have to change the policy. If it will be a
gradual change or drastic change, I don’t know. That you have to change. In the
basic thinking of the people, basic thinking, basic thinking of people of what
has to be changed to fit into the environment, if it sticks to the old logic,
you cannot really change. You think it is correct, but it’s not. Readily, we
have experimented it, so it’s not correct. Whether we should introduce a change
of not only to fight. The basic concept of thinking of all the people in the Union,
unless you change that point, you cannot come to reconciliation. The basic
thinking of “you’re different from me, I’m different from you”, how can we? We
come to a compromise. That is very difficult to implement. To change the
thinking of all the people, of all the minorities in Myanmar. How do we change
that? This is, we have to be seriously thinking. Noone, nobody realizes that we
need a new basic concept of thinking for the future. What about that? How can
we change? You reform, you reform. You try to mend the situation to an upper
level, not to a depth level. That is our problem. That is my point of view. I
may be wrong, but anyway, there is a lot to do. We have a lot to do.
Anselm:
When you are talking about changing the thinking, the concept of thinking,
that usually takes a long time…
Sai Aung Tun: Sure, sure. I would like to see, what
do you mean about changing the concept of thinking. My interpretation: “Love
each other”. You think of your parents as you are or as human being. You think
of your friend as human being. I think of you as a human being, as brothers
that are living in the same family. That is the basic change of thinking. You
love your brother, love thy neighbor! Love your brother your member of family.
Love, love. The love is the genuine love, not the artificial love. Artificial
love wouldn’t last long. And our level of education is not the same. It’s
different. We have culture differences, many other differences. And we have
other common things and different things. We have to see what are the common things.
Then we can walk together, we can group together in a nation state. What is
different from each other? You must also see the difference. Which culture is
better? Culture is good for everybody. Your culture, my culture, their culture.
You can’t see my culture itself. Culture is culture. No distinction in culture.
For example you like to worship, you worship. You want to learn a language, you
learn the language. You love to practice meditation, you practice. If you say “My
language is better than your language, my literature is superior to your
literature” that won’t work. So, minorities, they live in the mountains, in
very remote corners of the country. But they have their treasure, their
cultural treasure, they love very much. They love their language, their
literature, their custom, their tradition. Custom cannot be made in one day to
be custom. Tradition cannot be done within one day. Language, too. How long
does it take to be able to communicate? You have to practice language. You have
to practice with a teacher. Of course, too many years. Too many years that
mean, you cannot do all this in one day, in a sudden movement. So they have to,
they have to accumulate, they have to be very patient. Like the children
practice to speak: it takes a long time. So these people have been practiced to
speak. How should they abandon their language, how should they abandon their
literature? They don’t
want to. If I ask
you to abandon your language, you wouldn’t do. So you must understand that kind
of basic thinking, how to compromise, how to mutual existence. Human world is
not built for one race, for one creature, not built for one animal. The world
exists for every creature, for every human being, you see. So, this is what we
have to rely on, this basic thinking. Peacefully coexist with each other as
brothers. This is important. Unless we can create such kind of thinking we
cannot be an harmonious society.
Anselm:
That’s very true. The question that I would have to that, what role
could ASEAN play in that kind of connection to implement maybe some kind of “moral”
scheme for ASEAN’s nations to follow and respect minority rights?
Sai
Aung Tun: UNO document has written in it Human Rights; rights for every human.
You have the right to exist, you have the right to cry, you have the right to
laugh, you have the right to learn your lesson, the right to preserve whatever
you cherish. So it’s written in the UN documents. ASEAN people, we have ten countries
group together, with all the diverse culture and all that. We try to coexist as
an association. For example in Indonesia they have Islam, like Malaysia,
Brunei. They practice Islam. Thai, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar practice
Buddhism. But, we have to coexist, although we have different kind of religion.
The same thing with economy; the world is shrinking nowadays. We got to try to
understand each other, try to coexist.
This world is not created for
you alone, for me alone, but for everybody. So we have to know this
concept among the ASEAN people.
The leader, without Indonesia, how can Brunei exist, without Brunei how can
Indonesia exist or Malaysia? Such things link up to each other, mutually,
mutually link up and mutually understanding has to be created. So common
factor, common things should group together and make friend. Uncommon things
leave aside, for your own people. This should be the policy, the solution for
ASEAN.
