A Woman Of Courage

[Rinrada]

A lot of people care......

Could be a few things on the agenda between Gordon and Ian McCarthy in the forthcoming future ......hope so....

anyway ....a dedication to courage....and a good read....

A woman of courage

Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader who has been detained by Burma's military regime for nearly 20 years, is a true hero for our times, writes the chancellor, Gordon Brown, in this extract from his new book

Monday April 16, 2007.The Guardian (with thanks)

Lonely and sustained devotion to duty ... Aung Sang Suu Kyi.

In the early 1990s, I wished to invite Aung San Suu Kyi to address the Labour party conference. Of course, I knew that she would be unable to attend so I approached her husband, Michael Aris, and arranged to meet him, wondering if he might take her place.

It was only as I prepared to meet him and began reading about the couple in more detail that I discovered the story of their lives together and the sheer scale of their struggle.

Indeed, the more I read, the more I wondered at Suu Kyi's great courage; lonely and sustained, it had shaped her life and resulted in her becoming the world's most renowned female prisoner of conscience. Facing one of the most tyrannous regimes in the world, she had demonstrated that courage by living under house arrest for most of the past two decades, far apart from the husband she loved, and from her beloved children, missing all their years of growing up.

To understand Suu Kyi's courage we need to understand firstly her devotion to duty - and in particular, the influence of her father, Aung San, who secured Burmese independence from the British in 1948 but who did not live to see that independence come into force - and secondly, and most important of all, the strength of Suu Kyi's underlying belief in democracy and human rights. Her courage has shown itself not in the fearlessness of impetuous confrontation, but in a strength of character rooted in passionately held beliefs - beliefs that have sustained her through years of oppression and deprivation and cruel separation from her loved ones.

For Suu Kyi, the turning point in this process occurred in the spring of 1988. "It was a quiet evening in Oxford like many others - the last day of March 1988," her husband recalled. "Our sons were already in bed and we were reading when the telephone rang. Suu picked up the phone to learn that her mother had suffered a severe stroke. She put the phone down and at once started to pack. I had a premonition that our lives would change for ever."

Until that day, Suu Kyi had been an academic and housewife, married to a professor, and bringing up two young sons in the tranquillity of Oxfordshire. The next day, she left England for a Rangoon in the grip of demonstrations and protests. As she tended her critically ill mother, she bore silent witness to the growing restlessness of the country's youth. Within a few weeks of her arriving in the city, General Ne Win's 26-year-long dictatorial rule came to an end as he announced plans to allow the country to decide its fate in a referendum.

Pro-democracy fervour was sweeping from Rangoon across the country and with mass demonstrations drawing millions on to the streets, Ne Win orchestrated not the democratic transition people hoped for, but a military takeover and a human-rights crackdown which culminated on August 8 in what Desmo nd Tutu and Vaclav Havel have subsequently exposed in a report to the UN Security Council as a massacre of the innocents: thousands of unarmed demonstrators - mostly students - were gunned down in the streets.

Suu Kyi had been in Rangoon only for a few weeks. She had no weapons, troops or band of followers, but she had seen at first hand the brutality of the military and she knew the fate awaiting the countless demonstrators rounded up on the streets. It was because she wanted for others in her own country the freedoms she enjoyed in the United Kingdom that at this point, the point of greatest danger, she stepped forward. Within weeks, Suu Kyi and colleagues had established the National League for Democracy (NLD) and she became its general secretary.

For me, Suu Kyi defines the meaning of courage. Once courage was seen chiefly as a battlefield virtue. In most accounts the emphasis is on the physical - physical risk, physical vulnerability or physical triumph. It has been seen as an almost exclusively male, physical attribute: courage as daring and bravado, even recklessness; indeed, in many languages, the word for courage is derived from the word for "man". But Suu Kyi represents the power not of the powerful but of the powerless: a woman, a prisoner of conscience up against a state with one of the worst human-rights violation records in the world; a country of only 20 million people with 1,000 political prisoners, 500,000 political refugees, children as young as four in prison, and poets and journalists tortured just for speaking out.

