Low Thia Khiang Says WP 20 Years Away From Being The Government Wednesday, Oct 31 2007

S’pore opposition says 20 years away from government – Paper, Reuters, 31 Oct 2007

A Singapore opposition leader said it would take at least 20 years before his party can challenge the ruling party’s parliamentary dominance and serve as an alternate government, local media said on Wednesday.

“I don’t think the Workers’ Party can challenge PAP’s standards in the near term. For us to become an alternate government is a faraway target … maybe in 20 years,” Workers’ Party leader Low Thia Khiang told Chinese newspaper Lianhe Zaobao in an interview.

At the last election in May 2006, the Workers’ Party won 16.3 percent of votes, giving Low one of two opposition seats in the 84-seat parliament. The PAP, which has been in power for four decades, won 82 seats with 66.6 percent of the votes cast.

Low said that, unlike opposition parties in Western countries, his party does not have enough resources to provide alternative solutions for every decision that the PAP makes.

He said the Workers’ Party lacks the kind of access to resources that the PAP has when drawing up policies and plans, such as the city state’s civil service and top-notch scholars.

Low said the Workers’ Party’s role is to suggest improvements to the policies made by the government.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

{FOI} – WP chief sets target of winning GRC in next election by Peh Shing Huei & Jeremy Au Yong, Sunday Times, 4 Nov 2007

Low Thia Khiang speaks of party’s goal at its 50th anniversary dinner held last night

THE Workers’ Party (WP) aims to achieve a breakthrough in Singapore politics by winning a GRC in the next General Election, said its leader Low Thia Khiang last night.

The task is ‘a must’, said the Hougang MP, if Singaporeans want its parliamentary democracy to function properly.

‘In my view, as long as the opposition is unable to secure a breakthrough in a GRC, the opposition remains a marginal player and at risk of extinction one day,’ he told about 700 people at a dinner to celebrate the WP’s 50th anniversary.

‘Any talk of checks and balances and alternative government would be just talk, let alone the dream of seeing an opposition party winning an election and taking over the government like in mature Western democracies.’

The dinner, held at the Fortunate Restaurant in Toa Payoh, was a lively occasion, with people seated at 67 tables.

Guests included the wife and son of the WP founder, the late Mr David Marshall – Jean, 81, and academic Jonathan, 38, – along with leaders of other opposition parties such as MrChiam See Tong of the Singapore Democratic Alliance and the National Solidarity Party’s Sebastian Teo.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, the WP leader before Mr Low took over the helm in 2001, was absent.

Since the GRC was introduced in 1988 to ensure minority representation in Parliament, no opposition party has won such a group representation constituency, which has at least three seats.

Its introduction has divided elections into two leagues, said MrLow, who is the WP secretary-general.

The first league is the GRC and the second is the single member constituency (SMC) where no opposition candidate has unseated an incumbent since 1991.

He slammed the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) for redrawing electoral boundaries to dissolve SMCs and create new ones.

Now, even single wards are hard to win for the opposition as the PAP fields office-holders such as ministers of state, or incumbent MPs with strong grassroots support, he observed.

‘If the situation continues, the opposition will be significantly weakened and its ability to contest elections to allow Singaporeans to exercise their political rights will be affected.’

He is, however, optimistic that there is a general aspiration among Singaporeans for the opposition to thrive.

This aspiration has not materialised because of the ruling party’s moves to limit political space and change election ground rules, among others, he said. But he acknowledged that it is also due to voters not having enough confidence in the opposition.

‘For those who feel that WP is not up to the mark, how about coming forward to do some public service? I challenge the critics of WP to join the Workers’ Party to make it better,’ he said.

Both Mr Low and party chairman Sylvia Lim paid tribute to veteran members – including former party chairman Tan Bin Seng and former organising secretary Ng Ah Chwee – who made ‘great sacrifices’ for the party.

Speaking to reporters at the dinner, Mr Chiam, the MP for Potong Pasir, welcomed Mr Low’s bid for a GRC win.

‘The fact that the opposition has not grown shows that the PAP has put obstacles in the way.

‘I believe we must win a GRC. If he wants to, he should get the strongest team,’ he said, adding that he would not rule out joining forces with Mr Low.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

{FOI} – Interview with WP chief Low Thia Khiang, Peh Shing Huei, Straits Times, 3 Nov 2007

You gave the PAP a passing grade earlier this week. But you also mentioned that they can be more tolerant. In what areas would you like to see more tolerance?

