Famous Burmese comedian, Par Par Lay (pictured on the right holding the “Most Wanted” sign) was taken away from his Mandalay home two weeks ago and has not been heard from since. Along with the rest of his family, Par Par Lay (part of the “Moustache Brothers” troupe) has been regularly performing unauthorised shows in Mandalay for years. Many foreign visitors to the city have laughed at his group’s mad-cap antics. Of course, the humour has always had a dark side. Par Par Lay and Lu Zaw (on the left with the “KGB” sign) did nearly six years of hard time for a performance they gave back in 1996.
After their release, part of their security (and livelihood) was provided by the regular stream of tourists and others who passed dusty nights in Mandalay laughing away in the front room of their house.
By all reports, even after Par Par Lay’s arrest, the show goes on…
For more information on Par Par Lay do check out these good reports from Amnesty International, The Times and The Irrawaddy. Of course, many others (over 500 by one incomplete count) have also been locked up during the current crackdown. And hundreds of political prisoners have languished in detention for years. Some of the most prominent prisoners are discussed on this informative page from the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma.
If you want to learn more, the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) provides some outstanding resources. By their count, there were 1,158 political prisoners before 21 August 2007.
Even the best informed sources don’t really know how many there are now.
Update 12 October 2007: The Irrawaddy has two distressing reports (here and here) of torture, abuse and death in the country’s notorious prisons.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Richard // Oct 12, 2007 at 3:17 am
Six years.
It is men like that who do not get enough attention from the world. The are among many ‘future legends’ who bravely risk eveything for what the West has and does not consider ‘worth it’. Men and women like this leave me at a loss for words. I would say I genuinely love them.
Aung San Suu Kyi once wrote, “To be Burmese is to be Buddhist”. I would say to be from Burma is to be part of a selfless struggle in which there are many who are willing to suffer great calamities with their own people, Suu Kyi included but certainly not unique.
The people of Burma are the model for humanism that is dying in the West. And here in the states – mediocrity plows forward. I wonder to were.
One of my favorite authors, Ernest Becker, wrote about the Hero Myth in the West. In Burma, it is clear, there is no myth.
2 Ann // Oct 12, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I wonder when men will realise that freedom is a basic, fundamental right. It is not something we earn or should have to struggle so hard to attain.
I am heart broken about what is happening in Burma. Yes these men will eventualy be internationally recognised as heroes long after Burma attains freedom, but right now they suffer for no reason what soever except that those in power are so corrupted by this power that they cannot stand to be human.
3 Sidh S. // Oct 12, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Well put, Richard – my sentiments exactly. And thanks Nicholas for posting this and highlighting Par Par Lay and others’ plight. These are great, uncelebrated grass-roots ‘heroes’ in the truest sense of the word. They have my love and deepest admirations too (more than I will ever have for my sports football heroes and rock gods). They are resisting through their art, as with the monks through their beliefs, (almost futilely, it seems, but I hope not) violent nationalist and patriotic narratives such as of the great all-conquering Burmese warrior-kings of the past in which the junta claim to model (which suggests that they are living in a totally different self-aggrandizing world altogether). They clearly have no fear nor any regard for these ‘weak’, non-violent resistances nor for their popularity whether internal or external (my practical mind is still hoping for a coup from within, new military generation willing to establish dialogue and negotiations with democratic reformers).
4 serf // Oct 12, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Thank you Richard!
Here are the comments of a big-business proxy diplomat. I’d say the attitude of the superpowers is even more hypocritical this time around:
QUOTE
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/10/11/commentary_the_onesided_view_of_myanmar/
Commentary: The one-sided view of Myanmar
TOKYO, Oct. 11
YOICHI YAMAGUCHI
Guest Commentary
Most international media tend to report about the current situation in Myanmar and the monks’ demonstrations as a popular uprising for democracy against the oppressive military regime. But this is too simplistic, if not one-sided.
Having been engaged with Myanmar for over a decade, first as Japan’s ambassador to the country for three years starting in 1995, then as a concerned regular visitor, I can testify that Myanmar’s military regime is quite different from those of Cambodia under Pol Pot or the Philippines under the dictatorial Ferdinand Marcos.
But international media seldom report anything positive about the current Myanmar government. For instance, most Japanese newspapers reported that 100,000 people took part in the latest anti-government demonstrations. Yet judging from TV images, this figure is grossly inflated.
This sort of bloated reporting regarding anti-government activities in Myanmar is nothing new. During my ambassadorial assignment, Japanese media used to report that 3,000-4,000 people gathered in front of Aung San Suu Kyi’s residence every week. But my staff verified that the figures were more like 500-600 people.
Indeed, media reports have always sided with Suu Kyi, as they are doing now. Japanese media would not report claims made in Myanmar’s national TV broadcasts, stating that Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy gave money to the demonstrators, and that security forces were obliged to shoot at the demonstrators who were throwing stones and attempting to snatch their weapons.
