Subscription request from SLORC (r)

[uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Received: by pilot.physics.adelaide.edu.au (5.61+IDA+MU/UA-5.23)id AA03073; Wed, 18 Jan 1995 15:47:44 +1030

> Received: (from strider) by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.5 ) id VAA14175 for conf:reg.burma; Mon, 16 Jan 1995 21:17:33 -0800
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 21:17:33 -0800
> 
> A person who has identified himself as an employee of Burma's
> embassy in Washington has requested a subscription to the
> BurmaNet News.  To date, no one has been refused a subscription
> but if there is substantial feeling from other subscribers that
> this one should be turned away, I am willing to do so.  To be
> honest however, there is probably not much point.  The only way I
> have of knowing whether someone is SLORC is if they identify
> themselves as such.  Given that there are over 180 subscribers to
> the News, it is likely that some among these are sympathetic to
> the regime and pass on information.
> 
> I am sending this note out because a few subscribers distribute
> material over the reg.burma mailing list with requests that it
> not be forwarded to more public newsgroups such as
> soc.culture.burma.  If the point of this is to post semi-publicly
> without having it read persons associated with the SLORC, this
> practice is probably already unsafe.  Assuming that the gentleman
> from the embassy is allowed to subscribe, it will certainly be
> unwise.

Dear Mr Strider:

Regarding the subscription by SLORC, I do have reservation about 
inclusion of it into reg.burma-list. I think the exclusion of it 
from reg.burma-list has been much more justified.

In fact, what we discuss here in reg.burma-list are exclusive to 
the people on the side of democracy. Things we are discussing here
are to beat the SLORC down, and to forced them to relinquish power.
We do need some privacy of discussion on policy and actions. I don't
think even rival parties in full democracy (left alone the Burmese 
Democrats and SLORC) will share full accounts of what their strategies
and future directions each other. Therefore, it is quite justified
to exclude SLORC from the reg.burma.

You've got to remember what the SLORC is doing to us: they have 
never share their policy or making consultations with the Burmese
Democrats (NLD and elected parliamentarians). Look at how they
restrict discussion at the National Convention - it is done under
a totally closed door. Even the meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
are not disclosed to the public. So why  shouldn't we give 
the same treatment to them. Of course, when there are things to
be disclosed to them, we can post to soc.culture.burma.

However, if you are kind enough to them - I particularly don't think
you need to - send BurmaNet News and other standard items to them
directly. But then, these things re-appears on soc.culture.burma
and not necessarily been of a great favor. 

Of course, there are some possibility of discussions in reg.burma-l
being directly passed onto by its informers. If SLORC is that desperate,
so be it. But, as a matter of principle, we must not disclose 
willingly what we've been doing in great detail to SLORC.

But one thing there should be exception to this condition. If the 
sensorship laws are abolished and at a time the Burmese people 
enjoy total freedom of speech, they (SLORC) should be included
in the reg.burma.

With best regards, U Ne Oo.

This letter, however, is free to be distributed to the public nets.