They can be more tolerant towards political activities by political parties, such as when we wanted to apply to cycle at East Coast Park, the permit was not granted. I’m sure that isn’t going to threaten public security.

So I believe there is room where the Government can look into allowing more political space, to a have more open and consultative kind of environment, where they allow some activities like peaceful demonstrations in an area. Currently, they may allow you to do so at the Speakers’ Corner. But I’m sure we can afford to have more than one Speakers’ Corner here.

How is your party’s recruitment efforts? Do people reject you now because of fear?

No. People do come forward to join us. The challenge really is whether people who join us will remain and be actively involved in the party activities because I think everybody is hard- pressed for time. We are all volunteers.

We do have young people joining us. But I believe we don’t have a sufficient number yet to have the critical mass of manpower that we want.

You have said that you might one day contest in a GRC. How serious are you about that?

Well, my answer, as I have said before, is that I do not rule out the possibility that one day I might contest in a GRC. Many people are very interested to know when it would happen. My answer is you would know on Nomination Day.

But what is the likelihood of that happening?

Well, I don’t want to speculate because there is still some time before the next election.

Some wonder if you might be just like Mr Chiam See Tong and stay in Hougang like he is staying in Potong Pasir?

You will know when the time comes.

But wouldn’t your younger members very much love you to join them and contest a GRC?

Then perhaps you can ask my younger members whether they like me or they think I am lao-kok-kok (old and stuttering) already – ‘You join us, you may spoil the chance’.

But by keeping the option open that you may one day join them in a GRC, is that one way that you encourage them, to sustain their passion in WP?

Well, I think the passion has to be their own. And they must have the political passion to serve. They can’t depend on whether I would join them one day or not. That is hypothetical.

The PAP is only three years older than the WP. Why do you think the two parties are so different in what they’ve accomplished?

You cannot compare at all because one is a ruling party, monopolising the power and the resources since 1959. The Workers’ Party has been the opposition since 1959.

And you know what the PAP has done after becoming government. They have moved to capture the ground in terms of grassroots, in terms of regulation, restriction and all that, curtailing the development of the whole political process.

I think it is no mean feat that the Workers’ Party has survived until now. And you look at the other political parties at the point in time, where are they? What happened? Why? I think people must ask these questions.

Over the last few months, quite a few netizens online wonder why the Workers’ Party has been very quiet, especially in the wake of the CPF changes. What is your response?

First of all, the Workers’ Party is a responsible party and I do not believe in just making statements, just making comments for the sake of making noise, or of being labelled or afraid of being labelled inactive or quiet, in particular for the CPF issue.

When the PM spoke at the National Day Rally, not all details were out. It is imprudent for a responsible political party to start jumping up and down without even knowing what are the details, what is the concrete plan.

We have made an informed statement and we can properly represent the public and tell the public what is our stand. I know this is the Internet age but I think we can’t just respond because people want us to respond.

But what if that is precisely what some people want now – speed, fast, instant?

I don’t know, but I think, I’m a bit slow, I have to admit that. I have to admit that I am slow. And people who want it faster should perhaps consider joining the Workers’ Party.

I’m old, maybe slower. The younger ones will be faster, so we have more younger ones, perhaps maybe the Workers’ Party will move faster. So those people who think that we are slower, well, come and join the Workers’ Party to make it faster.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

{FOI} – 20 years for Workers’ Party to match PAP?

Sec-Gen Low wants WP to be respected and reliable first

TODAY, November 1, 2007

AS THE Workers’ Party celebrates this weekend its 50th anniversary, and Secretary-General Low Thia Kiang takes a measure of satisfaction with his party’s performance so far, he already has hopes for its 60th anniversary.

He hopes he will no longer be party chief by then.

It is a sign of the confidence he has in the prospects for the party, which was the best performer among the opposition parties at last year’s General Election.

Come WP’s 70th anniversary, he reckons it will be ready finally to match the quality of the People’s Action Party (PAP) and have a good go at forming Singapore’s government.

In a broad-ranging interview with Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao, Mr Low — who became WP secretary-general in 2001 — gave the PAP a definite “passing” grade. And he said that there is more space in Singapore politics now.

But he noted that the ruling party had the backing of many scholars to help draw up policies, while the WP’s resources and ability to mobilise people are limited. So, what the WP can do currently is propose refinements to government policies.