It is undeniable that many demonstrators were mobilized by the NLD for remuneration. Incidents such as monks pushing security personnel into a temple and setting their vehicles aflame were not reported by Japanese media.
Seventeen years after her election victory in 1990, the Myanmar people’s perception of Suu Kyi has largely changed. It has been widely disclosed that she received financial and political support from the United States, to the aversion of the people of Myanmar, whose memories of their colonial experience under Britain linger on. During my time as ambassador there, Suu Kyi did have frequent communications with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and received financial supports from the U.S. government and private groups.
The Myanmar government once disclosed to international reporters that it had confiscated communications equipment sent illegally from the United States. But this news hardly crossed the border. When I asked a Japanese correspondent why he did not report this, he told me that such a story was not what his head office would expect out of Myanmar.
Suu Kyi’s lack of clear political vision has also caused her popularity to dwindle. People came to realize that she has been resorting to opposition only for the sake of opposition. After the incident in 1996 when her vehicle was surrounded by rioters, she requested police protection at her residence. This is another side of her current house arrest.
As for the military regime, characterized as the epitome of evil, its biggest contribution was putting an end to the bloody, protracted civil strife involving 18 minorities and the government.
Although the military government pronounced several death sentences every year, most of them were not actually carried out. Also, the lifestyle of government officials is generally modest, with corruption cases remarkably rare as a military regime.
The regime has succeeded in maintaining economic growth of over 5percent annually, earning it widespread trust by the people. Therefore, as far as I can see, there are few who are willing to challenge the government at the risk of their lives.
The government asserts that it is currently treading the path of democratization, following a seven-stage roadmap. Its National Assembly completed deliberations on the basic principles of a new Constitution in August. The majority of the Myanmar people, I believe, understand the government’s cautious, step-by-step approach toward a democratic society.
Nation-building should be done carefully, carried out by the nation’s people in accordance with their peculiar history, culture and national character. Thus, the international community should not interfere politically but should support the country’s endeavors through aid, trade, investment and technology transfers. The reality, however, is the opposite, with the international community intervening politically and attaching screws to aid and trade.
The first step, therefore, is to halt the wrong reporting and creation of stereotypes like a samurai drama in which Suu Kyi plays the good guy and the military regime plays the bad guy.
–
(Ambassador Yoichi Yamaguchi is a career diplomat who served as Japan’s ambassador to Myanmar from 1995-97. He has written several books about the countries to which he was assigned, including “Real Images of Myanmar.” This article is translated from the Japanese and edited by UPI Asia Online. The original was published in the Japanese weekly “Shukan Shincho.” ©Copyright Yoichi Yamaguchi.) UNQUOTE
5 Grasshopper // Oct 12, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Dear Ann, I wonder whether you will realise that ‘rights’ might be ontological determinations from the West. For many, rights are not necessary, create more problems simply through their articulation within cultures who have not organically claimed this notion to be for their politic. Why do you think you have rights? Where did they come from? When will women at protests acknowledge their idolatrous anti-pragmatic hearts of sweetened decay?
Also, Richard, I wonder how far away it is one has to be before ‘true humanism’ can be observed. Surely sitting in an chair typing at a computer isn’t human enough. My dog is on a farm right now, doing it’s rituals. It’s such a dog! Not that I don’t agree with you. But it all depends on what you want to view as ‘news’. To assume that everyone is brain dead and that this should be their news is equally disturbing as those masquerading as liberals in international media promoting what is described in the article given by serf (thanks by the way). Do you love Palestinian martyrs too?
6 serf // Oct 12, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Perhaps we should ask Par Par Lay whether he thinks “that ‘rights’ might be ontological determinations from the West”. I seem to remember he is one of those comedians who had all his teeth pulled out in a previous trumped-up jail visit. He almost certainly will not be returning home in one piece, if at all. Perhaps it is also that “ontological determination from the West” that stops me lobbing a brick through the windscreen of the Burmese Ambassadors limo.
7 Grasshopper // Oct 12, 2007 at 11:31 pm
serf, because I don’t agree with the concept of ‘rights’ does not mean that I disagree with you about the disgraceful treatment of Par Par Lay or any of the other countless unnamed under detention. You would ask him under the duress of his present condition what he thinks of ‘rights’? You would get any answer you like as long as you made him feel safe… Also, I don’t think you should hold back with that brick…
8 serf // Oct 13, 2007 at 11:39 pm
So where are you taking us today Grasshopper? Somewhere useful?
9 Grasshopper // Oct 14, 2007 at 11:20 am
Sure! Do you want to go to the hardware store so you can buy some wood, nails and a hammer? With these materials I can help you build a magical box of distance-from-living-in-violence-where-practical-situations-don’t-concern-you to put yourself in like me! …. er, you’re taking yourself somewhere serf, if you don’t find what I write useful that is not really anything to do with me. I find what I write here useful because posting allows me to critique my own attitude toward whatever it is I have written. Maybe this way I can evolve into a champion of Human Rights like a Knights Templar of days gone by!
