Khun Sa: The good things about him

No.14 - 11/2007
20 November 2007
General
 
Khun Sa: The good things about him
 
 
In Germany, saying anything good about Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) could cost you your job.
 
At Ban Therdthai aka Ban Hintaek, Mae Fa Luang District, Chiangmai Province, it is the other way round. Saying anything bad about Khun Sa, ex-Mong Tai Army (MTA) leader who died on 28 October under virtual house arrest in Rangoon, could cost you a short stay at the village. Maybe a bang of the door in your face. Please find your way out of my house, Mister.
 
No doubt it is no sweat to find faults with Khun Sa (1934-2007). He had lots of them: assassination of several prominent Shan leaders including Zam Mong, Hseng Harn and Sai Lek, favoritism to yes-men especially those of ethnic Chinese origins, his insatiable appetite for the opposite sex, and others. His surrender in 1996 had brought a lasting disgrace to the Shans. His downfall could be traced to his ill-considered declaration of independence in 1993 after which he found himself totally surrounded by enemies where the only way out was to give himself up to the Burma Army.
 
But having worked with him for ten years (1985-1995) after he “borrowed” me from my late boss Gawnzerng (1926-1991), I know he had his good side.
 
You don’t have to look far. In some bookstores in Chiangmai, you’ll find copies of Khun Sa: His own story and his thoughts still lying around, from where one can sample how he thought about what he was doing:

• If  you have your own country but not your own government, nothing you own is secure. The money you earn is for others to take and squander; the rice you grow is to feed them; the home you build is for them to burn down; your sons are to be press-ganged as their cannon fodder and porters; and your daughters are to be raped and sold as prostitutes.
• We have a population of eight million made up of one million families (eight members to a family). If each family furnishes a soldier, then we will have an armed force of one million troops and the war will be won with ease. Shouldn’t each family be responsible for contributing one soldier?
• The Soviet Union and China, with hundreds of races and tribes, succeeded in forming nations. If we, with only 26 races, cannot do it, we are unworthy of an independent state.
• Why is Burma always in turmoil? It is because the Burmese never want to elevate any race other than their own. We cannot follow the Burmese way if we wish for a peaceful and prosperous nation. We must promote races other than the Tais to become national leaders.
• The present Union of Burma can be likened to an open human hand. The seven states are the fingers and Burma a nut in the depression in the palm’s center. If every finger is strong and each act in concert with the rest, the nut can be crushed with ease.
• Poppy cultivation was terminated in China because it had its own government. By the same logic, the termination of poppies in the Shan State is inseparable with the set up of an independent Shan government. The independent Chinese government never found the need to get any urge from foreign government to do it. Neither will we.
• Our bodies are like machines, the longer we use them, the poorer their capacities become. Unlike them, our brains are like knives, the more we whet them, the sharper they become. Therefore, we can let our bodies age, but our brains, never.
• Don’t behave like drums and gongs: they make sounds only when beaten. Act like clocks: they sound off every time the need arises.
• I want to ask those people who refuse to improve themselves: Are you afraid of Shan State becoming independent?

 
He was also the one who introduced Shan leaders and those aspiring to be leaders Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the Chinese classic whose clear moral is that one cannot enter politics solely on the basis of lofty ideals like truth, sincerity and principles.
 
I have also never known any Shan leader other than him strongly exhorting the idea that the war against the Burma Army could be won without fighting. “If you don’t want to fight, you have to have a strong army,” he used to say. “On the contrary, you will have to fight all the time, if you have a weak army.”
 
But six months after a mutiny took place on 6 June 1995, the panicked Khun Sa accepted defeat and surrendered himself to his sworn enemy the Burma Army.
 
Which proved once again that to be a successful leader, big ideas are not enough. One also need a big and stout heart and Khun Sa did not have it. “His biggest fault was he did not practise what he preached,” summed up one of his cousins who had since decided to end up his days in Thailand.
 
Notably, among those who mourned his downfall was the late expert on Shans, Gehan Wijeyewardene, who wrote in the Thai-Yunnan Project News, June 1996:
 
In Burma, attention now focuses entirely on the moral force exerted by Aung San Suu Kyi. One can only hope that this will succeed. But there can be no doubt that the forcing of Khun Sa into the arms of SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council, the former name of Burma’s ruling military council) has done Burmese freedom a great disservice.
 
_{Khuensai Jaiyen}