Yangon - An eye doctor has visited Burma's pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu
Kyi at her home, where she has been detained for most of the past two decades,
her party said on Friday.
The specialist accompanied the Nobel peace laureate's general physician and his
assistant on a rare visit to her lakeside home in the main city Yangon on Thursday.
"The eye specialist spent about an hour with her," National League of Democracy
spokesperson Nyan Win said, adding he had no further details about her health
condition.
Witnesses said her regular physician Tin Myo Win spent about four hours at the
house, just two weeks after his last visit.
The doctor had given Aung San Suu Kyi an intravenous drip on September 14,
about a month after she began refusing to receive food rations delivered to her
home.
The 63-year-old campaigner has refused to meet with anyone other than her
lawyer and her doctor since early August.
She rejected talks with visiting United Nations envoy Ibrahim Gambari and the
junta's liaison officer, labour minister Aung Kyi.
Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD won 1990 elections but the military, which has ruled
Burma since 1962, never allowed them to take power. - AFP
Published on the Web by IOL on 2008-10-03 08:58:28
© Independent Online 2005. All rights reserved. IOL publishes this article in good
faith but is not liable for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information
it contains.
IOL: Eye specialist examines Aung San Suu Kyi Page 1 of 1
http://www.iol.co.za/general/news/newsprint.php?art_id=nw20081003085828846C936625... 10/3/2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Eye specialist examines Aung San Suu Kyi
Dissidents reflect on Burma uprising
WIN TIN
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7649267.stm
This week two Burmese dissidents spoke to the BBC about their country and how things have developed since events one year ago, when monks took to the streets to protest against their government.
Win Tin, who was one of 9,000 prisoners released last week, spent 19 years behind bars. A prominent journalist, he was one of the founders of the opposition National League for Democracy.
Before 2003 I was treated very badly.
Sometimes I was not allowed to sleep; sometimes I was not allowed to eat. For all the time, I was in solitary confinement.
I was interrogated up until 1995. I would be asked questions for hours without being allowed to sleep, for four or five days at a stretch.
Deprivation of sleep is torture, of course.
Sometimes I would be put in the field, handcuffed at the back and with a hood on my head, and I would be put there for hours - from seven in the evening to four in the morning.
I have seen many prisoners who were not given enough food. They would have only one big scoop of rice to last a week. If they asked for more, they were beaten.
Sometimes I feel hatred towards those who treated me this way, but not for long. But I am still angry towards the oppressive military machine.
It is a puzzle as to why the regime released me now, but it was almost impossible for them to keep me longer. I was sentenced to 20 years and I had served 19.
The other thing is that I'm not healthy. I have heart disease. They could not just leave me.
I think there might be some political undercurrent here.
I have noticed a lot of changes since I came out. The telephones for example - before I went to prison, it was impossible to make a call.
But I cannot define all the changes as progress - they are not.
Conditions are almost exactly like in 1988, with people being so poor and finding it so hard to earn their living.
I will continue with my campaign for democracy. I have to. I am nearly 80 now, but in prison I told the authorities I would be going into politics in the country - not because I am well-versed in political affairs, or because I have followers, but because it's my duty.
It's because there have been no democratic changes since I was imprisoned. In fact it's worse.
ASHIN PANNASIRI
Ashin Pannasiri was one of the leading monks in last year's uprising. He was arrested in October 2007 in Upper Burma.
At interrogation centres, I was disrobed and made to do sit-ups several times.
I was also slapped and punched in the face. My interrogators stepped on my toes with their army boots.
In May I was sent to a labour camp in Chin State, which borders India.
There I was chained on both legs and had to break stones and dig ditches. I and another 100 prisoners worked seven days a week without any break. We were given very little food and were always hungry.
In the early hours of 16 September, I crossed the two rows of barbed wires surrounding the camp - and fled.
I was covered in blood, with scratches from the spikes - but fled as I feared for my life.
I walked through the jungle day and night towards the Indian border and reached there after two days.
I now live in Delhi and will continue the struggle as long as injustice prevails in Burma.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7649267.stm
Published: 2008/10/02 20:11:03 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Where Would Burma Be without Suu Kyi?
