I've been following what is happening to her since i was a law student. I have blogged about her many times - and she is one who is held in very high esteem in my eyes.
This article however raises a lot of thoughts for me - many issues which i am glad i am not called to make a decision or take a stand. This just reminds me that in life, things are normally complicated. It can never always be a simple black and white matter.
First, the decision of her party not to expel her. The unfair laws of the cruel military junta gave NLD (her party) a choice of "expelling Ms Suu Kyi (and accepting the annulment of the 1990 poll victory) or not contesting the election."
This is really putting them in a Homer Simpson position:-
What would you have done if put into such a position? Look forward? Forget about the past - what is important is to look ahead. Expel her and at least the NLD has a chance of winning some seats. Not doing that will guarantee that NLD will get none.
But after 20 years of protesting against military junta and the annulment of the 1990 poll victory, should they just forget it? And give the military junta the legitimacy that it so dun deserve? And submit to a law that is clearly not right?
They chose the latter route.
This only raised another problem - NLD disbanded. But the members could not remain united. Some felt that they can still form another party and contest in the elections. Others felt it was not right. Many people doubt that this will be a fair elections anyway.
So should they run for elections for then at least there is theoretically a chance for them to have a say in the eventual government? Or do not run for the elections - make a stand. Protest against the illegal and unfair elections and do not give them a chance to allege that they ran against them in the elections and won.
One group formed the NDF and are running in the elections.
Should Aung San Suu Kyi have just stepped down from the NLD and preserve the unity of the party but give in to the wishes of the junta?
The article went on to question other decisions that she had made in the past. These questions were raised by Justin Wintle. One was her choice to remain in Burma after the debacle that took place in 1990. He was of the view that it may have been better for her to leave and "she could then have addressed the UN General Assembly and other international bodies."
But if she had left, she would prolly not be allowed back into Burma again. So what good would it do to her fight? Her heart was in Burma and to suggest that she should have left back then could only come from someone emotionally detached from the situation. After winning the general elections back then, she had the support of the people. Could you blame her for not wanting to leave but to stay on and fight?
Of course on hindsight, we have seen that she did not do anything of great significance to the situation in Burma and ended up being imprisoned for most of the time. But how would anyone have known at that time? How could she have known? And even if she had known, i would not be surprised that she would have still stayed on. There may not be an express indication that she achieved much - but surely no one can deny the impact she has made in these past 2 decades.
But in the coming elections, she will not be running in it. Instead she will be locked up by the military junta. Some even suggest that she has slowly become not relevant anymore.
Is she a fading light then?
Politics is a hard area to be in. I'm glad i'm not in it. Do we sacrifice our idealism for practical outcomes? Should we disassociate ourselves from those who are wrong or compromise with them for a "greater good"? Do the ends always justify the means?
Tough tough choices.
But at the end of the day, even if Aung San Suu Kyi is a fading light today, i'd say that a fading light is still the brightest thing in the darkness.
No comments:
Post a Comment