Ok, now, within the country you
have many minorities: in Laos, in Thai, in Malaysia and everywhere, you see,
you have many different races or which practice different religion or that have
different culture. You have to admit that, you have to accept the fact that it
has to be written into the constitution, not in your mouth. Written and showed
today to the people of your country. If it is correct, you have objection? If
no, then ok, ok, then we will mutually coexist. For
example, 1962 our prime minister U Nu declared Myanmar as a Buddhist country
and the Kachin leader rise up, rose up. And other minorities who are not
Buddhist, rising up, because they don’t want such kind of thing to be written
in the constitution. The constitution must suit the situation. That’s what they
have to do. That is democracy. Not only in words, but in deed. We can solve the
problem if we say “Oh, ok, worshipping any religion is free to everybody”. It
depends to the people who to worship what. You may be Buddhist, you may be
Christian, you may be Animist, that’s ok. A harmonious society, peaceful coexistence,
that is what we need to do. That is the criteria of the constitution. And not
only in words but in practice. You talk one thing and do a different thing: no,
human are not dumb. Nobody is blind. Everybody has a brain. Maybe they are
uneducated, they have thinking power as good as educated people. You don’t undermine.
Who destroyed Rome? The barbarians destroyed Rome. The Roman Empire was destroyed
by Barbarians not by educated people. See they can make something wrong. If
they don’t call barbarians “barbarians”, they won’t attack you. Like the Romans
say: “We are the master race. You are barbarians.”, such things, you
see. You have to start think and realize the fact of life, the fact, the
reality of the situation, otherwise you won’t see. We are living in this
Myanmar with more than a hundred ethnicities. Unless you have the correct
policy, how can you run the country?
Anselm:
It is very, very difficult.
Sai
Aung Tun: Ok and then, out of a hundred ethnicities who would name a master race
and barbarian? This is another question. Is the master Kachin, or is the master
Kayin or are they barbarian? Can you say like that? No, not at all. They may be
uneducated, They may be living in the jungle, in the mountain, but you don’t
damn them as “barbarian”. They established their own thinking, their own
culture, worship and so on. You have to take all this into account and try to
formulate the most suitable policy. So that all people can live harmoniously
together or peacefully coexist together.
Anselm:
When talking about peaceful coexistence and harmony, like right now,
when reading about Myanmar the hottest topic apart from the changes that are
going on, is the violence between Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar. Where whole
townships get burned down by either group. I think it is a very sad story in a
time when everybody thought it’s the beginning of a new era of Myanmar, that
this kind of violence is rising up.
Sai
Aung Tun: If you’re thinking in terms of logic, if you think in term of logic,
or if you think in term of materialism, it is not surprising. Now human world
begin with feudalism, then come capitalism, then come communism, then come
militarism, then come religions. Look at history: in Europe you had feudalism, in
Myanmar feudalism, in India you had system of feudalism or empire system, king
system. This kind of ideology try to eliminate each other. Now, can you find
feudalism in Europe now? No, it has been eliminated by whom? By a superior
system of thinking. King, emperor and so on. How many king you have in Europe
now? It’s been eliminated. In Europe, you practice capitalism. You’re taking
capitalism as a guiding principle of the country. Russia picked up communism.
There was big war, the Cold War, after World War II, the “--ism” fighting “--ism”,
capitalism and communism fighting each other. Now, with the fall of the Warsaw
Pact, communism is gone and the Soviet Union disintegrated. Now the question:
with whom does capitalism fight now? Democracy and capitalism; democracy and
capitalism can go together. Do you think democracy and communism can go
together? No, communism and democracy cannot go together. Do you think that
feudalism and capitalism can go together? No, that is why feudalism has gone
away already in the world. Now, what remains? I tell you. What remains now,
communism already gone, now capitalism survived. What type of capitalism to
suit your country? Ok now, you have to be careful something: “--ism”, “--ism”, “--ism”.
The superior “--ism”, capitalism or Islamism, capitalism and Buddhism,
capitalism and animism… See, you’re like a boxer: one round feudalism, finished,
one round communism. Now, the inal round is between capitalism and
religions. Now you’re going on 9/11, the twin tower been attacked in America.
