Than Shwe Finds Burma’s Fate in the Stars

Burmese junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe’s wife Kyaing Kyaing recently visited the celebrated Shit Myet Hna pagoda in her husband’s birthplace, Kyaukse, in central Burma, but she wasn’t just sightseeing or calling on friends and relatives.

The revered site is known as the “Eight Faces” pagoda because it faces eight points of the compass. Kyaing Kyaing is reported to have prayed symbolically there for support from all sides for her beleaguered husband and his despised regime.

Kyaing Kyaing and her husband, like many members of the ruling military, are deeply superstitious and rely on astrologers and other soothsayers to advise them.

They also indulge in yadaya, a kind of voodoo said to ward off ill-fortune, and are said to have employed its rituals in an occult bid to influence meetings between opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the official appointed by Than Shwe to act as a go-between, retired general Aung Kyi.

Than Shwe reportedly even attaches significance to Aung Kyi’s name, combining as it does Aung at the start and Kyi at the end. This combination is known in Burmese as “Ket’ Kin,” meaning the state of two names being diametrically opposite to each other and thus astrologically significant.

There are others examples of ‘Ket’ Kin’ within the military junta. The names of Than Shwe, Prime Minister Gen Thein Sein and the official who signs government decrees and statements, Col Thant Shin, all begin with the letter T and end with S—‘Ket’ Kin,” according to the superstitious.

Than Shwe wasn’t always so subject to superstitious belief—one source close to the family says he was no strong believer in astrology when he was regional military commander in the Irrawaddy delta.

His wife Kyaing Kyaing, originally ethnic Pa-O, has long been a strong believer in nats, or spirits, astrology and yadaya.

She is said to have been told by an astrologer in the 1980s that her husband would one day head the government. The astrologer, a monk, also offered the delighted Kyaing Kyaing the information that her husband had been a king in his past life.

After the first prediction came true, Than Shwe (not surprisingly) developed his interest in astrology and yadaya and began to seek the advice of astrologers and soothsayers—including Rangoon’s most famous fortune-teller, ET (also known as E Thi).

A Buddhist nun, Daw Dhammathi, is believed to be one of his family’s most favored astrologists, and Kyaing Kyaing is a frequent visitor to her temple compound in Rangoon’s North Okkalapa suburb.

Than Shwe’s efforts to neutralize the powers of Suu Kyi are also said to account for his extraordinary initiative to force Burmese to grow physic nuts, which are intended to provide alternative fuel for the cash-strapped country.

Physic nuts are known as kyet suu in Burmese, a combination of words that carry the astrological meaning of Monday-Tuesday. Suu Kyi’s own name has the astrological meaning of Tuesday-Monday, and it’s said that Than Shwe’s astrologer suggested that by planting kyet suu throughout the country Suu Kyi’s powers could be neutralized.

There’s no sign of that happening yet. Astrology and yadaya obviously have their limitations.

Source: The Irrawaddy

Democracy's Root: Diversity

I have found this interesting article on Diversity and Democracy. The article named Democracy's Root: Diversity was written by Thomas L. Friedman on New York Times:

Last Tuesday, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican — the first audience ever by the head of the Catholic Church with a Saudi monarch. The Saudi king gave the pope two gifts: a golden sword studded with jewels, and a gold and silver statue depicting a palm tree and a man riding a camel.

The BBC reported that the pope “admired the statue but merely touched the sword.” I think it is a great thing these two men met, and that King Abdullah came bearing gifts. But what would have really caught my attention — and the world’s — would have been if King Abdullah had presented the pope with something truly daring: a visa.

You see, the king of Saudi Arabia, also known as the Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina, can visit the pope in the Vatican. But the pope can’t visit the king of Saudi Arabia in the Vatican of Islam — Mecca. Non-Muslims are not allowed there. Moreover, it is illegal to build a church, a synagogue or a Hindu or Buddhist temple in Saudi Arabia, or to practice any of these religions publicly.

As BBCnews.com noted, “some Christian worship services are held secretly, but the government has been known to crack down on them, or deport Filipino workers if they hold even private services. ... The Saudi authorities cite a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad that only Islam can be practiced in the Arabian Peninsula.”

I raise this point because the issue of diversity — how and under what conditions should “the other” be tolerated — is roiling the Muslim world today, from Lebanon to Iraq to Pakistan. More churches and mosques have been blown up in the past few years than any time I can remember.

