 Welcome back to our world debate from Burma. I'm Nick Gowing. I'm in Dneprador, the political capital of Burma. With me, Nobel Peace Prize and Opposition Leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who sotain a former top-level military commander, the point man on reforms for President Tencent, plus Burmese activist, Jin Ma-Ong, who spent 11 years in jail for her political activism. And another first, this is a public debate in front of an audience at the World Economic Forum's regional gathering. Right, I'm now going to mention your names three or four times. That's simply so it can be edited in, if necessary, in London. So don't respond in any way. Aung San Suu Kyi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Aung San Suu Kyi, who sotain, who sotain, who sotain, Jin Ma, Jin Ma, Jin Ma. Good, I think we're ready to go, everybody. Thank you very much indeed. I'm sorry you've got to stand. But I hope your stamina stays up for the next hour. Good, Barton. OK, any questions from your side? Relax, microphone's working. Would you just like to do a sound check, Barton, quickly? Sotain, can you just say a few words, please? Could you just say a few words? So glad to meet you, everybody here. Thank you, Aung San Suu Kyi. I have a few words about the weather. Well, that too. Say a bit more, please. I think it's a nice day today. Good, thank you for coming, Jin Ma. Nice to meet you all. A bit more, please. Nice to meet you all. Good, and where have you come from? I came from Rangoon. Rangoon. Is that all right for you, Barton? Right, OK. Who's got the microphones at the front here? Because what you're going to have to do is self-help a little bit. Can we just check that this microphone works? Can I check that my green works, please? Can we check that my green works? Does that work? Can you maybe try it? Yeah, hello, Tessie. Yes, you can hear that. Can you hear this right now? Yes, indeed. And is there another microphone here, Salyu? Is there another? Yeah, OK, can we just check that microphone, please? Hello? Red microphone is working well. Would you like to just take your badge off? Hello, hello, one, two, one, two. In the badge off. In the badge off. Thank you. Bested up, please. Good. Sure, yes, let's go. Right, we're about to record. Welcome from me, Nick Gowing, to the BBC World Debate from Burma. Until a few years ago, protesting monks and anti-government activists were routinely rounded up on these streets. Now, the military rulers have authorized political and economic reforms few ever believed were possible. Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is now in parliament after two decades in prison or under house arrest. Civil society has come out of the shadows. Most international sanctions have been lifted. Investors are flocking here. But what new Burma is emerging? Will a genuine pluralist democracy develop in time for the presidential election two years from now, with a vibrant economy to rival Asian neighbors? Can violent ethnic conflicts be resolved to create a stable, united, and peaceful nation? That is the world debate. Burma, what future? Well, you join us at the World Economic Forum in Napidore, which is the capital of Burma. It's the first gathering of international business and political leaders to discuss the country's future. We're delighted to be joined by an extraordinary panel. Aung San Suu Kyi, democracy icon, former prisoner, Nobel Laureate, member of parliament, chairman of the National League for Democracy, the main opposition party in the country. Usotain, union minister in overall charge of economic affairs. He is described as the driving figure for reforms. He was commander-in-chief of the Navy. He now serves in President Tencent's office and is described as probably the closest minister to the president's thinking. Zinma Aung is a former prisoner. She spent 11 years in jail for distributing political statements, nine of those years in solitary confinement. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named her International Woman of Courage last year as one of those watering the seeds of democracy. She remains an activist and co-founded the Yangon School of Political Science. Ladies and gentlemen, our world debate panel. Well, we've also invited our global audience to raise questions via Facebook and Twitter. And I want to hear from many of our audience here in Napidore. First, though, let me turn to Minister Sotain, because first of all, thank you for joining us here today. It's the first time the BBC can hold a television debate in your country. This would have been unthinkable two years ago when an authoritarian military regime decided to change itself from within. Is this irreversible? Sir, you know that last two years ago, there's changes, historic changes, almost unimaginable. So Myanmar's now, we rebuild Myanmar as a new Myanmar that is democratic or inclusive, dynamic, developed nation. Then we try to stand back our position. Those days, we are the field state. Now we move the active, responsible memberships of the international community. Another thing is what my respectable elder sister said last 20 years back, freedom from fear. Now we are freedom of expression, freedom of association, and another thing is freedom of media. So that is irreversible. We are going to talk about many of those issues in this debate, but let me be clear. Is it irreversible? What you said is okay. In other words, your view is it is irreversible. Aung San Suu Kyi, is it irreversible in your view? I would like you to ask a different sort of question, whether or not about whether or not this process is irreversible, but whether certain mindsets are reversible. Whether or not this process is irreversible will depend on the reversibility of certain mindsets on both sides of the divide, because what we need most of all is national reconciliation and commitment on the part of the great majority of our people to go forward with this process. So it really depends on our commitment and determination. So it depends on the reversibility of mindsets, which is not an easy thing to do, but I believe that we can do it if we are committed enough. But I will not say, you cannot ever say that anything is irreversible. You mustn't forget that in 1962, when Burma fell under military rule, we were