This is the beginning of the “--ism war”.
What war? Capitalism and
Islamism. So after that, what will come? What will come? Either capitalism or
Islamism, one will be eliminated. Now I begin to see. Capitalism is not
important, maybe important. What about Christianism (sic), Budhhism and
Animism, Hinduism, their turn will come soon to make friend or make enemy. See,
now we are in that threshold of fighting or whatever it is. We practiced militarism
in Myanmar. Do you think capitalism and militarism can coexist? Hard question,
hard talk. You think that capitalism can coexist with militarism? You think
that militarism can coexist with communism? You think that militarism can
coexist with feudalism? You think that militarism can coexist with Buddhism?
See, I don’t think that capitalism can go together with militarism. I don’t
think that militarism can go along with communism. I don’t think that
militarism can go along with feudalism. Ok, what do you think whether
militarism can go along with Buddhism? The logic of “--ism”, one eliminate
another. Antithesis, synthesis. Now come antithesis, synthesis, militarism,
Buddhism, democracy day. Democracy is for secular purposes. Religion is for…right
to go to heaven or nirvana, either Christian or Buddhist. If you have strong
type of militarism, extreme type of militarism, extreme types of Islamism, extreme
types of Buddhism then they cannot coexist. They cannot coexist at all. That’s
why we have this problem.
And then now, “--ism” to “--ism”,
Buddhism, Christianism, Islamism…how can they coexist peacefully? And
militarism, this is something to think about. In the future we have a crusade
war in this world. That crusade war, you remember, that Christians fight the,
yes. I’m afraid that might repeat itself. In the next three or four century,
not in the present. This is the beginning only. Why the Islam burn the church, why
the people burn the mosque? Now, the beginning of religious world war is
coming; beginning only, later we don’t know. If Christians and Islam fight each
other, where does Buddhism stand? Where will animism stand? We pray that we
have no such war. If we have a war like this it will destroy all, finish.
Anselm:
I think one thing is to fight extremism in any color.
Sai
Aung Tun: Color, Apartheid in South Africa. Color is not important now. Religion
is more important. Not important. Obama became president. It is not important.
But religion is important. In some constitution if you’re not Buddhist, if you’re
Muslim you cannot become president. I don’t know this is coming. How can a
Buddhist stand an election in Malaysia, or in Indonesia? I don’t know. Maybe
that is the final human play on the stage. How to solve all these problems. The
leaders must…the process of history is coming. How to avoid, how to amend, how
to accept, how to modify…you have to think about that. The future state men have
to do a very good thing to rule the country. In Myanmar, we Myanmar people, we
have to solve our own problem. How do we solve? You must be, you must be not
that extreme in your views, in your thinking. You must be able to, what we
call, to accept the opposite elements. You must learn how to take your opponent
as friend. You must learn to take you opponent as friend, not as enemy all the
time. If you don’t fix this, he is your enemy forever, is cruel forever, then
you make mistake.
Anselm:
Some people might consider ASEAN as one way to handle these problems.
So some people say that people that are trading with each other are not fighting
each other. If considering ASEAN and the upcoming AEC as a place where people
trade with each other, that might be one step to prevent people from fighting
each other. How would that affect ethnicities in the area? You have many
different countries with many different political systems, like Laos, Vietnam
with communism. Then you have Thailand with democracy, you have Myanmar on the
way to democracy. You have different regions. How do you think ASEAN could play
an important part in bringing the people in peace together, without probably
overwhelming local people?
Sai
Aung Tun: Well, not easy. But the main thing is that you have to have a liberal
concept. Every government, everyone has to have a liberal concept. You see, if
you have a good living, you have to consider that your friend would also like
to have a good living. You have to be considerate to each other. Sometime, economically
speaking, everybody, every country is looking for it’s own economic benefit.
Exploitation of resources, exploitation of human resources, exploitation of
material resources, see, this is how to curb, to control all this craving, this
greediness. I’ve been to Japan to see the Mazda factory. And the director of that
factory explained to me that they have to increase the production year by year
by year; no decrease; never stop to produce cars. You may have a car at your
house, maybe one for yourself, one for your wife, one for your son. In one
family you have five cars or three or four at least two cars. Is it necessary?
