SINGAPORE: The success of Myanmar State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi as a leader is decided by how dispensable she can make herself, she said.
“I hope that I’ll be able to make myself totally dispensable, that they will not need me to go on – neither my party, nor my country,” the Nobel laureate said in an exclusive interview with Channel NewsAsia’s Conversation With, which was broadcast on Thursday (Dec 8).
Ms Suu Kyi, who became Myanmar’s State Counsellor and Foreign Minister after her party won a landslide election victory last November, pointed out that the National League of Democracy (NLD) had managed to retain public support throughout the past two decades because they “were very close to people on the ground”.
“I have to keep reminding people that I was under house arrest for 15 years… and we managed to keep our party going in spite of the great difficulty. So, you mustn’t underestimate the ability of many, many ordinary members of our political party, and our members are really the public,” said Ms Suu Kyi in the interview, which took place last Friday.
The interview also touched on the Rohingya issue, the state of Myanmar’s economy, the NLD’s succession plans, and the country’s relations with China and the incoming Trump administration.
An edited and condensed transcript of the interview follows.
(Photo: Winnie Goh)
Lin Xueling: State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, thank you very much for being on Conversation With.
Aung San Suu Kyi: Thank you.
Q: Do you think the problem of the Rohingya is intractable?
A: No, I don’t think. But it would help a lot if the international community, with a bigger understanding, would recognise how great a challenge it is and how sensitive and delicate the matter is. Because in the Rakhine, it’s not just Muslims who are nervous and worried. The Rakhine are worried too – they are worried about the fact that they are shrinking as a Rakhine population percentage-wise. And of course, we cannot ignore the fact that the relationship between the two communities has not been good and we want to try and make it better. But it doesn’t help if everybody is just concentrating on the negative side of the situation in spite of the fact that there were attacks against police outposts which began on Oct 9. We have managed to keep the situation under control and to calm it down, but I would appreciate it so much if the international community would help us to maintain peace and stability and to make progress in building better relations between the two communities instead of always drumming up calls for bigger fires of resentment, if you like.
Q: But it is not solely the international community that is the root of this, State Counsellor. There are obviously difficulties on the ground.
A: I know that. I’m not saying there are no difficulties, but it helps if people recognise the difficulties and are more focused on resolving these difficulties rather than exaggerating them so that everything seems worse than it really is.
Q: In the case of the Advisory Panel, which is led by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, isn’t it a problem though? Many of the local community don’t support it they see it as foreigners mixing in, biased – these are the words used. This is by the local community themselves.
A: This is by some members of the local community, and I think it’s more for political agenda than a true understanding of what the Commission is all about. For example, one of the Rakhine parties and some others try to table a resolution in the legislature protesting against the Commission on the grounds that we were dragging an internal issue onto the international stage. We had to point out very simply that the issue has been on the UN agenda since 2010. So we were not dragging it up onto the international stage, we were trying to resolve the problem and have great confidence in Dr Annan’s abilities to resolve such tensions and such conflicts.
Q: And that will be accepted by the local community?
A: I think it will be accepted by the great majority of the people of our country who want peace and stability, and who want to establish harmony everywhere, in every part of our country, not just in Rakhine.
Q: And the Oct 9 Investigative Commission that’s being set up now – what is its ambit and what is the result that you would like to see from this?
A: What we would like is to find out what led to these attacks on Oct 9, and it goes back some time, and to find out if the allegations of human rights violations are accurate and if so, we will take necessary action.
Q: But isn’t it awkward then, that there are military persons on the committee itself? Is there a conflict of interest there?
A: No, not at all. We want to make sure that everybody is able to represent his or own angle, and they will be able to see for themselves what really happened. We think that we need a balanced commission.
Q: And you feel you have a balanced commission at the moment?
A: We’ve tried our best, we’ll find out soon enough if it’s balanced or not. And of course, if there is a need to change the composition of the commission, there’s no reason why it should not be done.
Q: Do you think you’re having to do quite a bit of compromising, though, to work with the military?
A: I don’t understand quite what you mean by compromise. It depends on what people mean by compromise. Some people, when they say compromise, they mean a compromise of principles – no, that we do not do. But I always think of it simply as negotiations – learning to understand each other. I think of it as give and take. Some people think give and take means they take all the time and the other side gives, and that’s not give and take. So I don’t think of it as compromise because of the misunderstanding of the word. We are ready to negotiate, we are ready to listen and to admit that perhaps, their point is better than ours and then they must do the same too.
Q: Do you think then the military has been acting under the rule of law?
A: We have been cooperating very well. We have been working together with the military, because in the Rakhine, the police and the military have had to work together. Of course, the police come under the civilian administration.
Q: But State Counsellor, if that’s the case, why not allow international observers, journalists, to go in and see that?