doing well as a democracy and we had no social or economic problems, but still we fell under military rule. So what do you call irreversible? What are the ingredients for making a process irreversible? And for me, the main ingredient is the commitment of the people and their belief and confidence in this process. We're going to talk about many of those issues in this debate. Zidna Um, is it irreversible? Do you and your students feel politically liberated and with no fear, or could you find yourself back under arrest one day? Is that something you still fear? I don't feel like that currently, but regarding to your questions, if is it reversible or not, I would like to refer the caton from the Facebook. Yeah, if someone asked the guys, if is it reversible? Not that the guy said that, hey guys, we never reversibles and he turned around the cycle. So that is, I would like to refer and I would like to, that is my also concern. Is it reversible? But if it's turning around the cycle or we are going forward, that is my concern. There are many who need to join in this conversation. And let me go to some of the voices here as well from inside the country. Ongzor, you went into exile in 1988. You returned only last year. Could we have the microphone please? I'll say that again. Thank you. Ongzor, you went into exile in 1988 and returned only last year. You're founder and editor of the Irawadi magazine. What's your view? Well, I think my job here is to stimulate the debate. So I think I'll enjoy some skeptical perspective in this process. I would like to say that this current reform is a process and whether this will benefit ordinary people is remain to be seen. And some people I spoke to here, they told me that this reform process is stall. They're afraid that it will be sabotaged or undermined by some dark elements in the country who have vested interest in this country. And since I came back, people are very excited, people are happy. But I also met a lot of people who are activists, former political prisoners, businessmen, and politicians and ethnic minorities who have a strong reservation on this process. They don't trust the government. They ask sincerely of the regime, the government authorities who are implementing this reform. So I think there are a lot of good speeches about transparency, accountability, clean governance and good government and a rule of law. But I think the problem is action and implementation are lacking and disappointing. And more importantly, let me stress that the power and the wealth are still managed by the same people who have brutally governed the country for the last decades. Well, let me put that immediately to Minister Sotain. Danger of sabotage, of dark elements, problems of trust. Do you accept that? That's kind of issue is you have to expect these kinds of challenges. There will be other people they want to reform. They like democracy. Other people sitting on the fence. Other people, they're very accustomed to happy with the OO regime. So we have to expect that. We need to broaden the reformists. Thus we will win. Ong San Suu Kyi, the danger of sabotage, dark elements at work, trust. I like the word trust. I'm not sure I like dark elements. It's a little melodramatic for me. But do you fear those kind of elements? I think that in politics you really have to keep your feet firmly on the ground. Of course, there's always a possibility of reversal. I said this earlier that there's no such thing as an irreversible position. It depends very much on the commitment of our people. And that comes down to inclusiveness, which is something that we've been talking about a lot in this forum. If the people feel that they are included in this reform process, then it will not be reversible. Or at least let me put it this way, that it will not be easily reversible. But if there are too many people who feel excluded, then the dangers of a reversal of the situation would be very great. Well, let's go to someone else who's just come back. Yun Mon Han, Vanessa, you've been abroad for several years. You left the country when you were young, seeking better opportunities in the US. Now you're back running your own mentoring organization to guide Burma's next generation. What's your view of the way things are moving? I believe my answer relates to inclusiveness. And I work with a lot of young people in Yango. I live in Yango. And these changes are very tangible where I live. It's the largest city in Yango, or in Myanmar. It is the economic capital. And we do see all of these changes and developments before us. But for young people and disenfranchised people in the rural areas, 70% of our population, I hope that these changes will start to include their voices to address problems of unemployment, political participation, and not to forget the majority of our population. Jin Ma, when you're listening to this, what's your reflection? You're now running a school for political science about the danger of over-expectations at the moment. Yeah, also related to the anti-Yu. So because, according to our experience, our school is not broadening citizen participation, especially based on the young people. So regarding to the inclusiveness of the transitions, the Yang populations and also the citizen participation is really important and critical for us. And also the political knowledge of our citizen is really critical if we can reverse it or not. Well, a critical way of getting ideas out there is the press, the media. Let me go to Ukoko, who's chairman of Yangon Media Group, publishing two weekly papers, the Flower News and the Yangon Times. Is reform yet reaching far and wide across the country? Do you believe or not? Yes. Many people still arguing that the reform process still not reaching to the bottom. I don't know. Why does the cause of that? Because of the day referred to the daily life of the peoples. Why does happen? Corruptions? Mindsets? Capacity issues? Or rule of law? I would like to know. Thank you very much. And let me just go back to Ong Jor, if I can. Could you move the microphone in there? Ong Jor, as an editor, what restrictions are you still facing, particularly from the ministries? Well, I think since we are sitting here with the BBC World Debate, I think I would say that the press here is much freer. But at the