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By KYAW ZWA MOE Friday, October 3, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's imagine a situation: Burma without Aung San Suu Kyi. Undoubtedly, the ruling generals would see this as a dream come true. But for the majority of Burmese, it would come as a great disappointment to lose the leader of the country’s pro-democracy movement.
Suu Kyi may be a prisoner, but she still has immense power. She strikes fear into the hearts of heavily armed men, while giving moral strength to the powerless. She is the hope of the people of Burma, who have struggled to survive under the boot of their military rulers for the past 46 years.
Her recent refusal to receive food deliveries raised serious concerns about her health and worries about the country’s future without her.
According to her lawyer and her doctor—the only two people who were able to meet her during her month-long ordeal, which began in mid-August—Suu Kyi’s protest against her continued unlawful detention had left her thin and malnourished.
It was the first time in two decades that Suu Kyi had subjected herself to a hunger strike. Soon after beginning her first period of house arrest in 1989, she refused food and demanded to be placed in prison alongside her colleagues. After several weeks, she won guarantees that her fellow pro-democracy activists would not be tortured, and ended her protest. Her weight had dropped from 48 kg (106 lbs) to just 40 kg (90 lbs), and she suffered hair loss, impaired vision and a weakened immune system.
At the time, Suu Kyi was still in her early forties. Now she is in her sixties, and the impact on her health has presumably been much greater, even if she merely restricted her intake of food to the barest requirements for survival.
What would happen if Suu Kyi died or became so unhealthy that she couldn’t continue her role as the political leader of Burma’s pro-democracy movement? It is something we need to ask in light of the fact that she has spent 13 of the past 19 years under house arrest, without regular access to proper medical treatment and under immense psychological pressure.
Most people would prefer not to think of Burma’s future without Suu Kyi. Her absence from politics would probably be a death blow to the already weakened democracy struggle, because she has no obvious successor as leader of the movement.
On the other hand, the ruling generals would probably see Suu Kyi’s demise as an end to an era of trouble. After all, she is even now regarded as a threat to their hold on power.
From the generals’ viewpoint, there are many reasons to believe that the future without Suu Kyi would be very bright indeed. For one thing, they would not have to fear a repeat of the non-violent confrontation that she initiated in early 1989, when she called on people to resist unlawful decrees imposed by the junta. The movement continued for months, until July 19, when the regime used an overwhelming show of force to stop a planned Martyrs’ Day march. The next day, Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest for the first time.
Another reason the generals would be happy to see the back of Suu Kyi is that it would probably mean no more electoral upsets like the one the world witnessed in 1990. Despite the regime’s efforts to ensure a victory for the pro-junta party, Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy inflicted a stunning defeat, winning more than 80 percent of seats in parliament. It was Suu Kyi who urged her party to contest the election, despite the fact that she was still under house arrest at the time and not permitted to participate herself. Even within the confines of her home, she showed the generals that she could make life difficult for them.
It was also Suu Kyi who called for a boycott of the National Convention in 1995. She made this decision a few months after being released from six years of house arrest because she deemed the convention convened to draft a new constitution as undemocratic. The generals have never forgiven her for continuing to resist their plans even after they were good enough to give her back her freedom.
In 1998, Suu Kyi once again proved to be a thorn in the side of the generals. That was the year she spearheaded the creation of the Committee Representing the People’s Parliament, a body that directly challenged the junta’s right to rule. The generals wasted no time in arresting members of the newly formed group.
Since then, Suu Kyi has enjoyed a few brief interludes of relative freedom. Each time, she demonstrated that her immense appeal was in no way diminished by her long absence from the public eye. She campaigned around the country, drawing crowds of thousands eager to hear her speak. Her engaging and courageous speeches inspired hope in the hearts of countless ordinary Burmese—and intense anger among the country’s military rulers, who watched her every move and did everything they could to keep her away from her adoring audiences.
All of these episodes have only served to convince the generals that they need to keep her on a tight rein if they want to carry through their agenda. Last year, they finally succeeded in completing their constitution, which they will use to usher in a new era of military-dominated “democracy” that excludes a democratic opposition. It is doubtful that they would have been able to achieve this long-pursued goal if they hadn’t kept Suu Kyi confined within the walls of her residential compound for the past five years.