One family has one television,
some have five television. Is it necessary? I don’t know. How modern people,
how modern lifestyle is going on nowadays…now you produce five cars for a
family. How about the raw material? You have to dig out from the ground to make
one family able to own five cars. Ok and then the producer would like to sell
more cars than necessary. Then: Are we wasting raw material or are we making
use of raw material properly, according to the size of the raw material, of the
resources? Nobody thinks about that. Should we keep the raw material underneath
the earth, underground, for our future generation. Or should we use of all
material today? Or shouldn’t we reserve this underground for the new
generation? How do you see? How do you control the factory owners. Can you go
and tell the factory owners: “You produce too much? We have too many cars
already, you use too much raw material. We keep the raw material for our young
generation”. What would that factory owner say to you?
They will say: “Oh,
I have employees. My workers will be jobless. I cannot stop this.” Ok, when you
do not stop, when are you going to stop? Their concept is fixed in
their head. You’re afraid that your workers, that the amount of money you pay
them…ok, that is the only, that is a fixed lifestyle. That’s why you make
mistake. In the future I worry about. The future is exhausting, depleting the
forest. It is because of over- -logging, over- -using all this material. They
don’t think about the future. They think: “Tomorrow, how many car? Today one
million, tomorrow two million, day after tomorrow three million.” That’s what
they think. They don’t realize they are wasting our raw material, they think
they are making good progress. This is the concept of the present human being.
So we going to have that trouble. Not that we are like Thailand.
And then again you are poor,
you are rich. The rich and the poor, to have and have not, the issue
to have and have not. The have
people want to have more and more. They have not people will try and tryand try
to have, but not successful. People in South America, they catch the fish, they
don’t eat it. They make the cat food for the North American people. They
starve, but they don’t eat fish, because they have to make cat food for North
America. People with extra--money they don’t eat cat food. They eat good food. South
American don’t have a chance to eat, even cat food, because they have to make
that cat food. So this is how we are going on nowadays. Now you divide the
world into two parts: rich and poor. Myanmar people and Myanmar government
people, lesson received: we have to eliminate poverty. Oh, when did poverty
exist in Myanmar I asked. Because the Western people say you have to eliminate
the poverty. But you have to see they have no poor people, all are rich. Poor
people are poor. How to eliminate poverty. If they themselves are poor, how can
they eliminate the poverty?
Ok, now you’re giving aid to a
poor country, how many per cent of your income do you give to aid in your
country? I don’t know. If you give aid, free aid, do you expect to get
something back? See: I give you money, I take your fruit. I take the root of
your tree in your country. Give and take. Myanmar people sell their logs, raw
material. They sell one log, the rich will buy this piece of log. They’ll make
a piece of furniture and sell it in Myanmar at a high price. You sell your log
for 1000$, you buy it back you have to spend 2000$. The aid you’re giving to
people doesn’t mean aid anymore. That’s how the world is happening now. To whom
should you blame.
Accumulation of wealth, you
have all the technology, you have all the technicians, you have all the means
of production at your hand, with a snap of your finger you get everything you
want. But when in a poor country, even to cut one tree that don’t even have an
electric saw. This is the difference between the have and have not country. So
would you say the have countries should be happy, because they are rich? You
would say that have- -not should not be happy, because they are poor? How would
you eliminate the two fighting each other? If you are so poor and have no food
to eat, why does your neighbor have good food to eat? How would you feel? You’re
eating meat everyday, he is eating peas everyday. I don’t know what the people
who eat meat everyday would think about people who are eating peas everyday.
What are the people who are eating peas everyday think about the people who are
eating meat everyday? I would like to eat meat like you, I would like eat peas
like you. Ok. So try to get the means to get meat, try to the means to get
peas. This is the basic problem of human society. How do they reconcile each
other.