same time, my question is to Minister Sothej, also Donald San Suu Kyi, is that whether one day, in this long process, whether Ministry of Information is really needed, or that we should dismantle it one day, if Donald San Suu Kyi is today a president on Burma, or Myanmar, and what would she do? How she wants to restructure the ministries? Do we still need it? So I think this is a question. There are a lot of things that we couldn't report about the past abuses, the atrocity committed by the top leaders, and large-scale corruptions. And they're still enjoying playing golf, and reading books, and retirement home, and a lavish compound. So if we write these reports and explore them about, what will happen to us tomorrow, that's a question. Minister, you are still controlling the press. They cannot publish what they want to, including about generals. No, I don't think so. Freedom of press and freedom of media is now better and better. You have to consider about that the other side is Americans. You have to compare with the American way. Then you have to compare with the nearby country like Singapore, and Thailand, and VNM. So maybe the balance. And you have to do step by step. We need the what kind of things, what are mindset and capacity for everybody. That's the problem in Myanmar. You have a lot of capacity, because you have experience of such kind of things abroad. But we have to think about the holistic view for the media openness. What do you mean by holistic view? Because there's a population out there, 60 million people, who want to know what's happening in your country. Yes, you can use a private newspaper and something like that. You have to compare with yesterday's problems. Now better than last year, two years back. So better and better, I think so. Ong San Suu Kyi, you're now in parliament. What needs to be done to improve freedom of the press still? Of course, laws are important with regard to the protection of all freedoms, not just freedom of the press. But I would like to respond to Guangzhou's comments, because there are two parts to it. One is that is there a necessity for a Ministry of Information? And the second one is that is there sufficient freedom of the press? It depends on what you mean by sufficient. We certainly do not have perfect freedom of the press. And I think that there is too much fear. There is too much fear of openness. And I don't think we should fear openness. We should be able to face openness. That is a sign of maturity in a democratic society. And secondly, with regard to the need for a Ministry of Information, information in itself is nothing wrong with it. What we don't want is a Ministry of Censorship, a Ministry of Information is all right, particularly if it helps to take information out to a 60 million better. Zinma, you were arrested and held in jail for 11 years for distributing leaflets. Do you feel you can act freely now? Yeah, compared with last 15 years ago, it's a little bit freer and getting more media. A little bit freer, yeah. Do you therefore constrain yourself in what you write? Do you hold back in what you write still? Yeah, currently, as I think people in here, non-published by the ex-political prisoners who wrote the novels or poems, now they are publishing. In this sense, yeah, we are getting a little bit, yeah. But let me just pick up on one point, this fear of openness we've just heard from Aung San Suu Kyi. Do you fear openness, Minister? Do you fear openness? No, no, no. It's one day you have to be. I already mentioned about my elder sister said 20 years back, freedom from fear, that is we have to move. So people should read this book again. Sir, I'm quite afraid. I was quite afraid like the government to publish it for me. Yes, yes, right. Aung San Suu Kyi, how much more do you want published at the moment then? Well, actually, people keep publishing my works and I don't get a penny. I really don't mind who publishes my books. Don't you publish them online now? Oh, well, I don't know. Perhaps some people are publishing my books online. I don't do it myself. Let's move on to a very critical issue about the role of the military in a new democracy. We've had a tweet from Yahan Qadar in Binor in India. If you believe in democracy, then you have to remove the military, you in other words. Minister Sotain, the military of 350,000 has dominated every aspect of public life in Burma for 50 years. Is it really ready? Is it really ready to release its undemocratic stranglehold in parliament that means it can still block reforms and changes? What you said is absolutely correct, but the conditions last about 20 years back. Everything is done doing by the military people. They thought that they can do everything. So now change, democratic government. The way you have to, approaching is not good for the country. So gradually change, what you have said. Gradually, my point of view is gradually change. But how gradually, how rapidly, how gradually, how slowly? It's depends on the parliament speaker. Yeah, I guess. I think I look upon this as an invasion of responsibility. Now, I do not believe in invasion of responsibility. But you were seen at Armed Forces Day very openly sitting alongside the chiefs of staff within the military, Ansan Suu Kyi. What's your view about the future role? Because the president has said they will still have a special place in the future of the country. I want the military to have a special place in the hearts of our people. And that is to say, I want a military that is professional and that is honorable and that is there to defend our nation and our people. And this is the kind of army my father anticipated when he founded it back in the early 1940s. Can it be changed after what's happened? Of course, I believe that change is always possible provided we are serious about it and we are sincere about it. And I do believe that the great majority of our soldiers love our country. But like the rest of us, I don't think patriotism is a reserve of any particular organization or any sector of the public. I think it belongs to all of us. And we all just have to agree on what the role of each institution within a democratic society is. What do you say to those close to you who are worried about that position, like Winton, the co-founder of the National Leave