One of Mr Low’s main grouses about current policies is that they have not engendered sufficiently, in his view, a sense of belonging in the country.

“For example, in the debate on CPF, some people say: Might as well take out CPF and migrate,” he said in describing the sense of insecurity caused by a higher withdrawal age.

“Identification with a country is a feeling; it means that no matter what, I was born here, so I die here. I think Singapore has not reached such a stage of emotional identification.”

At this point, though, his main preoccupation is to make the WP a respected and reliable party.

“Our main aim is to … garner more support from the constituents, and make a breakthrough in the elections, especially in the Group Representation Constituencies. At the same time, we hope that the WP can play an important role in Singapore’s democratic process, and as a result, make the democratic process more competitive,” he said. “Politics should be about responsible politics. The opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog. That’s the right path for a political party.”

As for succession in the WP, when asked by Zaobao if party chairman Sylvia Lim would take over the reins eventually, he said it was for all the WP members to decide. He did say, however, why he did not invite the PAP to his party’s anniversary.

“When we had our 40th anniversary celebration, we did invite them, but they replied to say ‘thank you for inviting but we cannot attend’. So, I thought, don’t make things difficult for other people. So, we didn’t send an invite this year,” he said.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

{FOI} – WP chief: 377A debate shows more openness, Straits Times website, 31 Oct 2007

WORKERS’ Party (WP) leader Low Thia Khiang sees the Government’s handling of the recent debate on the law against male homosexuality as a sign of greater openness here.

He cited the Section 377A debate as an example of a more relaxed political atmosphere, as he gave the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) a passing grade in its governance

‘You don’t see very strong reactions from the Government towards criticisms and citizen initiatives,’ he told The Straits Times on Wednesday night.

‘The environment has changed compared to when I just joined politics in the early ’80s…people are more vocal and people are more comfortable to air their views in public. So I think it is an improvement.’

In a separate interview with Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao ahead of the WP’s 50th anniversary celebrations on Saturday, he was asked how he would grade the PAP government. He said it was ‘definitely a pass’.

But at the same time, he criticised some of the Government’s policies, arguing that the recent Central Provident Fund (CPF) changes are unfair to the elderly.

He said that by delaying the draw-down age of the CPF Minimum Sum, the Government is essentially leaving older Singaporeans with no choice but to continue working.

While supporting the Government’s anti-terrorism moves, he expressed concern that they may increase the authorities’ power.

Still, the WP secretary-general – who said he hoped that he will not be the party leader when it celebrates its 60th anniversary – insists it is not right for a political party to oppose for the sake of opposing.

‘The term opposition is a legacy of the Western parliamentary system, and I have never believed that an opposition party should oppose for the sake of opposing or to shoot one’s mouth off.

‘Politics should be about responsible politics. The opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog. That should be the path for a political party.’

It is also not the job of the opposition here to offer alternatives to all government policies, he argued.

While the ruling party has specialists to study and research various issues, the opposition lacks the resources to come up with alternatives.

He pointed out that the WP is unlike the opposition parties in the West, which come up with alternative policies for everything.

The WP’s role is to revise and improve on government policies. Moreover, the opposition should not shoot its mouth off, and offer alternative policies on a whim.

‘A political party needs to reach a certain stage before it can offer alternative policies, that is, at a stage where it is capable of replacing that government. And WP still has a very long way to go before reaching this stage.’

In fact, he did not think his party is ready to challenge the PAP for government in the ‘near future’.

Said the 51-year-old: ‘To become ready to take over the government is a very long-term goal. Every political party wishes to be ready to form the government and eventually become the ruling party. But to me, this is still very far, we need to take one step at a time.’

One Response »

 

Monks In Burma March Again Wednesday, Oct 31 2007

Pakokku Monks March on the Streets Again, The Irrawaddy, 31 Oct 2007

More than 100 monks in Pakokku Township in Magwe Division marched in a peaceful demonstration, starting about 8 am on Wednesday. The monks marched through the town’s streets chanting the “Metta Sutta” (the Buddha’s words on loving kindness). Many residents bowed before the protesting monks and the march ended peacefully about one hour later, sources said. Military authorities are now investigating which monasteries were involved in the march, said local residents. Pakokku was the site of the first violent crackdown on monks engaged in peaceful demonstrations in early September, which escalated into a nationwide anti-junta uprising in Rangoon and other cities.

