REVISITING CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY: Burma's struggle to overcome the negative past
The government film review committee's prohibiting the screening of a
movie that portrays the disappearance of Saohpa Sao Kya Seng, who was
traditional ruler of Hsipaw principality, have created an unusual uproar, as
the tragic past have caught up with the guilt-denying regime's responsible
functionaries of the present.
Actually, an Austrian lady Inge Sargent, known also known as the Mahadhevi Dhusandi
due to her marriage to the late Shan
prince or Saohpa of Hsipaw Sao Kya Seng, could have been just a normal love
story, of a European lady living together happily ever after with a traditional
Shan ruler. But instead part of the plot that becomes the central theme
revealed the tragic, unexplained disappearance of the prince, who was taken
away, more appropriately abducted, by the Burmese military at the Eastern
Command gate, and transported to the military garrison town of Bathoo, when he
was travelling from Taunggyi to Heho Airport to catch a plane to Lashio, and
was never seen again since 1962 onwards any more.
It was said that General Ne Win, the military coup leader of 1962, had
ordered his former aide-de-camp Colonel Hla Moe to apprehend him.
Government's reason behind the ban
According to the Reuters news, “Twilight Over Burma: My Life as a Shan
Princess", directed by Austrian filmmaker Sabine Derflinger, was pulled
from the opening night of the Human Rights Human Dignity International Film
Festival (HRHDIFF) in Yangon on Tuesday, after being rejected by the censorship
board,” which called itself the “Film Certification Board”.
The film censorship board is made up of 15
representatives, mainly from the Ministry of Information’s Myanmar Motion
Picture Development Department, and other different associations including the
Myanmar Motion Picture Organization (MMPO), the Myanmar Music Association and
the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Culture. The military-controlled Home
Affairs ministry is also represented on the board. (Source: The Irrawaddy – 15
June 2016)
An official from the Ministry of Information’s (MOI) 15-member film
review committee told the AFP news agency that screening the film could cause
difficulties. “We were worried and afraid that unnecessary problems could arise
because of this (film) while we are working on achieving national
reconciliation,” said Thida Tin, deputy chairman of MOI’s film review
committee. In an interview with the BBC Thida Lin claimed that the film was
banned for the sake of “national unity and also the stability of the country
and of our people,” reported SHAN on 16 June.
According to the recent 15 June VOA interview regarding the banning of
the film, “Although the Ministry of Information is headed by the new
government, the majority working there are former military people and thus the
idea to ban the film (might have been decided),” said Daw Mon Mon Myat, member
of the Human Dignity Film Institute.
She said that their petition to review the ban to the concerned
Minister was not successful, as he was unable to influence the censorship
board's decision.
U Zaw Htay, director of the President’s Office, told The Myanmar Times
on 15 June that while he had not been part of the decision-making process about
the film, he had “checked the censorship board’s report”. “[The board concluded
that] Twilight over Burma was based on an insufficient history of Myanmar,” he
said, clarifying that some aspects of the film have been significantly modified
from the source material. As the country is trying to hold the Panglong
Conference, to which Shan groups are invited, the board does not want the
public to “misunderstand the military” and destroy any chance at national
reconciliation, he said.
U Zaw Htay added that if the board had decided to cut scenes rather
than censor the whole film, it would have been “nonsense”.
This episode is already a 54 years old tragedy and in fact should be
able to reflect on it and learn from it. But instead, denial and failing to
address the truth were what the responsible functionaries of the government
have chosen to do, under the pretext of not wanting to rock the boat of
“national reconciliation”.
Responses to the issue
The SHAN report of 16 June wrote that these claims did not sit well
with Sao Kya Seng’s nephew, Khun Tun Oo, a prominent Shan politician and leader
of the Shan National League for Democracy (SNLD).
“It’s irrational that this film will destroy unity,” said Khun Tun Oo.
“This film is based on a true story,” he explained.
“ The person portrayed in the film is still missing. No one knows
whether he is dead or alive. He departed from his daughters since one daughter
was only 5 and another was only 7.”
