“ေျပာျပန္ရင္လည္း ေမာင္ေပါလြန္ရာက်မယ္….အပုိင္း(၂)” မွာ လာေရာက္ေရးသားခဲ့ၾကေသာ ကြန္မင့္ေတြအနက္ ေနာက္ပုိင္းမွာ အေၾကာင္းအရာတခုနဲ႔ပတ္သက္ၿပီး ေရးသားၾကထားတဲ့ ကြန္မင့္ေတြဟာ က်ေနာ့္အတြက္ေတာ့ စိတ္၀င္စားဖြယ္လည္း ေကာင္း၊ မွတ္သားဖြယ္ရာေတြလည္း ပါ၀င္တာမုိ႔ မဖတ္ရေသးသူမ်ား ဖတ္ရေအာင္ ေနာက္တပုိ႔စ္မတင္ေသးခင္ အဲသည္ကြန္မင့္ေတြကုိပဲ အရင္ ၾကားျဖတ္တင္ေပးလုိက္ပါတယ္။ အခ်ိန္ယူၿပီး တကူးတက ကြန္မင့္ေရးသားခဲ့ၾကတဲ့ စာဖတ္သူ၊ Pro-Demo၊ Ko Aung၊ ေက်ာ္ထင္၊ မ်ဳိးျမင့္ေမာင္၊ Anonymous ႏွင့္ အျခား ကြန္မင့္ေရးသူအေပါင္းကုိ ေက်းဇူးတင္ပါတယ္။
Anonymous said...
Hi Nga Paw,
pls answer my question..
In US, ex-president Bush ordered media black out on dead bodies of soldiers arriving from Iraq and Afghan.
No US media questioned his order.
Based on this fact, will you say US has media freedom and freedom of expression which they r preaching to the world? or US media is in the illusion believing that they have full media freedom?
Pls reply..
And Why Bush reject scientific suggestions from the Greens (environmentalists)?
Is he authoritarian?
Thats all for now..
June 16, 2009 2:21 PM
ေက်ာ္ထင္ said...
I think the Anonymous June 16, 2009 2:21 PM is mixing up the privacy matter and the essence of democracy and media freedom.
Please have a look at this article and other similars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26web-coffins.htmlBush did so as you said. But it's not a cover-up for US soldier casualities figure in Iraq and Afgan, but it was based on protecting the privacy and dignity of the dead. Remember this is a well-known issues because of mdeia freedom and democracy in US. And there have been a broad debate regarding the issue whether the media should be allowed to publicize the arrival of the coffins.
June 16, 2009 4:34 PM
Ko Paw said...
Anonymous (June 16, 2009 2:21 PM)….
>>>>In US, ex-president Bush ordered media black out on dead bodies of soldiers arriving from Iraq and Afghan.
No US media questioned his order. <<<<<