Ok, talking about Myanmar: some
are very rich, some are very poor. The distribution of wealth is not equal. So
how much could you sacrifice for the betterment of the poor people? How much,
how much money can you provide for everything, for education, for everything
involved? That contribution to the poor will come consently or by force or by
other means, you see. Good question: you have money, will you give me money? I
am poor. This is the point. So I saw a lot of people when they see a beggar,
they turn their face away. Beggar: “Please give me one kyat”. Even it’s only
one kyat, they turn their face away. And when you give one kyat to him or her,
oh, she or her will send you blessing, a big amount of blessing: one kyat. If
1000, then you get more blessing. This is human weakness. How much of your
money will be gone if you give one kyat, one kyat to the beggars that are
begging you? Do you think the beggar likes to beg because he doesn’t have job?
Nobody of them has found a good job, all out of their limit, so he begs. How to
eliminate that class of people? There must be some kind of policy to eliminate
that class of people: no beggar!
If you believe in
the incarnation, you come back to live, because you love to be human being. No matter
if rich or poor, you come back, come back: another concept. When are you fed up
with all this cycle of good and bad, then where do you go? Nobody knows. See,
democracy is a kind of “--ism” for secular people for government. The Greek
people had developed democracy for government, they were experimenting with
democracy while they had city states. In Greece they tried to do democracy. How
to solve human problems, they were the first people to rely on democracy. The
concept of democracy is the best form of government to solve human problems.
Democracy, democracy, democracy. The will of the people is the final solution.
Ok, the city state people could practice what we call “direct democracy”. You come
and get, ehm, here “I come to you and talk and say we agree (clapping his
hands)”. Ok, but city state become bigger and bigger, became empire, became a
nation, you can’t practice “direct democracy”, you practice “indirect democracy”.
So now people, Western people are practicing “indirect democracy”.
So far it is the best way to
govern a country, up to now. That is why we pick up democracy. But you are born
on the soil of democracy, you are accustomed to the practice of democracy. You
learned what democratic principles are. Your family knew all the democratic
practices and you see and mature as a democratic human being. You know which
people to choose, which people not to choose. So far it is working very well.
But for those who are unfamiliar with the practice of democracy, who are just
about to know about the system of democracy, from dictatorship to democracy,
from feudalism to democracy, from religion to democracy, from militarism to
democracy, they have a hard time. Very difficult situation. They encounter many
difficulties. They are not used to, they are not prepared to accept the votes.
They are prepared to, they are prepared to welcome militarism, to welcome
dictatorship, but they are not prepared to welcome democracy. They are misusing
the democratic concept: “Democracy means I can do whatever, whenever I want to
do”. The ruler or the rulers they don’t have the maturity or basic knowledge of
democracy. So to cultivate the knowledge and the culture of democracy, it will
take some time. Only then, democracy will work well in Myanmar or any other
country in Southeast Asia.
When looking at Southeast Asia,
Brunei has king, Thailand has king, now Indonesia has president, Myanmar has
president now, Cambodia has president. How about Laos? Communist party. Vietnam
is Communist, Cambodia is Communist (sic), it’s all complication. Anyway, we
have to peacefully coexist as human being. You can’t be extreme, because you
cannot be isolated: politically, economically, socially. You have to mix and
work with all these people. That’s why the ASEAN association came up, to
mutually help each other. And at the same time if they are not united as ASEAN,
who will in their domestic problem? Maybe American, or Japanese or Chinese, I
don’t know. That’s why to make a block among themselves. Because you fear
imperialism. They learned their lesson from imperialism. All these ASEAN
country have been once under the domination of the Western or the Eastern
(sic). So they have learned a bitter lesson and they don’t want that history to
be repeated, so they make an association, to defend their country. We will
remain in this ASEAN society, it’s more secure as when we are separated and not
in this group, we will be in danger. They group together.
Now, what happened? Some
problem with South China Sea. Some problem with Japan, Korea and China and
between Vietnam and China. There are some problems. But this problem coming up,
because of the vital interest of to get oil. You want to get oil, you want to
get oil, you want to get oil (pointing in different directions). You cannot
sacriice your vital interest. You cannot compromise, because you cannot
compromise your vital interest. “So China Sea belong to me since king ‘so and
so’”. No, no, we need resources so we have to have leadership to declare our
vital interest. How to compromise? And in term of association and in term of
individual country? So the Western block (sic) is watching, the Eastern block (sic)
is watching, India is watching very carefully. So these countries need oil, if
you have oil, then I buy from you. If I can’t have oil, I’ll buy from you. We
have been discussing too much already. What was the specific question again?