for Democracy, who says that you think you can persuade all the military leaders to become your friends and come to your side? I don't think I can persuade all the military leaders. I think I can't even persuade all the democracy leaders to come to my side. So I think to think of persuading all the military leaders would be a little bit too much like wishful thinking. But I think that not I, but the majority of our people can persuade our military leaders that we should all work together for the good of our nation. And that would require an honorable professional army that has a true place in the hearts of our people. We have with us the Speaker of Parliament who Minister Sotain mentioned, Sriman, who's sitting here alongside me. You are described as creating a parliament now which is feisty, unpredictable, unafraid to challenge the president. What do you say to the minister about the way the military's role will change in the future? It is not only depends on speaker, but also all of the representatives of the people. Also all the people they desire is the most important for military leaders and military change. Can you see a reduced role for the military in parliament where they essentially can block anything at the moment? No, because it depends on how the parliament members and also depends on constitutions. There are high expectations that the military framed constitution will be changed as the next stage of democratization. So let's move on with that. To Serge Punn, you have particular views about what is needed now with constitutional change. You are a major entrepreneur. You started from nothing. You now run your own company. You have 30 companies across eight industries. But here are you worried about the constitution? Well, actually I'd like to ask Dossou a question. I'm sorry if it's a bit too public here, but... Can we talk about the constitution for the moment? Yes, that is so. Then you can ask the other question later. That's democracy. Okay. I think the constitution as it stands today is a vast improvement of what it was before. But if you say, do we need improvement? Do we need amendments? I think we definitely do. And the issue of 25% of the legislature been occupied without election is that, democratic, it's a very hot topic of debate. And that is my question to Dossou. What do you think are the chances for the parliament to amend the constitution in order to pave the way for you to be president? That is not the only part of the constitution that needs to be amended. I think there are many other aspects of the constitution which should be a worry to those who believe in democracy. But I will also have to make the point that this constitution is said by experts to be the most difficult constitution in the world to amend. So we must start by amending the requirements for amendments. We have first got to make the constitution amendable. And then we start thinking of which parts of the constitution we are going to amend. And of course there's a debate about whether we go piecemeal or whether we go for the whole thing. We just renegotiate the whole constitutional process. But first of all, it's got to be made amendable. At the moment, you require more than 75% to amend the major, the most serious parts of the constitution. And I always say, apart from the fact that, of course, 75% of the seats are not really filled by civilians because there are some constituencies where they have been no elections. So even if we had the full quarter of 75% civilians, I always make the point that we would need at least one brave soldier to stand with us. And then we can amend the constitution. And then we have to go for a referendum. Excuse me, I want to add on what my old assistant said. So the constitution is doing by the human being. So you can amend by the human being. This is not the permanent one. That's what we said. Another thing is that for the democratic point of view and for the, or inclusive point of view, you have to measure the constitutions. That's piece by piece. You have to, the justice should be the democratic and all inclusive. That is the main point. Jinn Ma. Yeah, I would like to add regarding to the 25% you know, according to the amend the constitution. Actually in democracy, majority rules and minority rights. In this regards, 25% is more important than 75%. What does that mean? Is 25% is getting veto to amend the constitution. That is, I think the trap for us to amend, how to amend the constitution or people power or something, some other social, we still need some other social movement or something like that. And that's not the end of the story. There has to be a referendum afterwards. You have, you are having a very active debate both within your party and other parties about the future of the constitution and the changes needed. But Sedgepan has a very important question which is backed by a lot of social media, Ong San Suu Kyi. Let me read Vikram Jain from India. Burma's future will be bright in the hands of democratic leader, Ong San Suu Kyi. Roger Haddad, a member of the Swedish parliament. Will she run for president in 2015? Everyone's asking the question. You give us your answer. Well, I want to run for president and I'm quite frank about it, although I was told by a BBC interviewer that she'd never come across a politician who'd ever admit it to wanting to run for the presidency. But you've just said you do. Yes, I do. Because let's be open about it. There are those who say that I shouldn't say I would like to be president. But then, if I pretended that I didn't want to be president, I wouldn't be honest and I'd rather be honest with my people than otherwise. But in order for me to run for the presidency, you don't really run for the presidency because the president is not directly elected. But for me to be eligible for the post of the presidency, the constitution will have to be amended. And you're clearly reasonably optimistic that those changes to the constitution are now likely to happen. I don't believe in indulging in optimism. Let me put it this way. I've always said hope has to be backed up by endeavor. So rather than being optimistic or hoping that the constitution will be amended, we're going to work for the constitution to be amended. Right, let's move on to another issue because there