ဘယ္မီဒီယာကမွ ေမးခြန္းမထုတ္ဘူးဆုိရင္ မိတ္ေဆြြ ဘယ္လုိလုပ္သိလဲ။ နတ္မ်က္ေစ့ ပုလင္းကြဲနဲ႔ လွမ္းၾကည့္တာလား။ ဒီဥပေဒ စတင္ျပဌာန္းကတည္းက အဲဒီဥပေဒနဲ႔ ပတ္သက္လုိ႔ အသည္းအသန္ အေခ်အတင္ ေဆြးေႏြးျငင္းခုန္လာတာ ဒီေန႔အထိပဲ။ ပင္တဂြန္ရဲ႕သေဘာက စစ္ဖက္မိသားစုေတြအေနနဲ႔ သူတုိ႔မိသားစု၀င္ေတြ က်ဆုံးတဲ့အခါ ဒီကိစၥကုိ ကုိယ္ေရးကိုယ္တာဆန္တဲ့ သီးသန္႔ကိစၥအေနနဲ႔ပဲ ေဆာင္ရြက္ခ်င္တယ္။ မီဒီယာကုိ ေပးမသိခ်င္ဘူး။ ဒါေပမယ့္ တဖက္မွာလည္း စစ္အတြင္း ထိခုိက္နစ္နာမႈကို ျပည္သူေတြသိသင့္တယ္လုိ႔ ယူဆတဲ့ ဘက္ရွိတယ္။ အေမရိကန္သမၼတဟာ သူကုိယ္တုိင္ေတာ့ ဥပေဒေတြ ျပဌာန္းပုိင္ခြင့္မရွိဘူး။ ဒါေပမယ့္ သူ႕ပါတီဟာ ကြန္ဂရက္စ္မွာ အမ်ားစုျဖစ္ေနရင္ သူ႕ပါတီက အမတ္တေယာက္ကေန တင္သြင္းၿပီးေတာ့ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကအတည္ျပဳခ်က္ရတဲ့အခါ ဥပေဒကုိ အတည္ျဖစ္ေစႏုိင္တယ္။ ဘာပဲျဖစ္ျဖစ္ သမၼတဟာ သူ႕လုပ္ပုိင္ခြင့္ေဘာင္ကုိ ေက်ာ္လုပ္တာဆုိရင္ သူတုိ႔ဆီမွာ ေကာ္မရွင္ဖြဲ႕ၿပီး စုံစမ္းစစ္ေဆးလုိ႔ရတယ္။ ေရဂင္လက္ထက္က ကြန္ထရာအေရးကိစၥကုိ ျပန္လည္ စုံစမ္းေရးလုပ္သလုိေပါ႔။ ျမန္မာျပည္မွာေတာ့ ဦးသန္းေရႊထင္တုိင္းက်ဲေနတာေတြကုိ ဘယ္သူမွ စုံစမ္းစစ္ေဆးေရးေကာ္မရွင္ဖြဲ႕ စစ္ေဆးလုိ႔ မရဘူး။
>>>>Based on this fact, will you say US has media freedom and freedom of expression which they r preaching to the world? or US media is in the illusion believing that they have full media freedom?<<<<<
ယူအက္စ္မီဒီယာဟာ လုံး၀ဥႆုံမဘုတ္ဆုံ ေျခာက္ျပစ္ကင္းသဲလဲစင္ လြတ္လပ္တဲ့ မီဒီယာေတာ့ ျဖစ္ခ်င္မွ ျဖစ္မယ္။ ဒါေပမယ့္ ျမန္မာမီဒီယာကဲ့သုိ႔ ဘာမဆုိ သတင္းအေမွာင္ခ်၊ သတင္းအမွားေတြကုိသာ တခ်ိန္လုံး ထုတ္ျပန္တတ္တဲ့ မီဒီယာမ်ဳိး မဟုတ္တာေတာ့ ေသခ်ာတယ္။ အီရတ္မွာ အေမရိကန္စစ္သားေတြ အက်ဥ္းစခန္းမွာ အက်ဥ္းသားေတြကုိ ႏွိပ္ကြပ္တဲ့ကိစၥေတြ ဘယ္ကထြက္သလဲ။ ယူအက္စ္မီဒီယာကပဲ ေဖာ္ျပတာပဲမဟုတ္လား။ ဂြာတာနာမုိအက်ဥ္းစခန္းတြင္းမွာ ျဖစ္တဲ့ကိစၥေတြလည္း ယူအက္စ္မီဒီယာက ေဖာ္ျပတယ္မုိ႔လား။ အင္းစိန္ေထာင္အတြင္း ႏုိင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားေတြ ႏွိပ္စက္ခံရတာကုိ ျမန္မာ့အလင္းတုိ႔၊ ေၾကးမုံတုိ႔၊ လွ်ပ္တျပက္တုိ႔ ေဖာ္ျပၾကလုိ႔လား။ ဘယ္မီဒီယာေတြဟာ ဘယ္ေလာက္လြတ္လပ္ခြင့္ အဆင့္အတန္းရွိတယ္ဆုိတာ လြတ္လပ္ေသာနယ္ျခားမဲ့သတင္းေထာက္မ်ားအဖြဲ႕ (အာရ္အက္ဖ္အက္စ္) စတဲ့ တသီးတျခား လြတ္လပ္ေသာ အဖြဲ႕အစည္းေတြရဲ႕ အမွတ္ေပးခြဲျခားထားပုံကုိ အင္တာနက္မွာ ရွာၾကည့္ႏုိင္ပါတယ္။
>>>>And Why Bush reject scientific suggestions from the Greens (environmentalists)?