Anselm:
I think, because we are talking very long, thank you very much! Maybe
as one last question relating to the Shan and ASEAN. When we were at the
conference you told us about the history of the Shan migrating from central
China, to Southern China then all over Southeast Asia. It is probably a history
that Southeast Asian people: to be on the walk. With the introduction of the
nation state migration across borders became probably less easy for the people.
Sai Aung Tun: Yes, people migration begin with the
begin of human history. Migration meant you migrate to a new place, because
there is good soil, there’s good water. If I go and stay there, I have better
living, which is why most people leave for a new place. Another migration is
being persecuted, religiously or whatever, so you don’t want to stay and
migrate. There are many reason. And finally, if there is ethnic cleansing like
there was in Bosnia, Croatia, this is the worst reason for people to migrate.
The boat people in Vietnam migrated. So many reason why people migrate. But the
Karen or the Shan also migrate. From the Northeast of China, as I told already,
they came from Outer Mongolia, then they migrate into Northeast China, they
found there good water. So they migrate to that area and establish baan and muang.
They were the first people to migrate to. Among the first groups to migrate the
Miao Yao, among twelve groups I have checked, have migrated, they established
village there and there and there. Shan established baan and muang.
They have had rivalry among themselves. Rivalry, rivalry, rivalry and then finally
all have been alienated by the Quin Shi Huang who
absorped to make the first empire in China. Other Shan minority living under
him as good citizen, as good farmer. But those who did not want to stay under
the Quing migrated South crossing the Yellow
River coming to Yangtzee River and then to Yunnan.
But not only Shan, other
minority, who do not want living under the Quing empire, they
migrated. Because the Quing empire was very aggressive
ruler. He made the Great Wall in China, he made network of road, everything.
But at that time no technology; you have to use human resources. You have to use
the human resource to build the Great Wall of China. Even with the technology
now, to build something like the Great Wall is not easy. At that time you need
so many human labor, so many have been included in building the Great Wall. But
if I ask a question: how many have died? We don’t have a list, but so many
died. Those minorities they didn’t want to be forced to do that. They migrated
down to different parts of Southern China, including the Shan people. Shan are
most, a majority within the minorities. They migrate to Sichuan, Guangxi and
Guangzhou and now Guangxi. Have you visited Guangxi?
Anselm:
No.
Sai
Aung Tun: You better go. Guangxi is the biggest autonomous of Zhuang people. All
these minority people, finally they are not able top resist against the Han
people, that had been dominating, dominating, dominating, Where minorities go,
Han people go and establish their civilization. That always has happened. Finally
now, all over China, minorities have nowhere to go. So China finally has been
consolidated by Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai--Shek and then Mao Zedong, all these
minorities have not been eliminated, but they all in the autonomous state,
being cornered. You see, they are fixed to stay there. According Chinese law,
to Chinese constitution, many autonomies. They try to control the minorities
through the means of autonomies.
The Shan people migrated down,
down, the last they stay in China was Nan Chao, after that, they do not have
any nation. So they migrated down after Kublai Khan attacked Nan Chao. The final
migration of Shan people to Vietnam, to Laos, to Thailand, to Burma and to
Assam in India. So fortunately or unfortunately only Thailand and Laos are
independent countries. Some Shan or Tai Luang or Tai Dam in Vietnam, they make
Vietnam as their adopted country. We in Burma make Burma our adopted country and
Assam adopted country in India. Only Thailand and Laos are independent
countries. Now in China they have autonomous rights even for Tai people. The
Tai people in China are free to trade, to educate, to do everything, except in
politics. They have freedom to do whatever they like, except politics. Ok, now we
don’t count to Laos and Thailand, because they have independent country, their
own nation. But the people in Vietnam, in Burma, the Tai in Assam, do they have
the same autonomous right like the Tai have in China? This is the problem.
We have our autonomous or
federated state in Myanmar. But do we have the same right as the Tai people in
China have? Do we have the same right as the Assamese in India have? Do we have
the same rights like the Tai Dam, Tai Kao in Vietnam? I do not know; I do not
know or I do not, or to what extend? Why people continue to migration? Why Tai
people, the Shan continue to migration to Thailand or to Laos or to other parts
of the world? Why Tai people in China migrated to Laos? Why do the Ahom people,
or Assam people migrate to Thailand or Laos. Why did Tai Dam or Tai Kao from
Vietnam migrate to Thailand? Why? Why did Shan migrate to Mae Hong Son? Why?
