The elephant in the room is …

AMONG our top politicians there are those who choose to make Aung San Suu Kyi a scapegoat for the alleged genocide of the Muslim Rohingyas in Myanmar.

In fact, their anger was directed at the Myanmar generals, who are still around and holding the real power behind the throne. But they don’t dare address them directly.

In the Malay village downriver from ours, this indirect reference would be expressed as ‘Pukul anak sindir menantu’. Hit your own daughter when in fact you aim at your son-in-law, or sack your son for the fault of your daughter-in-law.

In Switzerland, you hit the bag when you mean to beat the dog. That’s a kind of Swiss diplomatic language.

I think, we Malaysians are not being diplomatic at all when it comes to criticising Suu Kyi’s role in the government of Myanmar as its de factor leader. Some Malaysians demand the return of her Nobel Peace prize to whoever gave her the award as if she had got it from Malaysia. You could take away that title from her if she held a datukship from Malaysia. Here, she is not even a third-class Datu.

From Facebook I read about a character who boasted of having successfully handled a tiger. Given a chance, he would use his black magic on the winner of the Nobel Peace laureate too. That’s a daft threat, unacceptable to most decent Malaysians.

People who must find a scapegoat at all for the persecution and oppression of the Muslim Rohingyas must pause to think, if Suu Kyi, despite her exalted position, if she has that power at all, to stop the soldiers from harming those Rohingyas and burning their houses.

She is not even the president of the country, although, after her election to the legislature and her party coming to power last year, she said she would rule behind the screen (not unlike the Empress Dowager of Manchu China did). Has she been able to do so? I wonder.

She may have the charisma and the power of verbal persuasion in other fields but does not have the power of the gun at her disposal.

People who have followed the political developments of Burma since its independence from Britain in 1948 should understand the circumstances under which leaders like Suu Kyi are operating – experiencing a painful process of governing of a country faced with so many unsolved problems for so long including serious ethnic armed clashes from the word go.

The territories of the 40-plus ethnic tribes of indigenous peoples living along the borders with Thailand and China were not fully integrated in the Union of Burma in 1948. For instance, during the Anglo-Burmese war, the Karens and related tribe, the Karenni, fought on the side of the British army. Other tribes such as the Shans, the Kachins, the Chins, the Wa and the Mon have had their own armies and governments; their troops have been clashing with the Burmese government’s soldiers for control of, not only of territory but also of trade in precious stones, timber, drugs, and weapons.

The central government armed forces (Tatmadaw) are dominated by one ethnic group, the Burmans with a sprinkling of indigenous officers, for public relations purposes. Not an inclusive recipe for national unity, is it?

After the end of the Japanese War (1945), General Aung San, Suu Kyi’s father, tried to govern the country but he was soon assassinated by his political rivals.

Then there was a semblance of democratic government under U Nu as its premier but that did not last long. It was unstable, thus giving General Ne Win an opportunity to seize power; the military government lasted for a long time until recently.

During those long years of military dictatorship, every time there was a peaceful demonstration by the pro-democracy nationalists, the protesters were brutally suppressed. In 1988 during the students’ peaceful rally in Rangoon and, later in the one organised by the Mandalay monks, thousands were killed in cold blood. To this day a lot of people have not been accounted for. Among them were many Burmese intellectuals. Many of the other leaders including business leaders fled to Thailand and other countries, never to return; only a handful returned to the country recently.

So Burma was deprived of good people to provide political leadership and administrative expertise in civil government, if you talk in terms of government of the people, by the people, for the people.

In fact, it is the military which has been ruling the country even after the election in May 1990, which the NLD won. However, the generals simply refused to hand over power to the elected politicians. The military even built their own capital at Naypyidaw away from Rangoon and there they were governing Myanmar in the fashion of a state within a state. To hell with everybody else.

Even after last year’s election which Suu Kyi’s party won overwhelmingly, the military reserved one third of the seats in parliament. How do you expect Suu Kyi to rule behind the screen/scene in this situation? Can you blame her for not stopping the shooting of the Muslim Rohingyas?

Myanmar has lost so many educated people, student leaders and leaders of industries; they were either killed or incarcerated for a long time in the notorious jails. Heard of Insein Prison?

In such circumstances, try to understand Suu Kyi’s predicament in relation to the treatment of the Muslim Rohingyas.

She came back to Rangoon from overseas in early 1988, not as a knight in shining armour but as a housewife visiting her sick mother. She went straight into the lion’s den four months later, caught in the political turmoil in the country under the military rule. Everybody else other than the military wanted her to provide the necessary political leadership. She couldn’t say no, could she?

But the moment she spoke against the cruelty of military rule in her country, and advocated a democratic government for it, she was put under house arrest. Under such confinement, one cannot expect her to test her ability at ruling such a country.

During such difficult times, filling the void she did from inside her house. Not really effective. She had a father, the famous war hero, Aung San. But fame of the father is not enough with which to dismantle a powerful martial/political structure so well established for over 50 years.

Then she went for election two years ago and got elected easily but she was barred by the army-drafted constitution to hold the post of president simply because she married an Englishman.

The generals are controlling one third of parliament seats by law; they are in fact running the show.

The persecution by the soldiers of the minorities in Myanmar have been the norm for a long time, not only against the Muslim Rohingyas but also the Christians such as the Mon and the Kachins and many other tribes who live along the borders with China and Thailand.

If Malaysia wishes to play a constructive role in helping to settle the religious and ethnic problems in Myanmar, we must resort to diplomacy rather than to confrontation, lest we be accused of interfering in the internal affairs of our neighbours.

A smart move would be for us is to continue engaging with the Myanmar generals through our Chinese Connection. We might as well try our influence, if there is any, indirectly, on the generals. Let our Chinese friends twist the arms of those generals to keep their hands off the Muslim Rohingyas – and for good measure, also their dirty hands off the Christians. These Christians too have been oppressed by the military. Are they not as important as the Muslim Rohingyas?

The military establishment has been indoctrinated by the Burmese Socialism for so long and the generals are not known for clean human rights records. But they might just listen to the Chinese with whom they have a close ideological connection. Also, China with its vast interests in the hydropower dam construction in the Mekong and access to land routes to other parts of the delta, has a stake in Myanmar – a country vital to the Chinese in their scheme of things as are the other Asean countries.

As we have sufficiently bruised the super ego of the generals in power via the Suu Kyi thrashing, it may take some time before we can be trusted by the Myanmar people to initiate any move to help with the Muslim Rohingyas’ plight. But try we must within the Asean framework. Our diplomats will have to work extra hard to convince the generals and as well as Suu Kyi and her party that Malaysia is in fact a friend of Myanmar and the recent scolding her is from one friend who means well to another friend who is full of understanding.

How’s that for diplomatic language. My version!

Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].