Is he authoritarian?<<<<<
အဲသည္ကိစၥအေသးစိတ္ေတာ့ က်ေနာ္မသိလုိ႔ မေျပာျပႏုိင္ဘူး။ ဒါေပမယ့္ က်ေနာ္ေျပာႏုိင္တာက ဘုရွ္မွာ သမၼတတေယာက္အေနနဲ႔ လုပ္ႏုိင္တဲ့ အာဏာေတြ အပ္ႏွင္းထားတာေတြရွိတယ္။ ဒါေပမယ့္ အဲသည္အပ္ႏွင္းထားတဲ့ အာဏာေတြကုိ ဆီးနိတ္နဲ႔ ကြန္ဂရက္စ္ကေန တခ်ိန္လုံး ေစာင့္ၾကည့္ၿပီး အားမွ်ေအာင္ လုပ္ႏုိ္င္တယ္။ ဥပမာ…. သမၼတဟာ လက္နက္ကုိင္ တပ္ေပါင္းစုအႀကီးအကဲျဖစ္ေနေပမယ့္ စစ္တပ္အတြက္ အသုံးစရိတ္နဲ႔ Regulatin ကုိ ကြန္ဂရက္က ျပန္ကုိင္ထားတယ္။ သမၼတအေနနဲ႔ လုပ္ခ်င္တုိင္း လုပ္လုိ႔မရေအာင္ေပါ႔။ သမၼတ တေယာက္ဟာ အဲသည္လုပ္ပုိင္ခြင့္အတြင္းကလုပ္ေနသေရြ႕ သူ႕အဆုံးအျဖတ္ဟာ မွားခ်င္မွားမယ္၊ မွန္ရင္မွန္မယ္။ အဲသည္အေပၚမွာ မူတည္ၿပီး သူ႕အေပၚမွာ လူႀကဳိက္မ်ားျခင္း၊ နည္းျခင္းရွိမယ္။ ေသခ်ာတာကေတာ့ သမၼတတေယာက္ကုိ လူႀကဳိက္မမ်ားရင္ သက္တမ္းတဆက္ (၄ ႏွစ္)ပဲ ခံမယ္။ ဘယ္ေလာက္လူႀကဳိက္မ်ားမ်ား ၈ ႏွစ္ထက္ ပုိမခံဘူး။ နအဖ အစုိးရလုိ ဘယ္သူမွ မေရြးခ်ယ္မတင္ေျမႇာက္ဘဲ အႏွစ္ ၂၀ ၾကာ ေနခ်င္လုိ႔မရဘူး။ နအဖကုိ အခုလူမႀကဳိက္တာေတာင္ ျဖဳတ္ခ်ရ အင္မတန္ခက္ခဲတယ္။ ဘယ္သူမွလည္း သူ႕အာဏာကုိ မကန္႔သတ္ႏုိင္ၾကဘူး။ အဲသည္ေတာ့ ဘုရွ္ဟာ အာဏာရွင္ဟုတ္မဟုတ္ မိတ္ေဆြဘာသာ ခ်င့္ခ်ိန္ၾကည့္ေပါ႔။
June 16, 2009 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...
Hi ေက်ာ္ထင and Paw,
are u saying, current administration has no regards to privacy?
so u believe when Bush said he banned the photos because of privacy concern?
do u know how emotional will it be if public were to see coffins carrying dead bodies of their sons and daughters arriving from a war which they originally agreed to fight because Bush lied to them that the bad guys had WMD?
How abt torture and rape happened in Abu Ghraib prison?
even though the news of abuse of first broke by the US media, didn't the scores of reporters go to that prison and report back to the world handling of prisoners in that prisoners is just and fair?
How abt CIA usage of secret prisons and waterboarding technique against the international laws? how abt prisons tried by secret military court against all laws? where is human right in this case?
How abt killing of reporters by Israelis which is backed by US?