A senior French official suggested to me that maybe we in the West, rather than trying to promote democracy in the Middle East — a notion tainted by its association with the very Western powers that once colonized the region — should be focusing on promoting diversity, which has historical roots in the area.

It’s a valid point. The very essence of democracy is peaceful rotations of power, no matter whose party or tribe is in or out. But that ethic does not apply in most of the Arab-Muslim world today, where the political ethos remains “Rule or Die.” Either my group is in power or I’m dead, in prison, in exile or lying very low. But democracy is not about majority rule; it is about minority rights. If there is no culture of not simply tolerating minorities, but actually treating them with equal rights, real democracy can’t take root.

But respect for diversity is something that has to emerge from within a culture. We can hold a free and fair election in Iraq, but we can’t inject a culture of diversity. America and Europe had to go through the most awful civil wars to give birth to their cultures of diversity. The Arab-Muslim world will have to go through the same internal war of ideas.

I just returned from India, which just celebrated 60 years of democracy. Pakistan, right next door, is melting down. Yet, they are basically the same people — they look alike, they eat the same food, they dress alike. But there is one overriding difference: India has a culture of diversity. India is now celebrating 60 years of democracy precisely because it is also celebrating millennia of diversity, including centuries of Muslim rule.

Nayan Chanda, author of a delightful new book on globalization titled “Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers, and Warriors Shaped Globalization,” recounts the role of all these characters in connecting our world. He notes: “The Muslim Emperor Akbar, who ruled India in the 16th century at the pinnacle of the Mughal Empire, had Christians, Hindus, Jain and Zoroastrians in his court. Many of his senior officials were Hindus. On his deathbed, Jesuit priests tried to convert him, but he refused. Here was a man who knew who he was, yet he had respect for all religions. Nehru, a Hindu and India’s first prime minister, was a great admirer of Akbar.”

Akbar wasn’t just tolerant. He was embracing of other faiths and ideas, which is why his empire was probably the most powerful in Indian history. Pakistan, which has as much human talent as India, could use an Akbar. Ditto the Arab world.

I give King Abdullah credit, though. His path-breaking meeting with the pope surely gave many Saudi clerics heartburn. But as historic as it was, it left no trace. I wished the pope had publicly expressed a desire to visit Saudi Arabia, and that the king would now declare: “Someone has to chart a new path for our region. If I can meet the pope in the Vatican, I can host Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Shiite and Buddhist religious leaders for a dialogue in our sacred house. Why not? We are secure in our own faith. Let us all meet as equals.”

Why not?

NMP Thio Li-Ann earned extra bit of sympathy for second threatening letter

Really, no one likes to be threatened. NMP Thio Li Ann was first threatened to be ‘pissed on her grave’ by Mr Alfian Sa’at. A second threatening letter was sent to her but this time it was from an anonymous writer. The second threatening letter had stated that ‘we know where you work, we’ll send people there to hunt you down’.

She is now like a dart board. Ever since her strongly-worded Parliamentary speech on the repeal of 377A which was peppered with words of discrimination from her religious point of view, she has received numerous criticisms from all over Singapore including myself. But to threaten Ms Thio and her family with bodily harm is completely against the “spirit of civil discourse and democracy’, as quoted from Mr Alex Au from yawningbread.org. I do personally condemn such actions as being uncivilised.

Was the threatening letter from the members of the pro-repeal group? I certainly hope not, for it would further discredit their stand on this whole issue to fight for the repeal of 377A and they would have gone overboard to resort to criminal intimidation.

Could it be from members of the 377A anti-repeal camp or perhaps someone from neither? Well, it would be unscrupulous for anyone to try to sow discord between the pro-repeal and anti-repeal camp as it would just create more ‘ammo’ for the anti-repeal camp to say “See, I told you, they don’t deserve the repeal. They are such immoral and dangerous people to our society to threaten a member of the parliament who speaks for the majority of us”.

In any case, while I am becoming more sympathetic towards Ms Thio's plight, I wish she would re-think her religiously-inclined stand on the 377A issue by making gay friends if she had not, to understand about their lifestyle and stand on morality. Being a victim of threats will not make her flawed arguments about homosexuality any less flawed. See my previous article on NMP Thio Li-Ann.