In the collection of her writings, Freedom from Fear, Suu Kyi describes the courage that she admires the most. It is not fearlessness but conviction, a courage of the mind; not so much a momentous act of daring as a constant condition of the mind defined by strength of belief and strength of will.

Fearlessness may be a gift but perhaps more precious is the courage acquired through endeavour, courage that comes from cultivating the habit of refusing to let fear dictate one's actions, courage that could be described as "grace under pressure", grace that is renewed repeatedly in the face of harsh, unremitting pressure.

The year after Suu Kyi's return to Rangoon, the military formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc) and turned the entire machinery of the state against her in an attempt to silence her by intimidation. On April 5 1989, Suu Kyi and her colleagues confronted an army unit whose rifles were raised and aimed at them. She motioned for her colleagues to step aside while she walked on alone towards the soldiers, offering herself as an easy target.

An army major finally intervened and the rifles were lowered. This poignant scene, of an unarmed solitary figure advancing towards the aimed weapons of a paranoid military dictatorship, can be seen as an allegory of her struggle for freedom in her land. In those few minutes, Suu Kyi showed extraordinary physical courage in the face of an acute mortal threat.

But I am even more fascinated to think of her courage to withstand the isolation of house arrest and separation from her family that would follow - even when she knew she could walk away.

In July 1989, Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders were arrested without charge, and she was placed under house arrest. Throughout her tumultuous entry into Burmese politics, her family had been her steadfast support. Michael and her young sons had travelled to Burma and stayed with her during the school holidays. They had accompanied her on some of her campaigning rallies. Both sons were with her, in fact, when she was placed under house arrest and began her hunger strike. But Slorc then sought to harness all the bargaining power it could by preventing her family from visiting her.

As soon as the boys had returned to Britain, Slorc stepped between Suu Kyi and her family. Her access to them was no longer a private matter to be negotiated around school holidays and half-terms. Her love for her family would become a weapon that Slorc could turn on her. From then on, her children were denied visas, though the authorities allowed Michael further visits at Christmas with the expectation that he would persuade her to give up the struggle and quit Burma. He wrote of their Christmas as a bittersweet occasion: "The days I spent alone with her that last time, completely isolated from the world, are among my happiest memories of our many years of marriage. It was wonderfully peaceful. Suu had established a strict regime of exercise, study and piano which I managed to disrupt.

She was memorising a number of Buddhist sutras. I produced Christmas presents I had brought one by one to spread them out over several days. We had all the time in the world to talk about many things. I did not suspect this would be the last time we would be together for the foreseeable future."

When Slorc realised that her husband would not persuade her to abandon Burma and return to her family in Britain, he too was denied further entry. All phone lines to Suu Kyi were cut and letters from home and supporters, which had initially sustained her, no longer reached her. She would accept nothing from Slorc, not even their offer to be a channel for communication with her family. For Suu Kyi, accepting the help of Slorc, even for survival, would corrupt the clarity of her resolve and dilute the significance of her resistance. These were desperate, lonely days: "Sometimes I didn't even have enough money to eat. I became so weak from malnourishment that my hair fell out ... I couldn't get out of bed. I was afraid that I had damaged my heart. Every time I moved, my heart went thump-thump-thump, and it was hard to breathe. I fell to nearly 90lb from my normal 106. I thought to myself that I'd die of heart failure, not starvation at all. Then my eyes started to go bad. I developed spondylitis, which is a degeneration of the spinal column."

Despite Suu Kyi's imprisonment, the NLD went on to win the elections held in May 1990 by an incredible landslide - taking 82% of the seats. Slorc refused to recognise the results of the election [which, under normal circumstance, would have made Suu Kyi prime minister], and she remained under house arrest.

So the first uncertain weeks of house arrest turned into months, then years. Suu Kyi was completely cut off from the outside world, and completely cut off from her family. She discovered that Slorc might be willing to grant her the right to leave Burma to visit her family in Britain; but she knew that if she left she would never be allowed to return and her work for Burma would be over. To see her family again, she would have to abandon her country in its darkest hour. Yet Suu Kyi knew it was a false choice: the decision was not whether to choose family over country, but whether to abandon the very ideals upon which her love for both her family and country were grounded.