really are high expectations that the military-framed constitution will be amended. And a massive challenge now is reconciliation with both political activists and ethnic minorities. Let me give you a sample of this. Adrienne Enriques from Jamaica, President Tencent is making some really positive reforms that has implications for a good economic and political future for Burma, but ethnic and social problems are a setback. Well, we know that over the years many political activists have been found guilty under military justice and jailed often for long periods, and 850 political prisoners have been released in the past two years. President Tencent said only this week, all prisoners of conscience will be released. It's believed there are around 200. Let's get a sense of the feelings here. We are joined by a monk, Wu Isaria. Welcome, you're a monk from Rangoon. You're a leader of the Saffron Revolution in 2007. You were sentenced to 22 years for inciting riots and tarnishing the image of the state, and you served four and a half years in prison. What's your view about this critical issue? I believe that in the reconciliation process, where the advocates and minorities trust building is vital, I strongly believe that if we could implement the saying no one but the law, the mature respect and trust will be irrefutable so that the state must ensure the independence and impartiality of the justice system. May I know whether this will be implemented? You're saying no one is above the law and you want independence and impartiality of the justice system, a concern then from a very significant part of the community. Usotain, fears about the level of justice in this country still. So that's a good point, but the relevant point is I'd like to mention about what you have said. That is the political president releasing comedy as I'm doing such kind of comedy. Chairman and reporter, we check the Aussie real genuine political prisoners. We are looking for that. We plan to do step by step and I think maybe the end of the year genuine people, genuine political prisoners will be released. But no one above the law, that's what we're hearing. Yes, but. From who, Isaria? Other things, the former government is doing such kind of things, what Searo said. Now we did in the transparent way and judicial is independent. No, it is not independent. No, it is not independent. The judiciary is not independent. The judiciary is very much under the control of the executive. To begin with, it's a president who appoints the chief justice and the justices in the regional regions as well. So what we have to do in order to establish rule of law in this country, which is absolutely necessary if we have to go forward with the reform process, because that's a key ingredient of inclusiveness. If people feel that they're all partaking of the protection of the law, that's the first step towards a perception of inclusiveness. And in order to have rule of law, we need a free and independent judiciary. And I must disagree with Uso's thing. And since I'm his elder sister, he's got to listen to me. The judiciary is not independent. Sorry, it's according to the Constitution. When you have to amend the Constitution, it's OK. Then another thing is we have to strengthen the rules of law. So lack of capacity, lack of management, many things we have. Now we are doing the US government, the EU government, Australian government, trying to give assistance and the security apparatus and network of communication, network of strategic communication. Then crisis management issue, we are now start doing for the what's my sister said about the rule of law. That is very important. But we need to strengthen those less capacity people. We're joined by Salil Shetty, who's Secretary General of Amnesty International. What assessment are you making from outside of the state of law and human rights here? First of all, I think Amnesty International has not been allowed to come to this country for a long time. So the fact that I'm here is already a very positive sign that the government is rethinking its approach. Many of the political prisoners that Amnesty International has campaigned for for decades are now free. Of course, DOSU is one of the most well-known of them, but there are many, many others who have been released. So we have to first appreciate that. But one of the things I think people don't know, particularly outside Myanmar, is that this country is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources and cultural diversity. 40% of the population ethnic minorities, 10% or so are religious minorities. And here there's very big challenges here. We have a lot of conflict, a lot of human rights violations against ethnic minorities and religious minorities, which Amnesty has documented over decades. I would really like to know as to if you're talking about rule of law, we're talking about accountability for ongoing violations and past violations. How do we make sure that there is an end to impunity in this country? How do we actually make sure that the rule of law we're talking about is seen in practice of the Rohingya Muslims being attacked was the most visible recent issue, but this is not restricted only to that group. Many ethnic minorities are facing challenges as we speak. Let me add that we've had a lot of tweets and Facebook on this. Here's one from Billy Mayaya, a human rights activist from Malawi, who says right now the government of Myanmar is releasing syrupy rhetoric, but is it ready to account for the atrocities of the past? Rujin Ma, do you want revenge? Do you want accountability for those who've done whatever they've done here in recent years? As a political prisoner, I personally, I do not have any sense of revenge, but the thing is just is it really important. What we would like to show for the next generation what was really happening in the past is our history. So that is what I would like to highlight and promote for our next generation. Where could this therefore go? After all, in South Africa, they've had a truth and verification. I'll say that again. Where could this now go? In South Africa, they've had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Is that something Ong San Suu Kyi you believe should be happening here? I don't think of it in terms of a commission, but I think that there are very strong links between truth and reconciliation. I do not think that accountability is the reverse side of revenge. No, it does not mean that because you want people to be accountable, you want to take revenge on them, but I think there has to be an acknowledgement of our past. Unless we are able to face our past freely, we are not able to proceed freely towards the future. But I, for one, am entirely against the whole concept of revenge. But accountability is related to courage. And I like courage. I admire courage, individuals, as well as in organizations and in nations. And I would like us to have the courage to be able to face our past squarely that the same mistakes may not be repeated in the future, but making it quite clear that I personally am not for trying anybody or punishing them or seeking revenge or taking the kind of action that will destroy people for what they had done in the past. Because I believe in accountability, but also I believe in people's right to redeem themselves. Usutain, it's important to underline you were nodding agreement there about looking and examining the past. So you have to think about the right blend for the understanding of the past and appreciation of the evolving or present dynamic. That should be the, sometimes you have to think about that. What you have said is absolutely correct, but we need time. We are in the dark age or the other system about 60 years, not 60 months, not six years. 60 years is six zero, is too long. Now two years, we have to, we have idea to arrange for the, in everything we have to change, but we need time because we have to, we need time for lose the titan, the robe, about 60 years. So you have to untie the robe. It is sometimes very difficult for me, but we must do. We must think about the democracy. We must think about the economic development for the 60 million people. There is some main things. We will come on to that later in this debate, but let me pick up what Amnesty International was talking about, particularly about the minorities, because Burma's new name is the Union of Myanmar and a major ongoing threat to the stability and future economic prospects of this nation comes from various armed rebel groups and ethnic minorities challenging that union. A key challenge is from 800,000 Rohingya Muslims who are stateless. The UN labels them one of the most persecuted minorities in the world. Well, Abul Tehay is chair of the Union National Development Party, a largely ethnic Rohingya party. We asked that he come to this debate, but he couldn't get access. So I went to his office in Yangon where he recorded this question for this debate. So we're delighted that we've been able to come here. Rohingya as well as Muslim communities have been denied full-flash citizenship since 1982 citizenship law comes into operations which contributes universal declarations of human rights, article sevens of UN conventions on right of childs, and also all international norms, but also contradicts 2008 constitutions, as one citizen throughout the country which was made by our national hero, General Aung Sanh. So my question is, should then it's changed by leaders with retrospective effect? And isn't it an obligation of leaders to protect minorities from the influence of majorities, to promote right and integrations? Thank you. Minister, the obligation of governments to protect minorities like the Rohingya. So we have to protect the human, what's she called, the people's security. Not a day before that we are thinking about national security, including that we give more focus and more share to the trend has changed to people's security. That is what I mean is the community security, you know, human rights security, then political security, personal security, health security, environmental security, economic security, food security, such like that. In future we have to protect those who stay in our territory, that's our duty. But human rights monitor, human rights monitors are claiming that the army is condoning and even participating against the nation's Muslim minority. No, that is a very complicated things. We have to discuss it all just like the commission and something like that. Well, let's get a reflection on this if we can go to a gentleman who's a historian about how important this ethnic minority issue is for the future of Myanmar. It's critical. I mean, in one way this has been an issue that's been with the country since independence or even before independence. Myanmar was a multi-ethnic, multicultural country before British times. In British times the colonial power ruled different parts of the country differently. There were lots of immigrants who had come from India over the 50 hundred years of colonial rule. And so this question of what is it to be Burmese or to be Myanmar has been a central question throughout our politics since 1948. The civil war, the armed conflicts began in 1948, 49, partly on issues of identity, partly on issues of nationalism. We are now at the end of, we hope, of 70 years of armed conflict in this country. And I think everyone accepts that there is no way forward. There's no way towards democracy. There's no way towards economic development until the armed conflicts are resolved. But around that is a much broader issue of what does it mean to be Myanmar? How can we forge a more inclusive national identity? It's not just about the Myanmar, Burmese majority and different ethnic minorities. We have millions of Myanmar people in Thailand. Are the children born there Myanmar or not? We have immigrants, Chinese immigrants for instance, from China who've come in over the last 10 years are their children who were born here Myanmar or not? I mean it's a much broader issue of inclusiveness and identity that's central I think to the politics of this country. Thank you. Could I just pause for a service message? Can I just tell my colleagues in the gallery that I'm not hearing you? The, my earpiece has gone down. So if you think you're talking to me, you're not. I can pause, but I will continue but just so you're aware of that at the moment. Let me move on with the next bit then. Because, well, Abhutahe has met President Obama and British Prime Minister in Rangoon, David Cameron that is, but not yet Ong San Suu Kyi. So he had this question for you, mentioning that you're the daughter of General Ong San, the country's independence hero. He points to a highlight. The first one is Rohingya issues were resolved by our national hero, General Ong San. Don San Suu Kyi's daughter of General Ong San. Second point, Don San Suu Kyi is internationally recognized democratic icon. And Don San Suu Kyi also novel peace play trade. That is why Don San Suu Kyi has obligation to come up with concrete common grounds to resolve the Rohingya issues for the sake of nations and people of this country. Ong San Suu Kyi, real expectation on you particularly to resolve this issue of citizenship for a minority like the Rangers. Well, at the moment, nobody seems to be very satisfied with me because I'm not taking sides. But let's look at it this way. I believe in rule of law. I think that the first necessity is rule of law in the Rakhine until people feel safe, until people can be sure that they will not be killed in bed or their houses burned above them. They're not going to talk to each other and there's not going to be any kind of genuine reconciliation. So because I believe in rule of law, first of all, I believe that everybody must be entitled to security under the present administration and that the administration must do everything possible to ensure the security of all peoples in our country, whatever their race, whatever their religion. And secondly, when I say rule of law, it also means the law with regard to citizenship. And that I look at it in two steps. First of all, are all those who are entitled to citizenship under the 1982 law now citizens? Have they been given citizenship in accordance with the 1982 law? That is the first thing we have to look at. And then secondly, we must reassess the 1982 law to see if it is in line with international norms. That is what rule of law means and it's not an exciting answer that I'm giving you and people don't like it because they prefer the sort of things that they can flash in the headlines. Well, pragmatism is clearly a way ahead but what is fascinating is the number of people who've contacted us in advance, like Yusfara Bentry from Magnus in Morocco, how can a peace Nobel Prize winner stand silent when an ethnic cleansing is going on in your own country? Patrick Pitts based in the UK, why is Aung San Suu Kyi silent about the massacre? I have not been silent. I'm merely asking the questions which others are putting. Massacre of Rohingya Muslims in Burma, these are the perceptions and there's one from Facebook as well, Norayran Arabisha from Singapore. Such violence shows a clear indication of the government's negative approach in dealing with ethnic and religious tensions. How can you contribute as a flag bearer for pro-democracy movement and a Nobel Peace Prize recipient? That's what we've been hearing from around the world. People who are now very aware of what is happening with the ethnic minorities in your country. Well, first of all, as I said, I have not been silent. It's just that they're not hearing what they want to hear from me but I cannot doctor my answers to please everybody. I have to say what I believe in and I believe that rule of law is the first step towards any kind of solution to the problem in the Rakhine state and other parts of this country. And of course, that's not an exciting answer. So people would rather think that I was not saying anything than that I was saying something so boring that they'd rather not hear. But it is a practical need. And as I said, then we must get to the point of reassessing the law to see if it comes up to international norms or not. And I would like people all of the world to understand that we are aware of the difficulties in our country and we are doing our best to cope with it. When I say we, I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about ordinary people in Burma because Burma is made up of different races and different religions. And I really must take up this question of Burma-Miyama which you mentioned just now. It reminds me very much of a line by I think Paul Collier in his book that it's easier to rename a country than to change it. As you know, Burma was renamed Miyama sometime under the previous military regime, 19 what, 1991, 1992? Well, suddenly one day they decided that they were going to change the name of the country. Now, the reason why I stick to the name Burma is because the country was not changed in accordance with the will of the people. The people had nothing to do with it. And also I think that there was something intrinsically dishonest about the change in name. The implication that Miyama refers to all the ethnic nationalities of Burma, which it does not. Miyama is simply a literary form of Bama which means just the Burmese ethnic group. So I want to make this quite clear because if we are going to resolve our problems, we've got to face them squarely. It's not going to make them go away simply by putting a different name onto it. And it's the same thing with the problem of our Muslims in Burma. It's a big problem. It's a complicated problem, particularly because Islam has spread worldwide and there are Islamic links everywhere. And anything that happens everywhere in the world is known immediately. Well, you've written a sky full of lies, so I don't have to explain the... It's about mobile phones. Yes. Zidna, when you hear that, what's your view because 40% of your country's population is an ethnic minority one way or the other. How do you get reconciliation? Do you have optimism that there are 13 agreements now, at least cease fires in place? A 14th agreement was put in place last week. Is that showing a determination to at least address these issues now? Firstly, the reconciliation still needs transparency and accountability. So that is one thing. And also regarding to the reconciliation, we, most all the ethnics, including the Burmese are socialized by the PES regime. So I think that it takes time. That's why in the PES, when the fight between the KIA and the Burmese military fight, we visited, I have been there for four times to the IT because I just want to explain then the fighting is just between the Burmese military, government military and the KIA, not fighting between the Burmese people and the Kichin people. That