In The Times of 29 August 1988 there appeared the following interview with Aung San Suu Kyi by Karan Thapar under the title ‘People’s Heroine Spells Out Objectives’.
Q: There is considerable confusion about the present state of affairs in Rangoon and Burma. How would you describe the atmosphere and the state of the country?
A: The atmosphere is understandably very tense. The machinery of the government has almost come to a complete standstill in many parts of the country. But the people are rising to the occasion. Demonstrations are being conducted in a systematic manner. Vigilante groups have taken charge of local security. The people are spearheading a movement for discipline and order.
Q: You have emerged in recent days as perhaps the principal leader of the present people’s movement. What are you fighting for? How would you describe your aims?
A: I am one of a large majority of people in Burma struggling for democracy. It is my aim to help the people attain democracy without further violence or loss of life.
Q: You have recently spoken of the need for a ‘second struggle for Burmese independence’. What exactly did you mean by that?
A: A political system that denies the full enjoyment of human rights to the people militates against the ideal of full independence. That is why I say that the present demands of the people of Burma for democracy constitutes their second struggle for independence.
Q: How do you respond to President Maung Maung’s offer of a special party congress on 12 September [1988] to decide whether a referendum should be held on the issue of multiparty politics?
A: If the ruling party had agreed to a referendum last month when it was first suggested, the people would have accepted it with thanks. But now it is the old story: too little too late. The people have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they want multi-party democracy. A referendum would be totally redundant.
Q: Do you then want the Burmese people to continue with their demands until they actually topple the present government?
A: It is not a question of toppling the government, or a question of what I want. The people will continue with their demands until they get the sort of political system they want.
Q: Are you not worried that, given the generally spontaneous and unorganized nature of the people’s movement, Burma could end up in a state of anarchy, with no authority in control and no law and order?
A: It is true that the movement started out as a spontaneous demonstration of the people’s frustration, but it is becoming better organized with every passing day. The public are now making arrangements for local security and planning more systematic demonstrations and strikes. So one can make too much of that fear.
Q: What sort of assistance are you looking for from the army?
A: I am not looking for any assistance from the army. What I said on 25 August was that there should be no dissension between the army and the people. The army should be a force which people should honour and trust. I strongly believe that the army should keep away from politics to preserve its own integrity, as well as for the good of the nation.
Q: If the regime does fall, what will take its place? What sort of transitional arrangement could there be?
A: An interim government in which people have confidence would be able to put the country back on an even keel and see that conditions are created for free and fair elections.
Q: Do you see a role for yourself in that transition and, if so, what?
A: There is no particular role in which I see myself. I shall wait on events to see how I can be of most use in bringing about a peaceful transition.
Q: Let’s turn to the future, which in fact may not be all that far away. If multi-party democracy does come about, Burma, of course, does not have any parties. What sort of parties would you like to see formed?
A: Ideally one would like to see parties headed by able and honest people dedicated to the preservation of a democratic system of government.
Q: Will you try to form one yourself?
A: Not if it is at all avoidable.
Q: Are you committed to a life of politics and if you are how would you analyse your talents and gifts as a politician?
A: A life in politics holds no attraction for me. At the moment I serve as a kind of unifying force because of my father’s name and because I am not interested in jostling for any kind of position.
Q: Who would you therefore support as a future leader, perhaps in a transitional capacity?
A: To answer this question would mean getting involved in the kind of politics I want to avoid as far as possible.
Q: What can you or any future government say or do to attract home educated Burmese?
A: A democratic government which gives people enough scope to exercise their talents will surely attract home many Burmese. However, it would not be right to underestimate the pool of skill and talent which already exists inside the country. The removal of an oppressive political and economic system will reveal many able people who so far have had no chance to show their abilities.
Q: What sort of relations with the outside world should a democratic Burma pursue?
A: Burma has always pursued a policy of non-alignment and should continue to do so. However, it could adopt a more open attitude towards contacts with the outside world.
Q: One of the traditional concerns important to the Burmese people has been their desire to preserve the purity of their culture and religion. Is that important to you too?
A: I think it is important for every people to work for the preservation of their culture and religion. At the same time it must be remembered that a progressive nation should move with the times and avoid bigoted and narrow-minded attitudes.
Q: Given your father’s historical association with the Burmese army, what sort of role would you like to see it play in any future democratic Burma? Do you feel that a country like Burma requires an institutionalized role for the army in politics?
A: My father said that the army should keep out of politics, and I support that view totally.