And each month away from her family was a month missed in the lives of her growing children. Each month in isolation marked a severance from the husband who was, in every regard, her life companion. What resources of strength did she have that enabled her to endure the loss of those she most loved? Her oppressors tried to equate her refusal to leave Burma with neglect of her children, claiming she sought personal glory in Burma over and above family duty.

But on the few occasions she has spoken of her separation from her family, we gain glimpses of the scale of her sacrifice. In one essay she wrote of seeing her son, Kim, for the first time after years of separation: "Two years is a long time in the life of a child. It is long enough for a baby to forget a parent who has vanished from sight. It is long enough for boys and girls to grow into young adolescents. It is long enough to turn a carefree youngster into a troubled human being ... When I saw my younger son again for the first time after a separation of two years and seven months, he had changed from a round-faced not-quite-12-year-old into a rather stylish, 'cool' teenager. If I had met him on the street, I would not have known him for my little son."

In 1991, Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel peace prize. She learned of this after hearing it on the BBC World Service while under house arrest. Her 14-year-old son Kim accepted the prize on her behalf.

Seven years later, Michael was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and told that he had not long to live. This devastating news brought about energetic efforts to allow him a final visit to his wife. Appeals from embassies throughout the world failed to move the Burmese military authorities. Instead, they stepped up the propaganda war and offered to assist with arrangements for Suu Kyi to leave the country so that she could be with her terminally ill husband.

It is scarcely possible to imagine the torment the couple must have endured in those months before Michael's death. She was never able to say goodbye to him. He died on March 27 1999.

Suu Kyi realised that her responsibility extended beyond her private life. She fully recognised the wider consequences of imprisonment endured by all the far less well-known prisoners of conscience. Only by fully sharing their privations for herself and her family could she draw international attention to their plight. She was their shield; her imprisonment was their best protection. It was only by bravely sacrificing her own family life that she could do anything to safeguard them.

And it was not enough to believe in a cause; you had to do everything in your power to advance that cause. Alan Clements [an activist who was the first American to become a Buddhist monk in Burma] asked her: "When you reflect upon your people's suffering, what is it that first comes to mind and stirs your heart?" Her response is illuminating and defining: "That we ought to do something about it, whenever we can. That is always my reaction when I see something that should not be. It's no use standing there wringing your hands and saying, 'My goodness, my goodness, this is terrible.' You must try to do what you can. I believe in action."

So Suu Kyi's courage is the courage to sacrifice her own happiness and a comfortable life so that, through her struggle, she might win the right of an entire nation to seek happy and comfortable lives. It is the absolute expression of selflessness. Paradoxically, in sacrificing her own liberty, she strengthens its cry and bolsters its claim for the people she represents.

Her sacrifice is made even more poignant because she seems to be very much in love with liberty and life. She writes movingly and with great joy of ordinary things - the changing seasons, the rituals of traditional Burmese festivals, the arrival of a new baby in someone's family, the spirit of cooperation and friendship that turns ordinary working days into small celebrations of the human spirit. She is alive to the wonder and mystery of the world and rejoices in its pleasures.

Suu Kyi does not see herself engaged in a battle of the titans but in a struggle for the freedom to an "ordinary" life. She knows that the foundation for such an ordinary life is truly radical because it requires a system based on trust, respect, and freedom.

As I write, in March 2007 [after more than a decade of dashed hopes during which Suu Kyi was released, re-arrested, re-released and again put under house arrest by the Burmese authoritites], another period of raised expectations for Suu Kyi's final release has come to yet another frustrating end - with hopes of freedom once again crushed. Once more, Burma's military junta has made it clear that she will not be a free woman. And so, 17 years after an election landslide in her favour, in the fourth year of her third period of house arrest, Suu Kyi remains the world's most prominent prisoner of conscience.