A: We have allowed teams to go in and see what the situation is like, but we cannot guarantee security everywhere. We have to make sure that whatever we allow to happen officially guarantees absolute security for all people.
Q: No politician likes to put up a timeline, I know, Madam. But do you think these problems, if you say they are tractable – when do you think you’ll have that peace and stability in Myanmar?
A: It’s not because we don’t want to put up a timeline, it’s simply that actually people don’t know, and I don’t know either. And those who say it’ll be done by such and such a time, I don’t know how they find these answers. What I can say is that we want to resolve these problems as quickly as possible and how quickly we manage to resolve them ultimately depends on the cooperation of the public. If our public are with us, if the majority of our people are behind us in our endeavors, then we’ll be able to resolve these problems quickly. But if they’re not with us, then it’ll take longer. It’s very much a matter of the government keeping close to the public and to try to explain to them what it is that were trying to do. Transparency is very important.
Q: Do you feel you have that now, the public, that citizens in Myanmar understand what you’re trying to do and are patient enough to give you this time?
A: I think the great majority of them are. But of course, there are those with the political agenda who do not want us to resolve the issue so quickly.
(Photo: Winnie Goh)
Q: Are you happy with how these nine months have gone?
A: I don’t think of happiness or unhappiness. We knew that there would be many challenges to overcome, and we are overcoming them. Of course, one always wants to overcome them immediately, but we knew of course that this is a wish rather than a practical view of what might happen. But I think I could say that on the whole, I’m satisfied because we’ve had to meet a number of challenges which were not planned, but still, I think we are managing to cope with the support of the people.
Q: What is something that you’re most pleased with in these nine months, short as it is?
A: The fact that the ministers are not corrupt.
(Lin: Yes, that is a substantive thing.)
Yes, it’s important. The public accepts that although they say that all right, the ministers are not corrupt, but some of the junior officers are still not quite what we would wish them to be.
Q: Do you think you could change that? Because sometimes, some people say that these things are cultural – that Southeast Asians are used to taking that kickback, used to smoothening things out with sweeteners?
A: When I went to meet your corruption investigation bureau, they gave me a piece of paper, on which one of the things say that corruption is a fact of life, not a way of life. I like that very much, because this is how it is in our country. People accepted not this way of life, although they recognise that it is the fact of life. This means that the practice of corruption has not become embedded in our culture and that’s very encouraging.
Q: Domestically, foreign direct investment is generally on the increase. But in recent months, there has been a bit of a dip, so are we looking at monthly fluctuations or do you think that people might be a little bit apprehensive about these nine months, when things are a little bit uncertain?
A: I think it’s a little bit to do with the general sluggishness of the world economy and caution rather than apprehension, because they’re waiting for our investment law to come out. Previously, we have two investment laws, one for foreign investment and one for local investment, which was not viewed with great favour generally. So we had a new investment law which went through the legislature recently and now, we’re drawing up the rules to go with it. So I think that was what a lot of investors were waiting for. And of course, they wanted to see what attitude we were going to take towards foreign investors. We want to make them understand that our country is investor-friendly, and when I say investor-friendly, I also mean that we want the kind of investments which would be beneficial to both sides – both partners – the ones who are investing as well as, of course, our people who should be the primary beneficiaries.
Q: But can that sometimes be difficult if we look at questions of minimum wage and where an investor might want to have low wages? Even though it might benefit the people of Myanmar better to have higher wages? For example, like what’s taking place now in the garment industry.
A: There will be problems like that and when I met the Singaporean business community a couple of days ago, one of them brought this up. They were worried about unionisation. I said this is unavoidable and what they should do is to take a new … they should also adopt a new approach. They should not just look at what they might meet but what they can do. If they were to take an approach, what I call a union-friendly approach, and make it clear from the beginning that they welcome unions and that unions should be for the welfare of the workers and to make sure that relations between employers and employees are good. That, I think, will take way a lot of worries linked to the union movement. There will be unions, we can’t get away from that. And yes, people will ask for high wages because everybody wants higher wages. Look at all the millionaires who go on working very hard to make sure that they get richer!
Q: So you think FDI is not something we need to worry about? We will see it move in that general, positive direction of more FDI?
A: I don’t want to say nothing to worry about, because it sounds a little bit too casual. We take it very seriously, we want to make sure that foreign investment works, we want to make sure that foreign investment helps us to achieve sustainable development.
Q: What about inflation, Madam? We’ve seen inflation very high – about 9 per cent – which is rather high and this is obviously difficult for ordinary people in Myanmar to have their wages keep up with that level in inflation. Are you worried about that? Are you worried that, therefore, people who voted you in might feel they’re not getting the benefits if their incomes are being eroded?
A: At the moment, in spite of the inflation, I don’t think that people’s incomes have been too eroded. Of course, this is again a political tool for those … I always forget that now we are no longer an opposition, so it’s our opposition who would like to focus on this.