200 monks protest in Pakokku by Aye Nai, Democratic Voice of Burma, 31 Oct 2007

Around 200 monks from several monasteries in Pakokku staged a walking protest at 8.30 this morning, according to a monk who participated in the march.

The monk said that the protest was a continuation of last month’s demonstrations as he said the monks’ demands have still not been met.

“Our demands are for lower commodity prices, national reconciliation and the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners,” the monk explained.

The monks came from monasteries around Pakokku, including the West and Central monasteries, and chanted metta as they marched three in a row, with monks in the first row holding Sasana flags.

They started walking along Bogyoke road towards Thida road, then turned into Pauk road before ending the march at Shwe Ku pagoda.

The monk said the group was not afraid of the response of the authorities.

“We are not afraid of getting arrested or being tortured. We are doing this for Sasana,” he said.

The protest began about one hour after a pro-government rally in the same town ended, and authorities did not intervene to stop the monks’ march.

The monks reportedly notified the authorities in advance, telling them that if a pro-government demonstration was taking place then the monks should also be allowed to hold their protest.

The monk said there would be more and larger demonstrations in the future.

“We did not have much time to organise the protest as we did not actually plan for it, so there weren’t a lot of monks. But there will be bigger and more organized protests soon,” he said.

The monk said that civilian bystanders supported the protest but were afraid to express this openly.

“We would like to urge people not to be afraid since we are doing this for good future of our country,” he said.

##############

The Power Behind the Robe by Aung Zaw, The Irrawaddy, 5 Oct 2007

Why Burma’s generals fear the influence of the Sangha

The Lord Buddha shunned worldly affairs, but in his teachings he stressed the need for good governance and good rulers in the practice of politics.

Rangoon, September 24; Buddhist monks lead a demonstration march by an estimated 100,000 people through Burma’s former capital [Photo: AP]

The Buddha said: “When the ruler of a country is just and good, the ministers become just and good; when the ministers are just and good, the higher officials become just and good; when the higher officials are just and good, the rank and file become just and good; when the rank and file become just and good, the people become just and good.”

If these admonitions are followed by the large community of monks—the Sangha—in predominantly Buddhist Burma, the lingering “love lost” relationship between the country’s military rulers and its monks should be no surprise.

Over the last two decades, Burma’s Sangha community, officially estimated to number around 400,000, has had an uneasy relationship with the ruling generals, who have imprisoned several prominent, politically active monks or pongyis. It is estimated that since the present military regime came to power in 1988, about 300 monks have been defrocked and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.

Monks, considered “sons of Buddha,” are the biggest institution in Burma after the armed forces, which number more than 400,000 soldiers and police.

In their close contacts with the common people and during their morning alms rounds of local households, the monks witness firsthand the suffering and poverty of ordinary Burmese citizens. They have a very clear picture of the deteriorating situation in Burma.

Hundreds of monks and nuns pray during a demonstration at Shwedagon Pagoda, Rangoon, on September 23 [Photo: The Irrawaddy]

More importantly, they probably have a better network, connections and influence than politically active students, who are constantly watched, imprisoned or forced into exile.

Who could imagine that these monks, living quietly in monasteries and studying Dhamma, would ever plan to rebel against the repressive regime? Yet history has shown that monks have long played a pivotal role in politics and that they would indeed dare such a bold and dangerous undertaking.

The role of political pongyis is controversial and potentially threatening to the ruling elite, although there has been a continuing debate on whether monks really should involve themselves in politics.

The Early Rebellion

Monks were involved in early outbreaks of resistance against British colonization, joining lay people in taking up arms against the British after seeing King Thibaw sent into exile.

Monks have their resistance martyrs—U Ottama, for instance, who led 3,000 rebels in the Salin area a year after the invasion of Mandalay. The rebel monk, also known as Bo Ottama, was captured and hanged by the British in 1889.

Interestingly, historians noted that monks who took up arms voluntarily defrocked themselves first, following the precept forbidding monks to take lives.

Another martyr, Saya San, who was an ex-monk, led a peasant uprising in Tharrawaddy opposing the tax system imposed by the British. Burma’s colonial masters sent 10,000 troops to quell the rebellion, capturing Saya San and sending him, too, to the gallows.

Buddhist monks make their daily alms rounds in Rangoon, as a family in a pedicab passes by [Photo: AP]

One of the top Burmese lawyers who defended Saya San at his trial was Dr Ba Maw, who later became head of state in Burma’s Japanese-backed government.