The telephone call she received one night in March 1988 led her far away from the home she loved and the family she cherished. She can never go back and can never reclaim the years she lost from the lives of those she loves. Her husband has died and her children have grown up. Yet detention and imprisonment have not made her less desirous of returning to the ordinary joys of life - a mother spending time with her family - and personal tragedy does not seem to have made her less optimistic about the good that human beings can do.

Even amid personal loss and suffering, the iron has never entered her soul. And hers is an enduring courage, much more than a single act of daring; it is a deep, lasting commitment to a cause that sends a message to the world that no confinement or prison cell, no intimidation of brutality, no personal loss, or even the threat to life itself can destroy the spirit of a true leader, nor her faith in human nature - and it can never extinguish her determination that one day her people will be free.

With thanks to...Gordon Brown.

[solo siam]

It's just empty praise, unless he's done some serious work to see her released and burma free - He's the second most powerful politician in the UK, one of the worlds most powerful nations, what exactly has he done to free her? write some pretty words in his biography.

[Rinrada]

It's just empty praise, unless he's done some serious work to see her released and burma free - He's the second most powerful politician in the UK, one of the worlds most powerful nations, what exactly has he done to free her? write some pretty words in his biography.

Correct and in a few weeks time he will be the most powerfull...etc..etc...etc.....

ref what has he done/will do...?..next time i bump into him I"ll ll ask.......

[khall64au]

With the might of our "free" world, why is this noble woman still chained behind an iron curtain? Perhaps Mandela can give her a hint!

[Rinrada]

Time for a statue of Nelson in Trafalger Square however his so called Freedom Fighters buddies seem to have jumped into bed with as they say.......some str.....

recent bit of news.....

South Africa's strange friends..April 6, 2007

THE LIBERATION of South Africa was greatly assisted by international solidarity expressed in United Nations sanctions against the apartheid regime.

That is why friends of the new South Africa are stunned at the refusal of President Thabo Mbeki's government to use its March term as president of the UN Security Council to show solidarity with the freedom struggles of oppressed peoples in Burma, Darfur, and Zimbabwe.

The most authoritative criticism of South Africa's January vote against a mild Security Council resolution censuring the military junta in Burma has come from retired Archbishop Desmond Tutu. "I am deeply disappointed by our vote.

It is a betrayal of our own noble past," said the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who presided over South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Tutu and former Czech President Vaclav Havel had commissioned a devastating report on the Burmese junta's crimes against humanity.

That report documented the regime's narco-trafficking, its destruction of thousands of ethnic minority villages, its military's dragooning of forced labor, and the resulting flight of more than a million refugees.

In response to the report, the Security Council took up a Burma resolution that included no punitive sanctions, but simply called for national reconciliation, the release of all political prisoners including Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, an end to human rights abuses, and inclusion of the political opposition and ethnic minorities in a dialogue leading to a democratic transition. South Africa defended its No vote with the threadbare technical excuse that the matter belonged with the feckless UN Human Rights Council.

Also on technical grounds, South Africa used its position as Security Council president to block debate on violent repression of the democratic opposition in Zimbabwe under the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe.

The Mbeki government has been castigated in the South African press and by human rights defenders such as Bishop Tutu for its anachronistic stance on Zimbabwe -- touting constructive dialogue with Mugabe while blaming Western powers for practicing "megaphone diplomacy" with Zimbabwe.

Because South Africa once spoke as the moral conscience of Africa, its acquiescence to the genocide in Darfur seems incomprehensible. South Africa claims it is resisting neo colonialism when it refuses to take meaningful action against Mugabe, the Burmese junta, or the Sudanese regime behind the Darfur genocide.

A more plausible explanation may be South Africa's commercial ties to Beijing, an economic partner and political backer of all three dictatorships.

....get everywhere ..dont they...

[chownah]

The OP was really really long and I don't want/need so much info about her as I already support democracy in Burma and don't need to be converted....so I didn't read it. Is there anything new here or is this just a retrospective of past stuff?