But you know that the price of the dollar is going up, not just in our country but in general, and inflation. Again, inflation is not something to be feared if development can keep ahead of it. Of course, then people will ask, are we developing to that extent? I think we are beginning to.
The first nine months have been difficult because we’ve had to clear away a lot of debris from previous practices and now only, were beginning to make a little bit of headway.
We also always have to keep in mind the political issues that are of great importance to our country because development and stability go together. We can’t have sustainable development without peace and stability, and peace and stability cannot be sustained without prosperity. So it all goes together, and we have to look at things from several different directions, not just from one angle.
(Photo: Winnie Goh)
Q: Apart from the hat of State Counsellor, you actually also wear the hat of Foreign Minister. So if we look at some of the things that are happening around the world – are you at all concerned about a more isolationist America under a Trump administration? And how would that affect Myanmar?
A: I don’t think that it would substantially change the relationship between our two countries, because we’ve always had good relations with the US.
In fact, I think that our traditional foreign policy has been good. From the time of independence, we’ve concentrated on establishing friendly and fruitful relations with countries all over the world. We were one of the neutral countries, we did not take sides during the Cold War and we don’t want to take sides.
We want to be able to work together with everybody. We have to co-exist because there’s no choice. When you look at the human race, it has progressed from the times when we were running around in caves clubbing each other.
Q: Gladly. But won’t it change the balance of powers here in Asia as well if the US doesn’t play as active of a role?
A: The US is a big power. Well, the biggest in the world. So it could change the balance of power, but we could always try to make the change one for the better rather than for the worst, and it’s up to everybody.
Q: And you don’t think at all that the chemistry will change? You seem to be able to get on very well with Barack Obama, the current president. Will it be the same also with Mr Trump?
A: I have never met him, but I’m quite prepared to get on very well with him.
Q: What sort of role would you like to see China playing here in Asia?
A: A positive role, because China is a big power, and I think its big powers are capable of doing a lot of good if they go about it in a positive way. We’ve always had very friendly relations with China throughout the history of our independent nation. And although we were on very good terms with the West at that time, in the 1950s when the first Chinese communist government was established, we were one of the first countries to recognise it officially and to establish good relations with it, and China’s a neighbour. We can’t move away from each other, so we have to make sure that we stay as good neighbours.
Q: And you’re not apprehensive about what some commentators say is China’s increasing, flexing of muscles in our region?
A: I don’t think apprehensive is the word I would use and anyway, apprehension doesn’t do any good. So I think we just have to concentrate on making sure that we establish positive relations with each other.
Q: So much of the political movement in Myanmar is tied up with you, your personality. Do you think that if you were not here that there would be a rollback and that the military would come back into power?
A: I have to keep reminding people that I was under house arrest for 15 years and they’ve only managed to retain public support during that period, and we managed to keep our party going in spite of the great difficulty. So, you mustn’t underestimate the ability of many, many ordinary members of our political party, and our members are really the public, and we are very close to the public.
For example, there were those who were surprised when the election results that came out last year. We were not surprised because we were very close to people on the ground. We knew exactly how it was going to be. Well, we were wrong in about six or seven constituencies, but that’s not bad considering that we were talking about more than a thousand seats, and to have gone wrong in only about six or seven shows that we were able to gauge the temperature of the public quite correctly, and I think that’s our greatest strength – that the party was built on public support.
We rose out of the ordinary public and that is how were going to stay. And I think because of that, the party will be able to carry on under different circumstances.
Q: So you’re certain that let’s say, in 20 years, in the coming years as well, that you’ve built up enough of a successor base to maintain these steps to democracy?
A: Our success, where I am as a leader, is decided by how dispensable I can make myself. And I hope that I’ll be able to make myself totally dispensable, that they will not need me to go on, neither my party, nor my country.
Q: Really, State Counsellor?
A: Really, because I think that should be the ambition of any responsible leader. You’ve got to make yourself dispensable. Otherwise, what you’re doing is for yourself rather than for your country.
Q: And so, have you looked to see who there might be?
A: Oh, we have, and we have a number of capable people in our party.
Q: You wouldn’t wish to share with us?
A: I think it’s too early.
Q: Do you think, when you go to bed at night, that your parents would be pleased with the things that you are doing now?
A: I’m afraid I’ve never thought about it when I go to bed at night, but I’ll think of it tonight.
Q: But do you think they would be content with how you have led your life thus far?
A: I think they would think that I should know best what I need to do with my life, because both of them believed in allowing me to choose the kind of life. Well, I don’t really know whether my father would, but I would have thought he would because I was too young when he died. But my mother certainly was a very independent-minded woman and I think she would’ve understood quite well that I should be independent-minded too.
Lin Xueling: State Counsellor, thank you very much for being on Conversation With.
Aung San Suu Kyi: Thank you.
(Photo: Winnie Goh)