Suu Kyi’s reputation as a troublemaker within the military government’s ruling circles has earned her a further—illegal—extension of her current period of house arrest. Although she should have been released in May under Section 10 (b) of the State Protection Act, which only allows for a maximum sentence of five years, she is still in detention.
The regime is now preparing for the next stage in its transition to quasi-civilian rule—the 2010 election, which is intended to undo the damage of the 1990 vote. But in order to reverse the tide of history, the generals know that Suu Kyi must remain detained and silenced.
If Suu Kyi’s health were to fail prior to the election, it would probably deliver the regime the victory that has eluded it for the past two decades. Her death would not spell the end of the democracy movement, but it would leave it greatly weakened.
Although Suu Kyi has spent most of the past two decades almost completely cut off from the outside world, she is still Burma’s single greatest hope for democratic change. She is also a leader who is widely trusted by people of every ethnicity in Burma, and one who is respected by the international community, which will have a major role to play in helping to restore the country’s economy.
She has the rare ability to speak to the generals in a straightforward, unflinching manner. Indeed, her power derives almost entirely from what she calls “plain honesty in politics.” Her courage, dedication and steadfast adherence to the truth have empowered her to speak for the people of Burma in a way that no one else can at this point in the country’s history.
After 46 years under military rule, Burma is very lucky to have someone who can still command such immense power through the sheer force of her convictions. Without her, life would go on, but the country would be impoverished in a way that makes even its current circumstances seem tolerable by comparison.
This article appeared in the October issue of The Irrawaddy magazine.
Japan's election battle already underway on Internet (AFP)
Posted on Fri Oct 3, 2008 3:54AM EDT
TOKYO (AFP) - While snap elections appear to have been pushed back in Japan, the battle between the ruling and opposition camps is already well under way on the Internet.
Prime Minister Taro Aso, who took office last week to lead his conservative Liberal Democratic Party into elections, launched an emailed movie newsletter on Thursday -- a first for a Japanese premier.
"We have concluded that it's a good idea to send videos. Thank you in advance for your support," a relaxed Aso said in the first video of the "Taro Channel," which he plans to email each week.
Aso, 68, is a passionate reader of comic books who has tried to appeal to hardcore fans of pop culture.
Reformist prime minister Junichiro Koizumi started a weekly email in 2001, writing blog-like messages in plain language for the public and featuring famous guest columnists such as New York Yankees slugger Hideki Matsui.
Koizumi's successors Shinzo Abe and Yasuo Fukuda both continued the popular ex-premier's email, but kept it focused on policy priorities.
Aso also maintained the email, vowing in the first issue to work to ease people's anxieties about the struggling economy.
"I am determined to build a strong and bright nation -- a nation of which we, the people of Japan, can feel proud," Aso wrote.
Ichiro Ozawa, head of the main opposition Democratic Party of Japan, launched his own video series on YouTube called the "Life Priority Channel."
"We cannot rebuild and protect people's lives unless the DPJ wins general elections and takes power," Ozawa said. "Through this channel, I want to work hard to win support. Thank you for your cooperation."
Aso was initially expected to call snap elections as early as the end of this month, but he has recently suggested he would hold off until he passes extra funding to help Japan cope with the global economic slowdown.
PetroChina inks 1st natural gas distribution agreement
Oct. 3, 2008 (China Knowledge) - PetroChina<601857><857>
Under the agreement, PetroChina's subsidiary PetroChina Kunlun Gas Ltd (51%) along with three local companies, namely Kunming Cola Gas Ltd (20%), Yunnan Investment Group (20%) and Yunnan Changan Investment Corp (20%) will incorporate a joint venture, which is set to provide urban natural gas distribution services to Kunming city, according to a spokesman at Kunming Coal Gas.
The spokesman said this move will enable PetroChina to expand into urban gas distribution business and cross-border natural gas pipeline between China and Burma.
The Sino-Berman natural gas pipeline is expected to start operation in the first half of 2010 with a capacity of 10 million cubic meters, a local newspaper cited Hu Zhaoke, vice president of Kunming Cola Gas, as saying.
Reportedly, PetroChina's parent China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) had signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a financial group led by Daewoo International Corp in June to buy natural gas from two mining blocks in Burma.