Chonwah

[mark lamai]

ive said ot before,

stop china supporting the junta and it will collapse in 12 months

[younghusband]

ive said ot before,

stop china supporting the junta and it will collapse in 12 months

Absolutely correct and though less significant a factor India has also been working hard to develop good commercial and political relations with the Burmese junta.Thailand's own record is also disgraceful, on Burma generally and on Aung San Suu Kyi in particular.Thaksin was openly dismissive of her plight.

[Scott]

Sadly, as long as there are repressive regimes who exploit their people, there will be businesses that are willing to go along with it. It is very sad when gov'ts support these businesses.

Anything that can be done to identify products made/bought from exploited labor can be boycotted. By exploited labor I don't necessarily mean low paid, but I do mean where the people are deprived of basic rights and laws are violated.

It's difficult to separate punishing a gov't from punishing it's people, but knowledge is power!

[Rinrada]

ive said ot before,

stop china supporting the junta and it will collapse in 12 months

Absolutely correct and though less significant a factor India has also been working hard to develop good commercial and political relations with the Burmese junta.Thailand's own record is also disgraceful, on Burma generally and on Aung San Suu Kyi in particular.Thaksin was openly dismissive of her plight.

Military Juntas do tend to have this nasty habit of cuddleing up with each other...

[the gent]

An interesting scenario might have been the selection of the good lady as a contender for the post of Secretary General for the UN. Given it was Asia's turn and her credentials were, and continue to be, far superior to those displayed by the dreary bunch of fellow travellers that finally constituted the ' field ', a cogent case for choosing her might have been developed if the world's democracies actually tried to practice what they so often preach.

But of course, real politik prevails and such fantasies remain precisely that.

Incidentally, can we please desist from any more spurious references to the UK as the 4th most powerful state in the world. It is not but the misconception has arisen because the UK is currently experiencing a prolonged property boom in which the prices of houses if valued as a single asset would elevate the UK's economy to perhaps 4th richest in the world 's league table. However, that is obviously entirely notional and given that many economists, including the Bank of England governor, conclude the market is overvalued by as much as 30% and will probably correct itself sooner than later,as indeed has already occurred in the US, it is likely the UK will lose its place and descend to a position more suited to its mediocrity.

The UK is actually very much tenth rate in most respects but distinguishes itself, certainly in Europe, as a leader in having the worst public transport, the worst public education system, the most drug ridden and drunken society, the highest prison population, the highest number of unmarried mothers, the most taxed society and the most obese.

Militarily, it punches way above its weight but only manages to do this consistently by deriving its power solely from the ' special relationship ' that exists between Tony Bliar and Bush in which the former licks the latter's spittle at any and every opportunity. A relationship that will end soon, hopefully, when the buffoon Brown takes control just in time to lose the next election.

As an interesting footnote, Thailand had more gold reserves than Britain at the conclusion of the 2nd WW when it was effectively bankrupt. The US refused to assist waiving any obligations arising out of the British ' sacrifice ' and it was only with the threat of Communism engulfing Europe that Britain was eventually included in the Marshall Plan.

Fourth most powerful world state? You have to be joking........

Edited April 19, 2007 by the gent

[solo siam]

"As an interesting footnote, Thailand had more gold reserves than Britain at the conclusion of the 2nd WW when it was effectively bankrupt. The US refused to assist waiving any obligations arising out of the British ' sacrifice ' and it was only with the threat of Communism engulfing Europe that Britain was eventually included in the Marshall Plan."

Thats because the UK had to give all of its massive gold reserves to the USA and was bankrupted by being the country who fought the Nazi's for the longest time, I don't see whats to gloat about that or the big sacrifices the Brits had to pay, including rationing for many years after the war,

In regards to the property situation, even when the last recession was on the UK was still one of the top 5 economies in the world, surely the revaluation of the pound upwards has had much more effect considering economies are judged on $ GDP. Don't see why it would upset you, the UK is still very strong in Science and Technology, Banking, Finance etc...

[younghusband]

Incidentally, can we please desist from any more spurious references to the UK as the 4th most powerful state in the world. It is not but the misconception has arisen because the UK is currently experiencing a prolonged property boom in which the prices of houses if valued as a single asset would elevate the UK's economy to perhaps 4th richest in the world 's league table. However, that is obviously entirely notional and given that many economists, including the Bank of England governor, conclude the market is overvalued by as much as 30% and will probably correct itself sooner than later,as indeed has already occurred in the US, it is likely the UK will lose its place and descend to a position more suited to its mediocrity.

The UK is actually very much tenth rate in most respects but distinguishes itself, certainly in Europe, as a leader in having the worst public transport, the worst public education system, the most drug ridden and drunken society, the highest prison population, the highest number of unmarried mothers, the most taxed society and the most obese.

You obviously have some issues with the UK which I do not think need detain us here.I am fairly sure from the content of your post that your grasp of economics is a little hazy, though I would not dispute the social problems you mention.However for the benefit of those who are interested and free of the proverbial bee in the bonnet, it is an absurdity to suggest that the UK's prosperity is the result of the property boom there or that disaster would follow a 30% correction in the market.If anything the property prices are a result of economic success, not vice versa.The general reason for the UK's success in the last fifteen years has been the series of structural reforms resulting in a very high level of market efficiency.But make no mistake about it the UK is a very competitive environment where the best and the brightest do extremely well, not so comfortable for the shiftless and untalented.

[the gent]

Not aware I was gloating, sport. It was simply a statement of historical fact and an attempt at introducing some sort of perspective and by implication questionning the notion that there is a direct correlation between power and a country's wealth.

Vis a vis the UK's figures, because of deregulation London has become the world's financial centre and contributes mightily to our GDP but that still does not prevent the economy running a current deficit of about 50 Bn GBP. GDP growth is underpinned by domestic consumption fuelled by personal indebtedness secured in the quaint belief that house prices only rise. It is a Potemkin economy and due to collapse imminently.

Not sure what you mean by science and technology. The UK no longer has a manufacturing base of any significance and is increasingly reliant upon outsourcing for its IT needs. Science subjects have plummeted in popularity to such an extent that a significant number of state schools no longer offer physics or chemistry at A Level not least because there is a scarcity of teachers qualified to teach them. Education in the UK is generally recognised to be such a shambles that employers no longer value tertiary qualifications and increasingly rely upon their own selection procedures.The A level standard currently offered by the State system would hardly tax a 13 year old from a public school and as such has become universally derided as a measure of any excellence.

Don't take it personally, it's just the reality of modern Britain but if you prefer to wallow in some sort of blimpish sentimentality then so be it.

[gummy]

Have I missed something ? as I can still only find Thailand mentioned once in this thread and even that had no relevance. Does this not belong to a Burma forum or is someone trying to surreptitiously promote Gordon Brown's book ?

[solo siam]

Not aware I was gloating, sport. It was simply a statement of historical fact and an attempt at introducing some sort of perspective and by implication questionning the notion that there is a direct correlation between power and a country's wealth.

Vis a vis the UK's figures, because of deregulation London has become the world's financial centre and contributes mightily to our GDP but that still does not prevent the economy running a current deficit of about 50 Bn GBP. GDP growth is underpinned by domestic consumption fuelled by personal indebtedness secured in the quaint belief that house prices only rise. It is a Potemkin economy and due to collapse imminently.

Not sure what you mean by science and technology. The UK no longer has a manufacturing base of any significance and is increasingly reliant upon outsourcing for its IT needs. Science subjects have plummeted in popularity to such an extent that a significant number of state schools no longer offer physics or chemistry at A Level not least because there is a scarcity of teachers qualified to teach them. Education in the UK is generally recognised to be such a shambles that employers no longer value tertiary qualifications and increasingly rely upon their own selection procedures.The A level standard currently offered by the State system would hardly tax a 13 year old from a public school and as such has become universally derided as a measure of any excellence.

Don't take it personally, it's just the reality of modern Britain but if you prefer to wallow in some sort of blimpish sentimentality then so be it.

You obviously just don't understand much about the UK economy, by Science & technology, I'm not talking A Level Biology, I'm talking about R&D - mobile phones, software and IT development, Medical Research, Outsourcing (yes its a technology service that can be sold) - Why bother to manufacture there when you can do it elsewhere for a 1/3 of the cost and triple your profit?

Not sure I understand your point about Current Account deficits, Japan has run a surplus in its current account for over 20 years but has had one of the most stagnant economies ever seen during most of that period, with high unemployment, recessions and contracting GDP, regardless of the CA deficit whereas the USA is the worlds most powerful economy even with a massive deficit, its not a direct link.

The reason that Chemistry and Physics have taken a dive in the UK is that they are irrelevant to the job market unless you are going to become a physicist or chemist, which in reality is a fairly rare occupation. Instead people are focussing on IT and Business, which personally I see as much more relevant.

[the gent]

Oh dear, what price atrophy?

The drive to reduce costs and to maximise profits in Britain is probably symptomatic of the global shift taking place throughout the old and new world towards the East but it comes at a price of which you are clearly oblivious. I have no idea what your experience is but it's quite evident your comprehension is at best superficial.

The UK economy is mirroring the US but lacks its scale and cannot hope to emulate its ability to defy what may pass for economic law. Greenspan towards the end of his tenure confessed confusion as to why the market was operating as it was but his belief that monetarism was redundant as a factor in formulating policy was nevertheless maintained. Time will tell but at present we are in unchartered waters and no amount of would be dismal scientists could argue otherwise.

The primary impetus in the UK economy since 2003 has been the availability of cheap credit tweaked by the allegedly independent BoE which has connived at fixing the market by foolishly reducing interest rates in a short term bid to stave off recession. It repeated this stupidity in 2005 with the desired effect that house prices have risen astronomically totally disconnected from its traditional relationship to income. Somewhat late in the day Eddie George has conceded he made an error and even the current incumbent acknowledges that the postponed pain will be that much deeper when the anaethesised consumer finally has to pay the piper.Inflation is already increasing and no amount of fiddling the indicators by Brown can alter the fact. Devaluation will inevitably ensue and recession bites.

Wealth in the UK is as polarised here as it is in the US but our addiction to welfare and concomitant taxation means that the middle classes are becoming ever more squeezed and the poor are anchored further in their mire but now must compete with 2 million plus migrants for minimum wage jobs. Of course this all helps to sustain the miracle Bliar economy which evidently finds favour with yourself but most see the illusion for what it is.

Anyway, I shouldn't get too hung up on increasing GDP being a guide to economic health. I rather think the Japanese deflation has funded the carry trade quite successfully so far but it's a poisoned chalice for the current socialists who historically could never say no to an easy ride....

Getting bored now but may I pose a question? If we don't invest in an eclectic education who will perform all that R&D ? Oh yes, silly me, we shall just go and buy it with all that money the banks are making.

A nation of telephone sanitizers and hairdressers and then a sullen silence descended upon the universe.....

[LaoPo]

Most interesting thread...

The OP's topic is called "A Woman of Courage" (about Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma) written by Gordon Brown (the new PM of the UK?) and it 'sailed' along via a political South African post/situation in post #5, into a discussion about economics, politics and finances in the UK.

What's the next stop, Japan...? as mentioned in the last previous post ?

I'm puzzled and think we need a captain on board of this abandoned ship

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

I see, we sailed back from Japan and we're back in Thailand and we've landed for a short stopover in Bangkok harbour, or is it Songhkla ?, for a short discussion -during teatime- about Mr. T.

Who else ?

We're almost back on-topic: "A Woman of Courage" a Lady I admire so much. That's the truth.

LaoPo

[Begbie]

I used to like that song Gordon Brown. What ever happened to the stranglers anyway.

Gordon Brown texture like sun

Lays me down with my mind she runs

Throughout the night

No need to fight

Never a frown with Gordon Brown

Every time just like the last

On her ship tied to the mast

To distant lands

Takes both my hands

Never a frown with Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown finer temptress

Through the ages she's heading West

From far away

Stays for a day

Never a frown with Gordon Brown

Never a frown

With Gordon Brown

Never a frown

With Gordon Brown

[gummy]

Oh dear, what price atrophy?