Not all monks advocated armed struggle. Two who preached nonviolent resistance, U Wisara and another monk named U Ottama, spent many years in prison for their opposition to colonialism and their names have joined the list of independence heroes.

U Ottama, a globe-trotting, well-respected monk from Arakan State, was a powerful speaker whose calls for independence were featured in the national newspaper Thuriya. He once famously told the British Governor Sir Reginald Craddock to go home to Britain, in a speech that landed him in prison.

Like U Ottama, U Wisara was imprisoned several times for his public speeches and died in jail in 1929 after 166 days of a hunger strike. His prison sentences included terms of hard labor, and he was also defrocked.

Both monks became an inspiration to activists and students involved in the independence movement.

Scholar Michael Mendelson wrote in his “Sangha and State in Burma,” that all politically active monks tended to be labeled by the colonial authorities as “political agitators in the yellow robes.” Interestingly, a similar term is used by Burma’s current leaders to describe protesting monks.

U Ottama (left), U Wisara [Illustrations: Harn Lay/The Irrawaddy]

Historians wrote that the British authorities were surprised to learn the influential role of the Sangha community, and soon after the invasion of 1885 they abolished the position of “Supreme Patriarch,” or Thathana-baing.

In former times, Burmese kings appointed Thathana-baing to govern the Sangha community and made them responsible for doctrinal instruction and discipline of all monks. But the position wasn’t accepted by the entire Sangha. The progressive Shwegin sect was one group that rejected it. Sectarianism created controversy and bitter rivalry among monks.

During the Kon-Baung period in the 18th century, conflicts arose within the Sangha over how the monastic robes were supposed to be worn, and two conflicting sects arose—the so-called Ton Gaing and Yon Gaing.

The Burmese scholar Tin Maung Maung Than records that the Toun-goo and early Kon-Baung dynasties were drawn into the rivalry by their royal patronage of one party or the other. In 1782, King Bodawphaya intervened in the controversy by siding with Ton Gaing.

One experienced colonial political officer, Col Edward Sladen, conversant with the power of the Sangha, advised British authorities to maintain the Thathana-baing system in order to head off conflicts in governing the predominately Buddhist country.

The role of Thathana-baing was undoubtedly a complicated one, involving a direct link between the monarchy and the Sangha. The Thathana-baing wielded influence and could even intervene in state affairs. One respected abbot even persuaded King Mindon to abandon corvée labor for his irrigation projects. It’s ironic that the current regime argues that forced labor is a feature of Burmese tradition and a means of making merit.

After independence, however, the influence of Buddhism and the Sangha went into decline, except for a period under the late prime minister U Nu, a devout Buddhist.

U Nu himself was ordained as a monk several times and rarely exploited Buddhism for his own political ends. Under his government, the Sixth Great Buddhist World Council was held in 1954, and he also created the Buddha Sasana Council.

Tin Maung Maung Than noted in his book, “Sangha Reforms and Renewal of Sasana in Myanmar: Historical trends and Contemporary Practice”: “Because of various Gaing and sectarianism U Nu failed to take effective reforms in spite of institutionalization of Buddhism within the state superstructure and notwithstanding the holding of the Sixth Buddhist Synod in 1954.”

U Nu also attempted to legalize Buddhism as the state religion in 1961. The attempt was considered to be a misguided policy, and it anyway failed to materialize as U Nu was ousted by Gen Ne Win one year later.

Ne Win regarded monks as a potential opposition and he developed a different strategy to control them. In the mid-1960s, his regime called a Sangha conference to issue monks with identification cards. Young monks and abbots stayed away from the gathering.

It wasn’t until 1980 that Ne Win succeeded in containing the monks by establishing a “State Sangha Nayaka Committee,” after a carefully orchestrated campaign to discredit the Sangha. Part of the campaign was to discredit a famous monk, Thein Phyu Sayadaw, who was accused of romantic involvement with a woman. He was defrocked.

Before the campaign, intelligence officers and informants of the government infiltrated the temples as monks and gathered information about monks and abbots.

Some well-known abbots, including Mahasi Sayadaw, an internationally respected monk who was invited by U Nu in 1947 to teach Vipassana meditation, were also targeted in the campaign.

Anthropologist Gustaaf Houtmann wrote in his paper “Mental Culture in Burmese Crisis Politics” that the regime had “distributed leaflets accusing Mahasi of talking with the nat spirits, and it was claimed that the Tipitaka Mingun Sayadaw, Burma’s top Buddhist scholar, had been involved in some unsavory incident two years after entering the monkhood.” Both monks were victims of their refusal to cooperate with the regime.

