[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

who killed aung san?



Subject: who killed aung san ?

Down-loaded from Australian National University.

BOOKS

Review

Kin Oung Who killed Aung San? Bangkok: White Lotus 1993. xiv, 101pp.,
bibliography, glossary, index, map. Foreword by Malcolm Booker.


This highly readable little book is an insider's account of the
history of modern Burma. As Kin Oung sets out in his preface, he is
the son of Major-General Tun Hla Oung, Inspector-General of Police and
responsible for the initial investigation and security after arrest of
U Saw, who was hanged for master-minding the assassination of Aung
San. Kin Oung is also the son-in law of Justice Thaung Sein, who was
jointly responsible for U Saw's security and among his other high
positions was Inspector- General of Prisons. An uncle, U Shwe Baw was
Secretary of the Executive Council, and was seated next to Aung San at
the meeting at which the assassination took place, but escaped without
injury. Kin Oung himself was with the British Burmese Navy during
World War ll and then became a shipping executive. He now lives in
Canberra and has been very active in Australian-Burmese affairs and is
Patron of the Committee for the Restoration of Democracy in Burma.

The question of the title is the focus of the book, but in setting out
the events and attempting to answer the question, the author
introduces us to the history of modern Burma and the events and issues
that have beset that strife torn country. One of the themes Kin Oung
returns to thoughout the book is the expression thoke-thin-ye - the
policy of removing rivals by complete annihilation.

U Saw was some fifteen or sixteen years older than Aung San and about
the time the latter made his now famous escape from Rangoon, ending up
with the Japanese, U Saw was Prime Minister under the British and left
Rangoon for London to discuss political change after the war in
exchange for helping the British. In the meantime the Japanese and the
Burmese Independence Army marched into Burma and U Saw trying to
switch sides, found himself arrested by the British and sent to exile
in Uganda.

Recent writing such as Kin Oung and Bertil Lintner have suggested that
the 'Thirty Comrades' of Aung San were divided from the start with
hostility between Aung San and Ne Win. To the outsider it seems much
closer critical research is needed before we can be convinced. I shall
return to this in a moment.

Again, as is well-known, Aung San switched support away from the
Japanese at the end of the war and was invited to London by Attlee to
discuss Burma's independence. U Saw also went to London as 'the
opposition' and refused to sign the final agreement. The assassination
occurred a few months before independence.

The 'mystery' relates to sets of questions. First, what was the
British involvement? Second was Ne Win involved? There was a definite
suggestion that there was a conservative conspiracy involving Indian
businessmen, U Saw and some young British officers. A critical figure
was the British Council representative John Stewart Bingley, to whom U
Saw wrote from gaol asking for money. Bingley was not prosecuted and
was allowed to leave Burma and then 'vanishes from history'. The three
officers appear to have been engaged in gun-running, perhaps with more
than the hope of financial gain. One of them, Captain David Vivian,
was released by Karen in the initial insurgency and spent many years
with them. He died in the 1980s, in Wales. There seems to be no
evidence of high-level British involvement.

The Ne Win theory seems to have first surfaced in a Karen National
Union publication in 1986, which suggested that U Saw was framed for a
conspiracy hatched by U Nu and Ne Win. Kin Oung dismisses the charges
against U Nu. The charge against Ne Win resurfaces in a publication in
California last year by a Burmese doctor, Kyin Ho. As far as can be
made out of Kin Oung's brief comments it appears that the allegation
is that Ne Win set up a fake assassination attempt on U Saw before the
London conference, trying to implicate Aung San, thereby provoking U
Saw into retaliation. Kin Oung seems slightly sceptical, though not
denying Ne Win's propensity for infamy.

The assassination attempt on U Saw is interesting as earlier in the
book Kin Oung seems to accept the theory that Aung San might have been
responsible. This, I think, raises an important scholarly issue. Many
of us have come, in recent years, to views on the total
unacceptability of the SLORC dictatorship. But there comes a point
when questions have to be asked about the Burmese leadership of our
time. The symbol of Aung San is a necessary one, but was he without
fault? There are suggestions that the British warrant for his arrest
on his return from the meetings of the Indian National Congress, the
warrant that led to his escape and journey to Amoy, was not for
political offences but for a particularly nasty, racist murder.

Kin Oung's style is both committed and urbane. I cannot resist citing
an example of the confidence that characterizes the book. He is
describing U Saw's appearance in court: U Saw appeared daily in the
courtroom, cool, calm and collected. He was well dressed in
traditional Burmese silk attire, as befitting a former Prime Minister.
He could not be described as handsome, yet he exuded an air of
mystique which had a certain appeal, especially to the ladies, who
occupied a good number of seats in the hall. His dress, however, was
not entirely formal as he did not wear the usually obligatory
gaung-baung, a kind of turban worn by Burmese males on official
occasions. In fact, his close cropped hair made him look almost
nondescript, like any other peasant from his native Tharawaddy
district in rustic, central Burma.

I take pleasure in recommending this book to anyone who has any
interest in Burma.

		Gehan Wijeyewardene