When Israelis raided the west bank,
no reporters was able to go into the area to gather firsthand reports.
i could only say US is so powerful that nobody knows what is really happening in their army and prisons. Media can only able to find out what the gov wish them to find out. And US media think that they have full power on reporting...
I'm not saying US is as bad as the MM Junta.
anyway u also, agree that "ယူအက္စ္မီဒီယာဟာ လုံး၀ဥႆုံမဘုတ္ဆုံ ေျခာက္ျပစ္ကင္းသဲလဲစင္ လြတ္လပ္တဲ့ မီဒီယာေတာ့ ျဖစ္ခ်င္မွ ျဖစ္မယ္။" So they should not be preaching the world wat to do with human right and media freedom. And burmese should not be looking for the Americans as saviors coz they r also as good as ass* when it comes to media freedom and human right.
But again im not saying the junta can continue to do what ever they wish to do against the will of citizens.
but burmese should really stop thinking that the american system r all perfect and only their system is the way to go.
i promote gradual political freedom and u promote absolute political freedom.
this is the place i dont feel right abt ur ideas.
if u wanna know more abt bush environmental policy, u can hit google.
June 16, 2009 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...
btw, i want to repeat what i always say..
MM society support authoritarian nature of government.
I believe u aldy know abt this after years of blogging experience.
So to change the government, u need to first change the nature of the society which u find that u r trying to do only nowadays.
So keep up that job.. Avoid believing in utopia. Don't put too much hope on democracy itself without supporting institutions and people mindset change.
June 16, 2009 5:52 PM
မ်ဳိးျမင့္ေမာင္ said...
Thanks for educating us about the imperfections of US political system. We will try to learn from their mistakes and try our best to prevent those mistakes when our country becomes free.
In order for our country not to succumb to those pitfalls of American democracy, we will advocate greater freedom of press and respect for human rights in Burma (perhaps even greater than those of US). Alright?
I hope you worries about the potential pitfalls of Burma's democracy will subside. After all, we haven't got anything that is even close to democracy, have we?
June 16, 2009 6:23 PM
Pro-Demo said...
but burmese should really stop thinking that the american system r all perfect and only their system is the way to go.
i promote gradual political freedom and u promote absolute political freedom.
I beg to disagree with the above comments.
(1) No body is perfect. But, shouldn't we try to make ourselves to be like the ones who are far better than us (even though they themselves are not perfect yet) ?
Suppose you have a son who is in 10th standard and suppose he has got only 20marks in his Myanmar Sar test.
Will you tell him like: "Try harder and try to be like Mg xx who has got 80 marks in Myanmar Sar" ?
Or will you tell him like: "This Mg xx is stupid and he can't even get 100 marks in Myanmar Sar. I don't want to be like him" ?
(2) Another thing is that you think gradual freedom is better than absolute freedom. This may or may not be true. (It is a very broad topic to debate.) But, do you think the 2008 Constitution and the 2010 Election will bring gradual freedom to our country? For me, I don't think so. After the election, only a pro-amry party will win (through vote rigging or whatever), the human right, mdeia right, etc, of our country will still be the same - still as bad as before.
June 16, 2009 6:25 PM
Ko Paw said...
Anonymous (June 16, 2009 5:52 PM )….