Are there any good reason to migrate or without reason? Just for leisure or
happiness? Now you have to think! Why do you leave your home in Germany and
come to stay in Thailand?
Anselm:
To study.
Sai Aung Tun: Ah, that is something to think about.
Why? They have their home, their land, their farm and their plantation and
their monastery…why do they abandon all this and migrate to Mae Hong Son? You find
out the reason. Without finding the reason you won’t make judgement. Ok, those,
who cannot afford to migrate, who don’t have the means to migrate, who don’t
have the energy to migrate, what happened to them? You have to think, you have
to think. Now comparatively speaking about Tai in Mae Hong Son and Tai in Shan
State? Who are happy? See, this is comparatively speaking. If we would have the
same rights as other minorities elsewhere, would we, would we have migrated?
Statistically speaking, why do a lot of people migrate to Thailand? Why? Why
many people migrate to Thailand? There should be good reason to justify their
migration. I don’t think you would have migrated to Thailand abandoning your home,
you come to visit, you want to go back one day. Because you cannot abandon your
native country.
Would the Shan, the Tai people
leave their land they love, the home they love? Why? Why? Good reasons, they
have good reasons. If they can afford, they earn a living nicely. Where there
is law, legal, law, religious and political, fair, would they migrate? Who
would abandon his house, his farm? This is what people have to think about, if
you want to solve the problem. How many Burman people migrated to Thailand? Not
to see each other, no. More than Shan, 4 Mio. people. Why do all these people
migrate to Thailand? Why does Thailand accept all these Burmese people as
worker, as refugee, whatever it is? Why? There are also reasons. They need
people, they need workers. Thai people have raised their living standards, they
don’t want to do manual work anymore. They like to ask people for a really
cheap salary.
Why people still migrate to
Thailand? It’s a good question. I can still manage to survive. Among all these
difficulties, among all this hardship, I am a die- -hard man and I stand and
stand and stand. Who else will have such will power to withstand. We are
surrounded by all the difficulties, hardship and problems. How long can you
endure all this? So they migrate. Father migrates, mother migrates, son
migrates, daughter migrates, the whole family. Can you blame them? This is
human thinking.
Like you have the Bosnian War,
the ethnic cleansing, you are born to die, you are born to be slaughtered like
an animal. How UN organization can help? The role of the UN, how much
effectively it can help? The NATO interfered. The human history, when the
Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union disintegrated, whole power politics switched.
They bombed Bosnia, they bombed. If there would be Warsaw Pact, they wouldn’t
have bombed. This is the behavior of super power. Sometimes we have to be
careful of super--power, the ego and egoistic… they bombed Bosnia. Some say: “Oh
this is a mistake.” Why? Why did they bomb? You don’t need to bomb, but you
bomb, unnecessary you bomb. You bomb Iraq, you bomb Assad (sic), see this is
the human behavior, super- -power behavior. Without counter--check, without
balance your behavior becomes daring. Nobody checks you, your behavior becomes
different. Where do we go now? How many block we have in this world now. No
Warsaw Pact, no neutral block. Ok, China now becomes powerful, Russia becomes
powerful, America becomes powerful: three power. Second grade power: Korea ,
Japan, England: second rank, maybe India. The world is changing its patterns of
alliances.
But who will survive? The
country with consideration, the considerate country. What does considerate mean?
Fair, fair, give and take mutual aid, mutual consideration, mutual
consultation. Not like China behave to Burma. Behave as if they own the
country, they exploit everything. Now, what happened? It happened in Myitsone;
you see, fairness is very important. I have fairness for you, even if you don’t
have fairness. I must be fair to you. I must explain to you, not to the full
extent, to give a chance for you to improve. Now I explain to the full extent,
because you’re ignoring. “Should we do that?” This is human acting, human
morality. If you don’t keep that acting, human morality, no law, then you are
not a civilized being. Ok.
Anselm:
Thank you very much! Thank you for your time!
credit: Seatide
Similar Author's Posts:
