soc.culture.china

Thank you for the response.
It is clear that little is know about the previous election.

On Oct 1, 10:34 pm, Wakalukong wrote:
> On Oct 1, 8:08 pm, "ltl...@ " wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 12:36 am, Wakalukong wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 1, 11:20 am, "ltl...@ " wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 30, 11:06 pm, Wakalukong wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 30, 7:34 pm, "ltl...@ " wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 30, 1:32 am, d...@ wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Aung San Suu Kyi is a British citizen. She uses British passport. She
> > > > > > > is no qualification to run for any politic position outside England.
>
> > > > > > > I don't know Bristish Government allow her to run politic in England.
> > > > > > > Million of Bristish citizen have no right to vote in the Western
> > > > > > > democracy.
>
> > > > > > > There is no question that Aung San Suu Kyi can not hold any political
> > > > > > > position in any Democratic Myanmar Government.
>
> > > > > > > Don't be fool by the Western democracy principle that don't work in
> > > > > > > Iraq, England and the US.
>
> > > > > > Can you eleborate?
>
> > > > > > This is certainly new to me. I don't know much about Auug San Suu Kyi
> > > > > > She was considered an heroine in all western reports.
>
> > > > > > The following is what I had gathered from some popular sources such
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > Wikipedia which accuracy is unknown, she was born while Burma was a
> > > > > > British colony. This certainly made her a British subject. But the
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > Burma became independent two years later. Did she not then become
> > > > > > Burmese (Myanmar) citizen under the then Burmese law? A related
> > > > > > question: When did she moved to England?
>
> > > > > > She returned the then Burma. What was the law law regardling her
> > > > > > citizensship? Were there laws stipulating that she needed to apply
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > it if she was not already Burmese/Myanmarese? Did she ever renounce
> > > > > > her British citizenship?
>
> > > > > > Another abnormality, (used here to denote deviation from the average
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > without negative conotation,) it appears that she stayed in Britain
> > > > > > and had a
> > > > > > normal family leading a non-political life most of here life until
> > > > > > 1988. And then
> > > > > > she suddenly became a leader of an opposition party which won a land-
> > > > > > slide election less than two years later. The change was abrupt.
>
> > > > > > In addition. All reports said the election which she and her party had
> > > > > > won was
> > > > > > nullified. Can someone provide some details some details?
>
> > > > > ---------
>
> > > > > The most important facts are:
>
> > > > > 1) In the 1990 election, Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for
> > > > > Democracy won 82% of the seats;
> > > > > 2) the generals nullified the election and stole the country.
>
> > > > Any details on the election?
>
> > > --------
>
> > > Soon after Ne Win (another general) stepped down in 1988, the generals
> > > re-established rule. Aung San Suu Kyi was detained in 1989 and
> > > remained under detention during the 1990 election. Therefore, there's
> > > no question of her fixing the election, which was run by the generals.
> > > Yet her party won by a landslide 82% of the seats. The generals
> > > obviously grossly under-estimated her popularity.
>
> > No. I am think how many out of how many had voted? What were
> > the provision for people who could not read?
> > How are the seats awarded? Winner takes all, proportional and etc?
>
> ----------
>
> Are you serious? What matters is winners with 82% shouldn't lose the
> election.
>
> W
>
> ----------
>
> > Anyway, what were the generals' reason on nullifying the election?
>
> ----------
>
> This is easy. The generals wanted to retain power and they have zero
> respect for the will of the people.
>
> W
>
> ----------
>
> > Basically, if her support was and is broad based all over the coutnry,
> > it is
> > rare that a small group of people can control a country of 40-50
> > million people
> > for so long.
>
> ----------
>
> Rare? Absolutely not rare; very common, in fact.
>
> Further, why speculate when her party had 82%? Speculation should
> carry more weight than a landslide election victory of 82%? Pay
> attention to 82%.
>
> Wakalukong- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -