“Because this [Burma] is a country where we do not enjoy security, there are many refugees from Burma who are a burden to our neighbors. We accept that refugees are a burden. We do not want our people to be a burden to our neighbors but when conditions in our country are such that our people can enjoy neither political nor economic security, the problem of refugees is inevitable. […] Unless there is rule of law in this country, unless there is a system of government which will guarantee the people the basic right to life – the very, very basic right to life - there will be a continuing stream of refugees fleeing across our borders.”

“Unless our people enjoy basic human rights we will not enjoy peace or prosperity in this country. And unless there is peace and prosperity in this country we will always provide a threat to the peace and prosperity of this region.”

“The troubles of Burma have spilled over our borders. They have spilled over to the west to Bangladesh, over to the east to Thailand. It is hardly necessary to reiterate what has been happening in Thailand because of Burmese refugees and Burmese migrant workers. So the days have passed when we can say that the troubles of one country can be isolated and that the internal affairs of one country are no concern of its neighbors. We believe that our ASEAN neighbors understand this and at the same time we also know that the ASEAN nations have to cope with the dilemma of respecting individual sovereignty of nations as well as trying to make moves that would benefit the whole region.”

“When ASEAN was considering Burma as a permanent member a couple of years ago, we made two points. One was that admitting Burma as a member would make the regime more repressive, because they would think that their policies have been endorsed. They would see it as a seal of approval. Or, at least, if it was not a seal of approval it was a sign that the ASEAN countries didn't mind about the human rights record of the military regime. And the second thing we said was that Burma under this military regime was not going to be an asset to the organization. And I think we can claim that both these views have been vindicated.”

“Oh, they [the military regime] have got much much more repressive since they became a full member of ASEAN. And I don't think that really Burma is much of a credit to ASEAN these days. It's not exactly a shining example for them.”

“In this day and age we cannot isolate any country. […] Those who claim that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of Burma do not hesitate to be involved economically in Burma. As long as they are involved economically, how can they say that they are not interfering in the internal affairs of our country? If they are prepared to engage economically with our country, then they must also be prepared to do what they can to help us resolve our political problems.”

“What we said about humanitarian aid is that we are not against it. But we want it properly monitored so that it is given equally to everybody and not just to those who are favored by the authorities. And that the aid should not be used by the authorities as part of the propaganda machine. […] But we have never said that we are against humanitarian aid per se. And we've never said that all NGOs should leave Burma or not come in.”

“I’ve said this ad nauseam: accountability, transparency and independent monitoring. Unless there is accountability and transparency, you can never say what happens to all that assistance. It may not go to help the people, on the contrary, it may go into schemes that harm the people. So unless there is accountability and transparency we cannot say that humanitarian aid is assisting the people.”

“I think sanctions are effective. The government says two things. Sometimes they say that sanctions have no effect whatsoever so they don't care about them - in which case, why are they making a fuss. And then sometimes they say that sanctions are hurting the ordinary people in Burma. But when they say that the sanctions are hurting the ordinary people of Burma, then that does not sound good either because that's tantamount to saying that they are different from the ordinary people and that their life is quite different. So either way you look at it, the regime's approach toward sanctions is inconsistent and not very uplifting. But we think that sanctions have been effective, because as the United States is such a strong economic power, then when sanctions came in, potential investors started looking into the situation very carefully. And then they found that there were many things that they didn't like about the business practices and the investment laws of Burma. And that is why they backed off. Not simply because the US brought in sanctions.”

“We would like the world to know that economic sanctions do not hurt the common people of Burma. When Burma was opened up to what they called the market economy a decade ago, it did not open a door for the common people of Burma. What it did was to give the military authorities and those connected with them a chance to consolidate their economic position in the same way in which they had consolidated their power base. This is why we think that economic sanctions are good and necessary for the fast democratization of Burma. […] We would like the European Community, the United States, and the rest of the world to be aware that sanctions do help the movement for democracy in Burma. And we would like them to be aware of the fact that unilateral sanctions are better than no sanctions at all. The best, of course, are multilateral sanctions, and we would like the whole international community to join in a movement aimed at bringing democracy soon to Burma.”

“We are not anti-business, we are not anti-investment but we are very anxious that business and investment should be conducted in such a way as to be beneficial to our people as well as to investors.”

“We are not against business and we are not against investment. But we are not in favour of the kind of investment that simply encourages the military regime to increase its oppressiveness. We are not in favour of the kind of investment that makes some people, a very privileged elite, very, very rich while the rest of the country stays as poor as ever.”

“The kind of economic policies that they [the military regime] adopted when they came into power have resulted in a very small, very wealthy elite, while the general public became poorer and poorer. This makes not only for economic malaise, it also makes for social discontent, and social discontent in the long run means instability and instability is a threat to peace.”

“It is no longer possible even for housewives to keep out of politics, because politics has invaded the traditional domain of housewives. The root cause of upward spiraling commodity prices, greatly increased charges for electricity, and rising costs of education and health care is a political one.”

“I think the real trouble with the national convention is that it is not really a national convention, because a genuine national convention must be one made up of people who have been elected or selected by the public in some way or the other, which is not the case of this present convention and that is its main trouble.”

“We have always said that we are not interested in vengeance. That's our official policy.”

“I don’t think we should get involved with retribution and vengeance. I don’t think it will do our country any good, because what we need is reconciliation and progress towards a situation in which we can all participate together for the good of the future.”

“We are not out to punish anybody, we are not out to crush or annihilate anybody, that is not our way, that is not our policy. What we want to do is to bring about national reconciliation, so that as few people as possible will lose out from the process. In fact what we want to find is a solution that will be a win-win one, a win-win solution for everybody concerned.”

“Until all our political prisoners are free, none of us can say that Burma is now truly on the road towards democratic change.”

“If you mean that would I support violence, no I would not support violence. Because I don't think that violence really does anybody any good. But if you mean that would we support a spontaneous demonstration by the people for better conditions, certainly we would.”

“What do we mean actually by peace? I suppose basically we mean a sense of inner security that will give us the strength to work for others and for the community, to work for progress and development. […] Peace, development and justice are all connected to each other. We cannot talk about economic development without talking about peace. How can we expect economic development in a battle field? It would not be possible. But there are more than one kind of battle field in this world. A battle field is not necessarily a place where people are shooting each other. In a civil society, where basic human rights are ignored, where the rights of the people are violated every day, it is like a battle field where lives are lost and people are crippled, because people can lose their lives. And the development of their lives can be crippled by a lack of basic human rights. So when we talk about peace, we can not avoid talking about basic human rights, especially in a country like Burma where people are troubled constantly by a lack of human rights and a lack of justice and a lack of peace.”

“Human rights, including political, civil, social and economic rights are not a particularly western idea. Human rights are relevant to all human beings. Those who wish to deny us certain political rights try to convince us that these are not Asian values. They try to make us content with what they are prepared to give us.”

“Burma was one of the original signatories to the UDHR and I'm not aware that any Burmese at the time stood up and said 'this is not Asian, this is not Burmese.”

“There is also the dangerous development that members of the armed forces are educated separately. Medical colleges and engineering colleges are kept opened for members of the armed forces while the civilian population is deprived of higher education. This does not augur well for the future of our country. We will become a house divided. We will become a nation made up of two classes, the military elite and the rest. This does not augur well either for the military or for the civilians.”