10 Blogger Jotman // Oct 14, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I am tracking all reports directly related to the “hidden crackdown” in Burma. Allegations of monk massacres, secret cremations, round-ups. See here:
http://jotman.blogspot.com/search/label/Burma%20-%20reports%20on%20the%20Hidden%20Crisis
Serf –
Some more about Yamaguchi on my blog:
http://jotman.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-japanese-ambassador-to-rangoon.html
http://jotman.blogspot.com/2007/10/japanese-embassy-in-rangoon-99.html
11 Grasshopper // Oct 14, 2007 at 11:40 pm
That was a pig headed, unnecessarily antagonistic (and poorly worded) reply from me. While this may not be very redeeming, I feel as though I must further explore some options of action.
It seems to me that most are calling for action to be taken through moral obligation to our fellow man, or at least some notion of positive liberty. However, how can this be achieved without first accepting that not everywhere values the notion of liberalism? Where universal values are not necessarily all on the same page. Especially considering the political histories of colonialism and the propaganda machine of the Junta which abuses this history and won’t let its’ citizens move on.
Of course, and perhaps imperialistically, as a liberal I believe that all are liberal by default and whether the individual knows it or not is a matter of social conditioning. The social conditioning in Burma is not such that a moral obligation through positive liberty can be used to justify UNSC action because it would infringe on Burmese citizens negative liberty; an essential element to freedom. (If you have read this far and haven’t the faintest as to what I’m talking about with positive and negative liberty please see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_and_negative_rights and http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/)
One could argue that Burmese citizens political liberty was totally abolished in 1988 and therefore international action in the name of positive liberty is justified because Burma had determined itself through democratic elections and would consequently not infringe upon the negative rights of Burmese individuals as they had collectively determined their path democratically. However, this position does not account for the last 19 years and the conditioning and beliefs of those under the Junta’s framework. What do we liberals say? “Oh sorry, it’s been a long time since 1988 we know, but brothers and sisters – we’ve come to liberate you all the same. Hope the Junta wasn’t so bad, want a scone?! (…in the form of IMF loans)” ? We ‘liberals’ have condemned those in Burma for almost 20 years to live under the Junta when we had a legitimate liberal pretext for regime restoration in 88. Now, with this procrastination and often seemingly oblivious diatribe from us – we want to do it now because there were some demonstrations?! This is almost 20 years of blood stained history for 1 week of demonstrations to remind us that some peoples liberty is being abused. Considering we view liberty as bestowed upon us naturally, this completely highlights a polemic between those in detention for what they believe and us where positive liberty is being used as a mask worn by those with guilty hearts. That is not the right way to sell an idea.
So rather than be disenfranchised by all of this political and inhuman hypocrisy, to be of some use we must remember what is really “Most Wanted”, and for me, that must be to engage with the Junta on their terms. If we forget the political arguments and remember the peoples who have nothing to do with this, it is their futures in an increasingly connected world that is being neglected by those already connected. This requires immediate action and we can do it now. Reasoning that it would look bad for us to engage will make future global integration for Burma that much more difficult the longer our leaders leave it. There is a distinction between self-determination and corruption which is totally blurred by nations acting bilaterally – why is the UN given authority on this one issue to suddenly make it clear?
The Junta must be overrun with ideas, irrespective of whether or not they listen initially. Wouldn’t the quickest solution be that we should pander to their desires till they no longer care? Maybe this is not moral, but we ‘liberals’ should not start pretending to be on an international scale for the sake of negative liberty infringing on exceptionalised moral obligations. According to Amnesty International, there are 54 countries where there are politically related detainments and tortures. Where are their protests in Sydney, Canberra, New York and so on??
12 serf // Oct 15, 2007 at 4:33 am
I’ll clue you! You continue to be unnecessarily antagonistic.
13 Richard // Oct 16, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Grasshopper,
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi answered your question
In a 1994 interview with a U.S. congressman, during a period of house arrest, she was asked about her role and her vision for Burma:
“Democracy won’t solve all our problems – I have always said this. Establishing democracy here is only a beginning. It is not a perfect system but it is better than all the others. In liberal democracies, people always think of talking first and fighting last. If you fight first, you just end up fighting to exhaustion. The word “parliament” comes from the word “talk.” It is better to talk than shout, but shouting is better than shooting.
We can have democracy the Asian way, the Burmese way. Whatever system develops here will become unique to this country. Democracy is not the same in the US [as it is in the] UK. There will always be differences. But some fundamental principles are abiding.”
14 Par Par Lay released; many others still locked up // Nov 2, 2007 at 9:28 pm
[...] in October I made a post about the detention of political activists and their supporters after the recent uprising in [...]
15 Satire, censorship and life in Burma today // Jul 31, 2008 at 11:07 am
[...] of Burmese efforts to keep ahead of the censors, and crack a joke at the same time, check out these posts from the past [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.