A number of scholars and historians noted, however, that some abbots accused and charged by the government were indeed involved in scandals and had romantic relationship with women or nuns.

The regime’s campaign sometimes took bizarre forms. Rumors were circulated, for instance, suggesting that one Rangoon monk, U Laba, was a cannibal. Several famous abbots were implicated in scandals and were either defrocked or fled to neighboring Thailand. Ne Win successfully launched a “Sangha reform”—also known as “Cleaning Up the Sangha.”

The government managed to get some recognition from elderly Buddhists by forming the Sangha Committee. But Ne Win did not pretend to be a devout Buddhist. He rarely participated in Sangha meetings and held few religious ceremonies during the 26 years of his rule. Unlike current leaders, he was rarely seen with monks.

During the 1988 uprising, however, his government asked the Sangha Committee to help restore order, and senior monks appeared in live television broadcasts appealing to the public for calm.

In August, 1988, days after the massacre in Rangoon, monks expressed sorrow for the loss of life, but—to the surprise of many—they also appealed to the regime to govern in accordance with the 10 duties prescribed for rulers of the people. The appeal failed to calm the public mood, but the message did remind many Burmese of the “10 duties of rulers”—the monks were telling Ne Win to be a good ruler.

On August 30, the Working People’s Daily reported: “1,500 members of the Sangha marched in procession through the Rangoon streets and gathered in front of the Rangoon General Hospital emergency ward, where they recited “Metta Sutta” in memory of rahans (monks), workers and students who fell in the struggle for democracy.” Many young monks were among the demonstrators.

For many Burmese, the struggle for democracy is not yet over and the discord between the Sangha and the ruling generals remains strong.

Unlike Ne Win and U Nu, the generals who came to power in 1988 openly and audaciously schemed to buy off the Sangha community. They have also claimed to be protectors of the Sangha, although their motive is to gain political legitimacy.

Aside from holding numerous merit-making ceremonies, offering hsoon and valuable gifts to monks, the military leaders are launching well-publicized pagoda restoration projects throughout Burma. Nevertheless, confrontations between rebellious monks and the authorities continue.

In Mandalay in 1990, troops fired on the crowds, killing several people, including monks. Angered by the military’s brutality, Mandalay monks began a patta ni kozana kan, refusing to accept alms from members of the armed forces and their families.

The same action has now been taken by monks in several provinces after authorities beat protesting monks in Pakokka, central Burma.

“Patta ni kozana kan” can be called in response to any one of eight offences, including vilifying or making insidious comparisons between monks, inciting dissension among monks or defaming Buddha, the Dhamma or the Sangha.

A “patta ni kozana kan” campaign can be called off if the offended monks receive what they accept as a proper apology from the individuals or authorities involved. This procedure involves a ceremony held by at least four monks inside the Buddhist ordination hall, at which the boycott would be canceled.

Some monks in Burma may believe that the “patta ni kozana kan” of 1990 is still in effect, since they haven’t yet received any proper apology—only a harsh crackdown. At that time, monks refused to attend religious ceremonies held by military officials and family members.

In one incident, the Mandalay Division commander at the time, Maj-Gen Tun Kyi, who later became trade minister, invited senior monks and abbots to attend a religious ceremony but no one showed up. Military leaders realized the seriousness of the boycott and decided to launch a crackdown.

In Mandalay alone, more than 130 monasteries were raided and monks were defrocked and imprisoned. As many as 300 monks nationwide were defrocked and arrested.

Former political prisoners recalled that monks who shared prison quarters with them continued to practice their faith despite being forced to wear prison uniforms and being officially stripped of their membership of the Sangha.

Several monks, including the highly respected Thu Mingala, a Buddhist literature laureate, and at least eight other respected senior abbots, were arrested. Thu Mingala was sentenced to eight years imprisonment.

Apart from being stripped of their robes, imprisoned monks in Mandalay were forced to wear white prison uniforms and were taunted with nicknames instead of being addressed with their true titles, according to former political prisoners.

One year later, in 1991, the then head of the military junta, Snr-Gen Saw Maung, suffered a nervous breakdown and retired for health reasons. Buddhist Burmese still say this was punishment for his maltreatment of the monks.