US must send China a clear signal
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/10/03/2003424855
By Gerrit Van Der Wees
Friday, Oct 03, 2008, Page 8
‘The Bush administration thus let itself be used by China to undermine democracy in Taiwan and put the future of the country in question.’
The Russian attack against Georgia on Aug. 6 — two days before the Beijing Olympics began — has led to a number of commentaries drawing parallels between Georgia’s relation with Russia and Taiwan’s with China.
In one article, “Events in Georgia bode ill for Taiwan,” published in The Weekly Standard on Aug. 25, Dan Blumenthal and Chris Griffin strongly criticize the administration of US President George W. Bush for its tepid response to Russia’s invasion. They see in Washington’s complicity in isolating Taiwan a temptation for China’s aggression. They argue for a clear signal that the US will defend Taiwan from attack.
In the article “From Georgia to Taiwan,” published in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 16, Richard Bush and Jeff Bader blame the Bush administration for giving “mixed signals” to Georgia, thereby encouraging Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to “provoke” the Russian bear. On the other hand, they laud Bush’s “more tempered approach” to Taiwan, which led to “a more nuanced American policy” that bolstered Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) election, and “hopeful initiatives to stabilize cross-Strait relations in ways that hold out the prospect for improving Taiwan’s economy, reducing the military threat from China, preserving Taiwan’s democratic system of governance.”
The two articles represent opposite sides of the US political spectrum: Blumenthal and Griffin are associated with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, while Bush and Bader are at the liberal Brookings Institution and are associated with the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
On the policy toward Georgia, we would actually disagree with both analyses: In our view, the Bush administration did a reasonably good job in its expressions of support for the newly democratic country. There may have been some tepid responses right before and after the invasion, but overall, the US did the right thing: Express clear support for Georgia, condemn the Russian invasion and get the NATO partners to form a united front in opposition to the Russian moves.
On the issue of US policy toward Taiwan, we would fully agree with Blumenthal and Griffin and strongly disagree with Bush and Bader: At least since the end of 2003, the policies of the Bush administration toward the democratic island have been abysmal. In 2001, Bush started out quite alright by declaring he would do “whatever it takes” to help defend Taiwan from aggressive moves by China.
However, in December 2003 he somehow got weak knees and started to oppose Taiwan’s evolution toward a full democracy. He opposed a referendum held in conjunction with the 2004 presidential election that expressed opposition to China’s missile buildup. In an infamous TV opportunity, Bush, standing next to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶), didn’t say a word about China’s missiles aimed at Taiwan, but lambasted President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) for wanting to let the people of Taiwan express themselves on this issue. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?
The Bush administration compounded its mistakes last year and this year when it launched a veritable campaign against Taiwan’s UN referendum — which was held concurrent with the presidential election in March — even with people like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressing “opposition” to the referendum.
What went wrong? For one thing, the US was preoccupied by Iraq and Afghanistan and let itself believe that it needed to accommodate China to resolve a number of other fires burning in the world: North Korea, Tibet, Burma, Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
China was able to capitalize on the US’ desire to put out these fires, but at the same time kept them burning in order to gain more concessions from the US.
The Bush administration thus let itself be used by China to undermine democracy in Taiwan and put the future of the country in question. What is needed from a new US administration — whether it is led by Obama or his Republican rival John McCain — is a clear signal by the US that it will help defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese threat or attack. This is in the spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act and we should stick to it.
We also need to emphasize the right of Taiwan to be a full and equal member in the international community. Any talk about only support for participation in organizations “that do not require statehood” undermines Taiwan’s position and is not befitting the US — a nation that portrays itself as the leader of the democratic world.
Both Taiwan and Georgia are examples of countries that have achieved democracy against great odds. If the US wants to expand democracy in the world, it needs to work harder to get these democracies into the mainstream of the international community. At the same time, it needs to convince the large — and less-than-democratic — neighbors that peace and stability can only be achieved if they let their small neighbors next door live and prosper in peace.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
Mizzima News - Llyod's writes to all agents to 'reconsider' business deals with Burma
by Solomon
Thursday, 02 October 2008 20:48
New Delhi - UK's leading insurance marketplace, Lloyd's of London, said it has written to all its managing agents to reconsider their business involvement with Burma's military junta.