ဘယ္သူလဲမွတ္တယ္။ မိတ္ေဆြေဟာင္းႀကီး ျဖစ္ေနတာကုိးဗ်။ ခါတုိင္းလုိ မိတ္ေဆြရဲ႕ နာမည္ေလးတပ္ေရးရင္ ဘယ္ဒီေလာက္ ရွည္ရွည္ေ၀းေ၀း ေျပာေနစရာလုိမလဲဗ်ာ။ း-)
ပထမဆုံးေျပာခ်င္တာက မိတ္ေဆြ စြတ္စြဲေနက် “က်ေနာ္တုိ႔ဟာ လစ္ဘရယ္ဒီမုိကေရစီကုိ ယူတုိးပီးယား လုိ႔ ထင္ေနတယ”ဆုိတဲ့အခ်က္နဲ႔ပတ္သက္လုိ႔။ အဲသည္ ထင္ျမင္ယူဆခ်က္ မွားယြင္းေနပါတယ္ဆုိတာ ဒါနဲ႔ပါဆုိရင္ ေထာက္ျပရတာ ဘယ္ႏွစ္ႀကိမ္ရွိေတာ့မလဲမသိ။ စနစ္တခုကုိ ႏွစ္သက္လက္ခံတာကတျခား။ အဲသည္စနစ္ကုိ လုံး၀ဥႆုံမဘုတ္ဆုံ ၿပီးျပည့္စုံတဲ့ စနစ္လုိ႔ ယူဆတာက တျခားပဲဗ်။ ဒါေပမယ့္ ယေန႔ကမၻာေပၚမွာ ရွိတဲ့ ႏုိင္ငံေရးစနစ္ေတြထဲမွာ အေကာင္းဆုံးကုိ ေရြးပါဆုိရင္ လစ္ဘရယ္ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္ကုိပဲ ေရြးခ်င္ပါတယ္။
ဒုတိယေျပာခ်င္တာက က်ေနာ္တုိ႔ျပည္သူေတြဟာ ခင္ဗ်ားေျပာသလုိ ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္နဲ႔ ရင္းႏွီးယဥ္ပါးမႈ မရွိဘူး။ မွန္တယ္။ ဒါေပမယ့္ အဲဒါဟာ သူတုိ႔အျပစ္မဟုတ္သလုိ ခၽြတ္ယြင္းခ်က္လည္းမဟုတ္ဘူးဗ်။
လူဆုိတာ ေမြးလာကတည္းက ဘယ္သူမွ စနစ္တခုအတြက္ သီးသန္႔ရည္ရြယ္ၿပီး ေမြးဖြားလာၾကတာမဟုတ္ဘူး။
လူသားတုိင္းဟာ ေမြးလာတာနဲ႔ ေတြးေတာဆင္ျခင္တတ္တဲ့ ဦးေႏွာက္ပါလာၿပီးသား။ သူတုိ႔ ႀကီးျပင္းရာ ပတ္၀န္းက်င္နဲ႔ လုိက္ေလ်ာညီေထြရွိေအာင္ ေနတတ္တဲ့ အစြမ္းသတၱိပါတယ္။
သူတုိ႔ကုိ အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ေအာက္ ႀကီးျပင္းေစရင္ အာဏာရွင္စနစ္နဲ႔ လုိက္ေလ်ာညီေထြ ေနတတ္သြားမယ္။ ျမန္မာေတြ အခုျဖစ္ေနသလုိေပါ႔။
သူတုိ႔ကုိ ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္တခုေအာက္မွာ ေနခုိင္းရင္ ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္နဲ႔ လုိက္ေလ်ာညီေထြ ေနတတ္သြားမယ္။
မိတ္ေဆြေျပာသလုိ…. အာဏာရွင္လက္ေအာက္မွာ ေနလာခဲ့ရတာၾကာလုိ႔ နည္းနည္းေလးေပ်ာ့ေျပာင္းတဲ့ အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ေအာက္၊ ေနာက္ၿပီး တ၀က္တပ်က္ ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္ေအာက္၊ ေနာက္ဆုံးမွ စစ္မွန္တဲ့ ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္ေအာက္ တျဖည္းျဖည္းခ်င္းေျပာင္းရမယ္ဆုိတဲ့ အယူအဆဟာ လူသားေတြရဲ႕ စဥ္းစားဆင္ျခင္ႏုိင္စြမ္းကုိ အထင္ေသးထားလုိ႔၊ ေလွ်ာ့တြက္ထားလုိ႔ျဖစ္ရတာပဲ။
မိတ္ေဆြေျပာတဲ့အတုိင္းဆုိရင္ ျမန္မာျပည္ကေန ယူအက္စ္ (သုိ႔မဟုတ္) တျခားလြတ္လပ္တဲ့ ႏုိင္ငံေတြကုိ ေရႊ႕ေျပာင္းေနထုိင္ၾကတဲ့ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံသားေတြအဖုိ အဲသည္က လြတ္လပ္တဲ့ စနစ္ႀကီးေတြနဲ႔ အံ၀င္ဂြင္က်မေနႏုိင္လုိ႔ ဒုကၡေတြ လွလွႀကီးေတြ႕ေတာ့မွာေပါ႔။