The 1990 crackdown divided the Sangha community. The late Mingun Sayadaw, who was secretary of the State Sangha Maha Nayaka Committee, was ridiculed by young monks for not supporting the boycott campaign. He was at one time called “senior general Mingun Sayadaw,” and when he visited one temple in Mandalay young monks reportedly saluted him.

Today, while rebellious monks are prepared to go to prison, many senior monks and abbots are allowing themselves to become government tools by accepting gifts and large donations from the generals. By cuddling up to the ruling generals, these elderly abbots can no longer speak for the Sangha community at large, let alone comment on the suffering of the Burmese people. The divisions between abbots and young monks have inevitably widened.

The generals, on the other hand, won’t give up easily. In one spectacular bid to win the hearts and minds of the people, they borrowed a Buddha tooth relic from China and toured the country with it and also held a World Buddhist Summit.

In 1999, military leaders renovated Shwedagon Pagoda, after the Htidaw, the sacred umbrella, had been removed amid reports of minor local earthquakes. Local people said the spirits of Shwedagon had been upset with the removal of the Htidaw. Restoration of the pagoda complex did nothing to help the generals’ image, though.

The generals have also applied “divide and rule” strategies in dealing with the Sangha community and the opposition.

In 1996, the regime accused the National League for Democracy of infiltrating the Sangha with the aim of committing subversive acts against the authorities. The generals obviously did not want to see opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi developing too close a relationship with the monks.

In an attempt to neutralize the political role of Suu Kyi, the government sent a famous, London-based monk, Dr Rewatta Dhamma, to visit the detained opposition leader in 1995. Claiming to be a peace-broker between Suu Kyi and the generals, the monk shuttled between her and top leaders. But his mission failed and he returned to London. Skeptics believe the generals had merely used U Rewatta in a bid to persuade Suu Kyi to relinquish politics.

Ironically, the regime leaders publicly accused Suu Kyi of being a communist and of sacrilege because she had said in a campaign speech that “any human being can become a Buddha in this life.”

Soon after her release from her first term of house arrest in 1995, Suu Kyi immediately traveled to Karen State, followed by infuriated intelligence officers. She went there to make an offering to “Thamanya Sayadaw.”

Traditionally, temples have provided hiding places for activists, and in 1988 monks offered shelter to fugitives from the intelligence authorities.

At one time, the regime even placed restrictions on opposition members, preventing them from ordaining as monks. Like universities and schools, politically active monasteries are under heavy surveillance.

The widely respected abbot Bhaddanta Vinaya, known as Thamanya Sayadaw because he lived on Thamanya Hill, was involved in projects to help villagers in the area, work that was shunned by the generals.

He was revered not only for the mystical powers he was said to possess, but also because of his refusal to kowtow to the regime leaders. He once famously refused to accept the gift of a luxury vehicle from the then powerful intelligence chief Gen Khin Nyunt.

Khin Nyunt could not buy Thamanya.

It may indeed be wrong to assume that Burma’s regime leaders are devout Buddhists. The generals and their families seem to place more trust in astrology and numerology than in Buddhist ritual. They treasure white elephants and lucky charms and are constantly seeking advice from astrologers.

Birds of a feather, such as the generals and their chief astrologers, not only flock together but fall together, too. Ne Win’s family astrologer, Aung Pwint Khaung, was arrested in 2002 when the former dictator and his family were charged with high treason.

Khin Nyunt’s chief astrologer, Bodaw Than Hla, was imprisoned after the former Prime Minister and Military Intelligence chief was toppled in 2004.

Many Burmese may find it hard to believe that their military leaders are actually preserving Buddhism. Even when they are building pagodas and erecting Buddha images, the projects are based on astrological predictions and readings.

Who, for instance, advised Ne Win to ride a wooden horse on his aircraft and to ask the pilot to circle his birthplace nine times? Who advised him to issue banknotes in denominations of 45 and 90 kyat?

Who advised Khin Nyunt to dress up in women’s clothing, complete with the signature flower that Suu Kyi wears, in order to steal power from “the Lady”? Who told Than Shwe to move his capital to central Burma?

It certainly wasn’t a belief in Buddhist tenets. Nor does Buddhism permit the military to beat, defrock, imprison and kill monks.

The decline of Buddhism and the rise of militarism in Burma are a source of concern for the people of Burma. Thus, it is no surprise to hear social critics and political pongyis maintain that the generals who kneel down before images of Buddha are the real threat to Buddhism and Dhamma.

Leave a Response »