I wish her safe and sound.

377A Issues: Social Acceptance of Gays and Lesbians

For quite a while, the "377A Penal Code Homosexuality Debate" has been a rallying point for many Singaporeans. Everyday, we are seeing more blog posts on this topic. I would admit it is, however, very difficult to determine if the reluctance to repeal 377A would eventually result in further discrimination against the homosexual population.

Basically we are dealing with 3 issues:

• The right of gays and lesbians to have equal protection under the law
  

• Christianity believes that homosexuality is a sin, and thus gays are fair game to marginalise and deny the benefits of married heterosexual couples
  

• Conservative mentality

The first issue should have been a non-issue as irregardless of the sexuality of a person, every Singaporean should have equal and fair treatment as detailed in our Constitution and in our national pledge where we recite: “To built a democratic society, based on justice and equality..”. The second issue, however, is a religious one. Since it is a religious issue, we should all understand that religious beliefs do not have any place in our laws.

The third would be that of a perception or attitude towards homosexuality. In my opinion, those who have positive attitudes towards gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are those who say they know one or more gay, lesbian or bisexual person well - often as a friend or colleague and I think negative attitudes towards homosexuals could be prejudices that are not grounded in actual experiences but are based on stereotypes. So until it becomes clearer that homosexuality is not a choice but something people are born with, something which can not be preached against, and gay sex is not deemed to be the only culprit for the AIDS disease, I believe the government would just sit on the fence and not do anything.

But even so, I do hope the government sees the importance for society to be better educated about homosexuality to prevent the issue from turning into a serious social problem in the future. I feel educating all Singaporeans about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice. Accurate information about homosexuality is essential to young people who are first discovering and seeking to understand their sexuality—whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.

We should show genuine compassion for others, even when we disagree with them and we should also take a firm stand for what is right.

Related articles:

The Kway Teow Man: On Section 377A

Cognitive Dissonance: Alternative Perspectives

Homosexuality Issues: To repeal S377A of the Penal Code or not?

It is interesting to note there are so many governments and individuals around the world who are still reluctant to acknowledge that gays and lesbians are “equal in dignity and rights”. Being gay or lesbian is not seen as a right but as a wrong. Homosexuality is considered a sin, or an illness, an deviation in ideology or a betrayal of one’s culture.

Governments and individuals defended their stand against the repeal in the name of religion, culture, morality or public health. Homosexuals are branded “perverts” and “paedophiles”, and AIDS is labelled a “gay disease”. Homosexual relations are “anti - Christian”, anti - Islamic”etc. Wouldn’t such discrimination make this group of people “less than human”?

Campaigning for lesbian and gay human rights might be seen by some as a controversial arena of human rights activism. We have NMP Mr Siew Kum Hong who, on behalf of gay media company Fridae.com and lawyer George Hwang, submitted a parliamentary petition requesting the government to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code.

Over the past week, I have been following the news and the numerous opinions, both online and offline. It appeared to me Singaporeans are split on this issue. But in my opinion, the decision lies ultimately with the government which itself is dominated by PAP MPs. Being more or less a centrist political party, I think PAP will not be in favour of the repeal as the group involved is after all a minority. It would not want to enrage the majority: the religious who feel homosexuality is a sin and the conservatives who feel homosexuality is not for this Asian country. Even if it decides to surprise everyone by lifting the party whip to allow all PAP MPs to vote on matters of conscience and issues such as this, the final verdict would still be the same – the government would stick with the status quo. The reason: according to gay activist Mr Alex Au’s Yawning Bread website, almost half of their MPs are christians and christians are known to be generally homophobic because of their religious teachings.

Nevertheless, even though I expect the petition to be unsuccessful, I hope the government would be “magnanimous” enough to explore more ways to recognise this minority group by:

• Enacting a Non-Discrimination of Homosexuals Act to protect them from discrimination at work.
• Allowing them same rights and benefits as that of a married person, such as the ability to purchase newly built HDB flats.
• Allowing talks on mainstream media to ‘educate’ the general public that most homosexuals are as normal as straights.
• Allowing them to form legal civil unions to address homosexual rights issues.
• More funding for this minority group on AIDs/HIV education and prevention.

This is a period of changing times with changing demands. Our government should really do something to eventually seek an end to this social injustice.