ေနာက္တခုက အဲသည္လုိ ေရႊ႕ေျပာင္းသြားတဲ့ ျမန္မာေတြက (အဲဒီႏုိင္ငံေရာက္မွ) ေမြးလာတဲ့ကေလးေတြက်ေတာ့ ဒီမုိကေရစီနဲ႔ မရင္းႏွီးဘူးဆုိတာေတြ၊ အာဏာရွင္ဆန္တဲ့စ႐ုိက္ဆုိတာေတြ မရွိေတာ့ဘူးဗ်။ အသားအေရာင္နဲ႔ အိမ္မွာေျပာတဲ့ မိခင္ဘာသာစကားေၾကာင့္ ေလယူေလသိမ္းကလြဲရင္ က်န္တာ သူ႕ႏုိင္ငံသားေတြနဲ႔ တသားတည္းျဖစ္ကုန္တာပဲ။
လူျဖဴေတြမွ ဒီမုိကေရစီတုိ႔ လူ႕အခြင့္အေရးတုိ႔နဲ႔ ထုိက္တန္တာမဟုတ္ပါဘူး။ လူသားတုိင္းထုိက္တန္တာပဲ။ က်ေနာ္တုိ႔တုိင္းျပည္သာ ဒီကေန႔ လြတ္လပ္တဲ့ ဒီမုိကေရစီအစုိးရတက္လာၾကည့္ပါ။ ဆယ္ႏွစ္အတြင္းမွာ ခင္ဗ်ားသိခဲ့တဲ့ ျမန္မာျပည္သူျပည္သားေတြ ဟုတ္ေသးရဲ႕လား ေစာင့္ၾကည့္ေသးတာေပါ႔။
ေနာက္ဆုံးေျပာခ်င္တာက နအဖရဲ႕ လမ္းျပေျမပုံနဲ႔ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲဟာ အဲသည္လုိ လြတ္လပ္တဲ့စနစ္ေတြဆီကုိ တျဖည္းျဖည္းသြားခ်င္တဲ့ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္နဲ႔ ေဖာ္ေဆာင္ေနတဲ့ လမ္းစဥ္မဟုတ္။ သူတုိ႔အာဏာတည္ၿမဲေရးအတြက္ တတ္ႏုိင္သမွ် အခ်ိန္ဆြဲ ခ်ဳပ္ကုိင္ထားလုိတဲ့အတြက္ သြားေနတဲ့ လမ္းေၾကာင္းသာျဖစ္တယ္။
June 16, 2009 7:32 PM
Anonymous said...
လူသားေတြရဲ႕ စဥ္းစားဆင္ျခင္ႏုိင္စြမ္း?
a group of human is as good as a group of monkey.
forget abt herd mentality coined by Nietzsche?
ppl r easily influenced by their environment and media. imagine the power of a gov who indirectly control the media.
when most burmese moved to countries with strong social net, the priority they have in mind is how to receive gov handouts and live it off without working.
so when they have to stay in countries like SG, they complain.
"မိခင္ဘာသာစကားေၾကာင့္ ေလယူေလသိမ္းကလြဲရင္ က်န္တာ သူ႕ႏုိင္ငံသားေတြနဲ႔ တသားတည္းျဖစ္ကုန္တာပဲ။"
yes most will wear like and talk like the ghetto black. even in mm, they sing gangster rap.. :D. is it wat u r talking abt?
btw u should know that there is hell lot of difference between adopting a foreign political system in native land going migrating to foreign land and adopting to changing environment.
yes everybody deserves democracy if they know how to create it. the problem is not much society in this world knows how to create it.
obviously all the poor countries r not able to do it coz democracy can only survive in a country with ppl having some kind of right judgment.
i won't be surprised if a astrologer or actress become a prime minister or president one day in MM.
June 16, 2009 10:47 PM
Anonymous said...
btw im not saying နအဖရဲ႕ လမ္းျပေျမပုံနဲ႔ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ is right and fair.