Louise Shield, Head of Communications of Lloyd's, told Mizzima that the marketplace' s chairman has received a letter from the British Government's Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) stating its disapproval over the market's involvement with Burma.
"We have been asking the government for guidance on doing business in Burma, and now we have received a letter. And we are writing to all our managing agents," Shield said.
But Shield said, the market's businesses in Burma are not significant and pulling out of the country will not have much impact on the market.
"We have very small amount of insurance business [in Burma]," said Shield. "Probably there is no significant effect in our business."
The response of Lloyd's of London, a leading marketplace in England dealing in reinsurance business, came after campaigners urged several insurance companies across the world to stop dealing with the Burmese military junta, as the regime is profiting from them.
Burma Campaign UK, a group advocating for human rights and democracy in Burma, has named 16 insurance companies including Lloyd's of London, Hannover Re, Catlin, Atrium, XL, Tokio Marine, Sompo Japan and Mitsui Sumitomo as groups having business dealings with the junta.
BCUK, in its report 'Insuring the generals' released in July said, these companies and insurers are providing billions of dollars to the Burmese military regime that is infamously known for repressing its citizens.
Johnny Chatterton, Campaigns Officer of BCUK said, "We welcome the impact of the government's letter, they [Lloyd's of London] now have to write to the entire marketplace. "
Chatterton said, while a few other leading insurance companies of the world have pulled out of Burma, Lloyd's has turned a deaf ear to the call made by him and his colleagues to cut all business ties with Burma's military regime.
In August, two of the world's leading insurance companies Chubb and XL capitals announced a stop to all business deals with Burma's military government in response to the BUCK's campaign.
"The British government clearly wants them to pull out, we want them to pull out," said Chatterton adding that the Burmese regime could lose tens of millions of Dollars if the Lloyd's stop insuring oil and natural gas in the Southeast Asian nation.
BCUK, however, said Lloyd's refusal to reveal the contents of the FCO's letter indicates that it wants to hide its involvement in Burma.
While admitting that Lloyd's has received a letter from the FCO, Shield said they cannot reveal the contents as it is "Private".
BCUK warned that avoiding to act in accordance with the letter would be breaking the government's guidelines and damaging their own reputation.
"If they don't end their involvement in Burma soon they will be branded by Burma in the same way that Barclays was in Apartheid South Africa and Exxon with climate change," Chatterton said in a press statement released on Monday.
"We warmly welcome the government's firm stand against Lloyd's, they should continue their leading role by pushing for targeted EU sanctions banning the provision of insurance services to Burma," Chatterton added.
Charity Concert for the victims of the Cyclone Nargis
Charity Concert for the victims of the Cyclone Nargis
Concert with Japanese Professional musicians
http://www1.jca.apc.org/pfb/char0810.htm
●Date: October 17, 2008 (Friday) 6:30PM－8:30 PM (Door Open 6:00PM )
●Ticket: \3,000
●Venue: Seiryo Kaikan
（Nagata-Cho Staation, Exit.6 (3min.), Kokkai Gijido Exi.5(5min.)）
Map: http://www.seiryokai.org/kaikan.html
●Organizer: People’s Forum on Burma(PFB)
●Supporters' organizations: JAC, Burma Information Network
Amnesty International – Japan
●Guest:
Ms. Tomoe Sawa (Singer, songwriter, pianist)
“Amazing grace”, “Kokoro” etc.
Official website: http://www.comoesta.co.jp/
My space (you can listen to her songs !)
http://www.myspace.com/tomoesawa
Mr. Seiko Ito
"Poetry-reading against the military regime of Myanmar"
You can watch his performance here!
YouTube: FREE BURMA WE ARE BUDDHIST,TOO Poetry Reading Japan on April.19, 2008
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Hj-GwkH2I
Prof. Kei Nemoto (Sophia University, Steering Committee Member of PFB)
Lecture－latest situation in Burma
●Ticket and more information:
People’s Forum on Burma ( PFB): Miyazawa
Tel: 03-5312-4817 (10am-6: 30pm, Monday- Friday)
E-mail: pfb@izumibashi-law.net
Posts