The drive to reduce costs and to maximise profits in Britain is probably symptomatic of the global shift taking place throughout the old and new world towards the East but it comes at a price of which you are clearly oblivious. I have no idea what your experience is but it's quite evident your comprehension is at best superficial.

The UK economy is mirroring the US but lacks its scale and cannot hope to emulate its ability to defy what may pass for economic law. Greenspan towards the end of his tenure confessed confusion as to why the market was operating as it was but his belief that monetarism was redundant as a factor in formulating policy was nevertheless maintained. Time will tell but at present we are in unchartered waters and no amount of would be dismal scientists could argue otherwise.

The primary impetus in the UK economy since 2003 has been the availability of cheap credit tweaked by the allegedly independent BoE which has connived at fixing the market by foolishly reducing interest rates in a short term bid to stave off recession. It repeated this stupidity in 2005 with the desired effect that house prices have risen astronomically totally disconnected from its traditional relationship to income. Somewhat late in the day Eddie George has conceded he made an error and even the current incumbent acknowledges that the postponed pain will be that much deeper when the anaethesised consumer finally has to pay the piper.Inflation is already increasing and no amount of fiddling the indicators by Brown can alter the fact. Devaluation will inevitably ensue and recession bites.

Wealth in the UK is as polarised here as it is in the US but our addiction to welfare and concomitant taxation means that the middle classes are becoming ever more squeezed and the poor are anchored further in their mire but now must compete with 2 million plus migrants for minimum wage jobs. Of course this all helps to sustain the miracle Bliar economy which evidently finds favour with yourself but most see the illusion for what it is.

Anyway, I shouldn't get too hung up on increasing GDP being a guide to economic health. I rather think the Japanese deflation has funded the carry trade quite successfully so far but it's a poisoned chalice for the current socialists who historically could never say no to an easy ride....

Getting bored now but may I pose a question? If we don't invest in an eclectic education who will perform all that R&D ? Oh yes, silly me, we shall just go and buy it with all that money the banks are making.

A nation of telephone sanitizers and hairdressers and then a sullen silence descended upon the universe.....

Rather a cynical viewpoint but of course 100% correct in your analysis - are there only a few of us as yet that understand ? Anyway you forgot to factor in the impending impact racial disquite will have on the UK economy. Although of course you must fully appreciate that this dire positon was initially instigated by the wicked witch Thatcher purposely ruining the future UK manufacturing base by ensuring her cronies were handsomely rewarded when she "sold" of the Nations assets, 73% ( and rising ) of which are now foreign owned and controlled !!

Edited April 20, 2007 by gummy

[Rinrada]

Have I missed something ? as I can still only find Thailand mentioned once in this thread and even that had no relevance. Does this not belong to a Burma forum or is someone trying to surreptitiously promote Gordon Brown's book ?

No Gummy not trying to promote his book.. just making a point /observation in reference as to how the next British Prime Minister considers the situation in Thailands next door (for now)friendly neighbour and possibly get an insight as to what the future Brits Guv. stance might be with regards to the unacceptable situation of the "Lady of Courage."

Most of us would tend to agree that when it comes to it ..we ..ie our "Masters " (elected) could do a "ell of a lot more to resolve the ...wot facist state in that tragic little country .....we use to run the poxy place .. so think we still have a MORAL responsibility towards it....

No you dont--yes you have why dont you keep your ffing noses out of other peoples busi...etc.... .......................bilhooks...

I have only met G B a couple of times (a bit dour) and he didnt even by me a pint ...unlike Prezzer (great block) but still in saying that he does have a lotta good ideas and Burmas is one majour part of them and when he does take over I am fairly confident that him,Jack Straw and Ian Macarthy will be a lot more pro-active that the last administration...sods....No guarantees but...it simply CANT go on the way it is..................... can it.....?

Dont also forget that if Burma changes for the better so will Thailand......