June 16, 2009 10:51 PM
ေက်ာ္ထင္ said...
I couldn't grasp the points what the above anonymous said. So far what I think I got from his comment was
1) US and the West's democracies are not perfect one.
2) Their media is so influential. But they are also under those democratic governments' influence. So they cannot be completely freedom.
3) Burmese people do not deserve liberal democracy outright. Insteand, they deserve 20% democracy this year, then 50% next year and so on. Tell me on which ground are you saying so?
I wouldn't argue much regarding 1 and 2 as they are nothing to do with our country. So just please explain more detail about 3.
June 16, 2009 11:22 PM
Anonymous said...
hi ေက်ာ္ထင္,
what i said is so obvious...
if u want to know more, read more history..
to say again..
"yes everybody deserves democracy if they know how to create it. the problem is not much society in this world knows how to create it.
obviously all the poor countries r not able to do it coz democracy can only survive in a country with ppl having some kind of right judgment.
i won't be surprised if a astrologer or actress become a prime minister or president one day in MM."
June 17, 2009 12:04 AM
ေက်ာ္ထင္ said...
OK Anonymous
Now I got your point. To sum up, you are just looking down the Burmese people.
I am not a historian nor a politician. But I have always watched current political development of my country as well as contemporary international affairs. But as you claimed, I don't need to learn history whether we Burmese deserve democracy or not.
You can't say North Korean people deserve having Kim Jong II as their leader and they don't deserve democracy. Mind that the current south Korea was the same as Burma before 20 years ago. It's just a matter of qualification of leaders how to implement a political system for a country's well-being. Both Korean people have the same capacity. But they seem to be different according to which political system they belong to. It's very broad to debate. Let's talk more about it later when there is chance.
June 17, 2009 12:34 AM
Anonymous said...
Dear ေက်ာ္ထင္,
don't get me wrong. im not saying we don't deserve democracy.
if u ask me if there are any differences between us and the koreans, i'll say yes.
the biggest difference i point out will be work ethic and world view.
we don't see the world as they see. we have different work ethic, values and norms.
June 17, 2009 12:44 AM
Ko Aung said...
To Anonymous:
Ok, you think liberal democracy is not okay for Myanmar. You think only gradual democracy will be okay for Myanmar.
Then, let us know how can we achieve that goal of gradual democracy. Should we accept the 2010 election? (But, again you said the election will not be right and fair.) So, what should we do? Please let us know your own roadmap that you think to be suitable for Myanmar.
June 17, 2009 1:06 AM
ေက်ာ္ထင္ said...
Let's forecast what kinda Democracy will it be after 2010 election. Can we call it as democracy for simply having a few parties and elections?
See the most recent example in Iran. The Iranian people can directly vote for the president. All the presidential candidats are not directly appointed by the military or by Khameine who is the supreme leader.
In Myanmar,
Differences 1: One presidential candidate will be directly named by the Army. The candidate is just merely the stooge of the Army chief. According to the constitutions, the other candidates also are required to have military experience. ( So poepole in SG, JP, UK and so on, forget your dreams to be a president of future Myanmar)
In Iran, the most powerful body is the Guardian council chaired by Khameine. That coucil is somehow the same as Porliburo of Communist pary of China and the Central Military Council (CMS).
In Myanmar,
Analogy1: The similar ten-member body called National Security council which will be formed by at least 5 candidates from the military , with the criteria for the remaining 5 to be preferably for ex-military. That body will have absolute power and will be above the country's cabinet. It will decide when to transfer the state power to the military chief. (Alas! at least they need the council's approval to stage a coupe)
The most striking difference. What is that? The military affairs in China and Iran are under their supreme bodies which are under civilian influence.
But according to the 2008 constitution, no body can give damn on military affairs :P. You cannot try military personnel with the civilian laws. The cabinent will have no power to decide military budget. They are above the laws which we have to be under. OK shall we accept that kinda gradual democracy?
There are many more to talk. But my memories and the time no more allow me to continue.
June 17, 2009 2:26 AM
.jpg)