“It’s unreasonable that the film will damage unity. It is just an
individual right. Thus, it means there are no rights,” Khun Tun Oo added. “Has
there been any national unity? If there has not (been any unity), how can this
film destroy unity?”
The DVB report of 15 June said that Charm Tong, a prominent Shan
activist, also said the decision to ban the film was unfortunate, because
failing to face the past would only make it more difficult to deal with ethnic
tensions in the country.
“I think it should have been allowed. We must accept the fact that
this is a true event in our history. In promoting national reconciliation and
ethnic unity, we must accept the things that happened in the past,” she
said.
On the same day, Reuters wrote that Sai Aung Lwin, a prominent Shan
journalist, said screening "Twilight Over Burma" was an important
step in addressing the past.
"This film should definitely be allowed to be shown in public so
that we can learn lessons from it for our future," he said.
The former Commander-in-Chief and patron of the National League for
Democracy (NLD), U Tin U was said to be very eager to view the film, when he
was giving an opening speech at the film festival. He said: “Twilight Over
Burma is a very tragic and the lost of human rights for a human being that
shouldn't have happened. This will be shown on how it had happened and it is
very interesting for me,” according to the VOA recent report.
Call for justice and learning from negative historical past
While prominent Shan activists, journalists and politicians have
voiced their concern to observe the negative historical past as it had really
happened and should be made known to the public, the call for redressing,
leading to repentance of the culprit might still be a little too early,
according to a German term or notion of “Vergangenheitsbewältigung”,
which could be roughly translated as “to
struggle to overcome the [negatives of the] past”.
For according to the well known German political scientist, Professor
Eckhard Jesse's principle or definition, the “Vergangenheitsbewältigung”
term must observe that firstly, the crime committed has to be established,
secondly its completion and thirdly democratization [process has to be
achieved]. Only when the three aspects are present together will the term be
worthy of the name and gain ground.
Analysis
Theoretically, as Professor Eckhard Jesse outlined the struggle to
overcome the [negatives of the] past cannot materialize, due to the fact that
the third aspect of achieving democratization process has not been
materialized.
Besides, even though the second aspect of the crime completion could
be established, specifically in the extra-judicial killing of Sao Kya Seng,
albeit no official investigation has been conducted under the successive
military regimes, the guilt acceptance of the perpetrators' organization – in
this sense the Burmese military – is also simply not there, but only denial. As
such, it is questionable if one could consider that this could be taken as
being fully completed, in a true sense and ready for repentance.
Thus only the first aspect of the crime committed could be established
from the three crucial aspects, as outlined by
Professor Eckhard Jesse.
From the artistic freedom of expression point of view, it is definitely a minus point in a country
eager to show the world that it is on its way, or at least trying, to become a democratic society according to
its principles.
Regarding political cost and pragmatic approach, what Igor Blaževič, a
human rights campaigner, founder of One World—Europe’s biggest human rights
documentary film festival—and jury member at HRHDIFF, told The Irrawaddy could
be regarded as the only logical approach, where striving for reconciliation is
concerned.
“Banning the film does not help reconciliation,” he
said. “Censoring the truth is harming reconciliation. Honest recognition about
the [wrongdoings] which have happened before—and which are still happening—will
do much more for reconciliation.”
As the denial to address the more than five decades
old crime against humanity were met with disappointment and public uproar, a
new unresolved well known case of the two Kachin teachers that were raped and
murdered by the military last year, in northern Shan State, continues to
trouble the Kachin and as well the other ethnic nationalities, which also
urgently need to be addressed and redressed.
Short of guilt acceptance and eventual repentance
still not in sight, the military should first dwell on abdicating from its
self-employed saviour of the country, which the majority of the people have
rejected all along, and changing its indoctrinated mindset that all non-Bamar
ethnic nationalities' population are enemies and abstain from committing human
rights violations on them. Then and only then, will we be in a position to talk
about the “struggle to overcome the [negatives of the] past”, not before.
Tags: Opinion
