THE SILENCE OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI

THE SILENCE OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI

Like a number of her other supporters, Aung San Suu Kyi’s silence has left me feeling uneasy.

I believe she could throw her full stature and weight into the appeasement of hatred in Burma. She, who is a non-violent militant for democracy and human rights, a Nobel prize and one of the great figures of this century.

People have explained to me that Aung San Suu Kyi’s position marks a new phase in her career. The former political prisoner is now a politician who is makes calculations and chooses her causes with care. “Politically, Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing whatsoever to gain from opening her mouth on the subject”, as one expert has said. “She is no longer a political dissident trying to hold on to her principles. She is a politician and her sight is set on the prize, in other words the votes of the Buddhist majority in 2015”. And the overwhelming majority of her fellow citizens view the Muslims not as compatriots, but as invaders from neighbouring Bangladesh. For the ethnic Burmese, the idea that they have to defend the rights of these “foreigners”, far from being an absolute necessity, is seen to be an incredible demonstration of naivety, not to say national treason.

This wave of nationalist sentiment against the Muslims has put Aung San Suu Kyi in a no-win situation.

I know there are not many politicians in the world who are guided by moral norms which would lead them to take brave decisions against their own personal interests. One might even go so far as to say that many of them are selfish. That some of them are even worse, without scruples. The main characteristic of universal justice is its universal absence. And so it is that the idea that one has to defend justice and truth above all else, far from being an absolute necessity, is construed as unbelievable naivety.

To paraphrase Albert Camus, many people think that the grandeur of their country is of no consequence. Anything goes. And in this world, where nothing makes sense any more, those lucky enough to find a purpose in serving the destiny of their country are expected to sacrifice everything to that cause.

It would be too easy to point an accusing finger at Aung San Suu Kyi alone. That’s just how the world is. It is rare to see political elites who act purely in accordance with their moral principles. But it has always, everywhere, been the existence of this fatal alliance between religions, or more correctly the idolisation of religion, and nationalism, murderous identity and militaristic security that has held sway in the darkest and most barbaric hours of the history of humanity. And history has shown that what saves some countries from ignominy is not great men, or politicians, but the wisdom of the people and above all the existence of sufficiently strong moral norms to resist the onslaught of extremists and hardliners of all categories.

And this brings me back to my beloved Albert Camus: “I cannot believe that everything has to be subjugated to the end one is pursuing. There are some means which are inexcusable. And I would like to be able to love my country whilst loving justice at the same time. I do not wish for my country’s grandeur at any price, even at the cost of the blood of lies. I want to see my country living for justice, that’s how I want it to live”.

This is the message that I would like to send to Aung San Suu Kyi.

Ong Thong Hoeung