is, I always would like to raise the sense of the fighting and between the ethnic peoples and Burmese majority. Well, as we heard from Uttar Minda, this is so critical for the future of your country. And what I'd like to ask you, Usutain, based on one of the tweets we've had from Taswin Ayungi Ji, I hope that's pronounced correctly, from Burma, the co-founder of the World with Conscience, is federalism potentially the solution for the ethnic conflict? Will people need explicit constitutional guarantees, i.e. equal protection? Sure, what you have said is absolutely correct. What we are going on is after the ceasefire or some agreement what we have said, then we are now doing on the framework for political dialogue. Then we start doing the political dialogue or inclusive as a meeting, youth meeting, then we are thinking about what you said about the federalism. That is a sharing of power, sharing of resource, just like for example, in Germany is doing such kind of federalism. Federalism is not the, you know, those days, 1962, the people are afraid of federalism as a course. Federalism means other definition. Now federalism is not like definition. It's a power sharing and resource sharing and equality for the national race as people. Is there a sense of urgency in the government understanding the enormity of this challenge if nothing or not enough is done at high speed? Is there a sense of urgency in government? About all these issues, about ethnic minorities, a sense of real urgency? Yes, we have to move as quickly as possible. Now we understand and trust building with the national race as people. Those days we are fighting, now not fighting and we are on the table and dialogue for the political dialogue doing process in the peace center. One of the critical reasons for addressing the ethnic minorities and the activists, of course, is the economy because people want to invest here but they want to know it's a stable country. Myanmar has the lowest output per person in Southeast Asia. President Tencent said publicly, there are still too many people whose life is a battle against poverty. It's a hand to mouth existence. But one new analysis says Myanmar has major advantages which could generate in 15 years. Economic wealth four times what it is today. But the potential could, as they put it, evaporate all too rapidly. It is a race to satisfy new expectations. So let's sample both the expectations and also the concerns. I'm joined by Peter Coleman who is chief executive of the Australian energy giant, Woodside. Peter, what's your view of the potential but your concerns? Well, the potential in the resource sector is very well known. Myanmar for many decades now has been a resource producer of note. Our particular perspective and focus is on the oil and gas industry. It's a very well-known industry here, very well-regulated industry. However, the potential actually doesn't lie in what is currently being developed. The potential now lies in the deep waters offshore, Myanmar. And then how do we unlock that deep potential because now the risk profile has gone up significantly. How concerned are you about that risk profile based on the kind of issues we've just been discussing? Well, we're very pleased to hear the debate going on around the environment for success. And the political and social issues need to be dealt with and they are being dealt with. We're very positive in what we're seeing occur in Myanmar and the open and frank debate that we're seeing today and even the fact that we can have this panel discussion today. I think it is a testament to that. Having said that, it's all in the application of the rule of law. As Dorsu mentioned, it's rule of law. At the end of the day, the investments we're making are very, very long dated and we have to have surety that rule of law would be there. Peter, could we just pause one moment? Can you pass the microphone along to Stephen Groff? And I'll introduce you, Stephen. Let's go to Stephen Groff who's a Vice President of the Asia Development Bank, where you're analyzing week by week both the issues in Myanmar and also the potential. Well, thank you, Nick. We believe that the potential in the country is really great. I mean, as mentioned previously, the resources and elements that exist within the country has a relatively young workforce. Of course, this is strategically geographically located between two of the biggest economies in the region of China and India. So there's great potential in the country. There's no doubt. But I think the question is, and we're constantly reinforced by the government, their commitment to reform and their commitment to this process of reform. But that process needs to continue and that process needs to deepen and it needs to strengthen over time. What kind of questions do you have from the bank? Well, we have issues around inclusiveness and how inclusive growth will be in the future. I think we heard questions earlier about the reforms not being poor people not yet benefiting from this reform process. So again, when we think about economic development, when we think about investment, we need to think about economic development investment that's going to benefit the 70% of the country that lives in quite dire straits. And so I think that this is going to be the critical question and this is going to be the critical challenge of the country moving forward. The critical question of inclusiveness, minister. So now that we're for the resource concern, we are the rich resource country. Everybody knows that for the transparent accountable, we just as a candidate of the EITI members, that is the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiatives. After that kind of things, we are the member of that kind of association. There will be transparent. That is the government and company and the civil society. You can check one much revenue we have. Then all transparent and all the ethnic people, they understand how much revenue the country get for that issue. And another thing is what I already mentioned about the resource sharing. So that's at the time, everybody can get the benefit from the resource. Ong San Suu Kyi, this issue of inclusiveness. How much do you fear that this will not happen? Not least because of the level of cronyism. And that's an extraordinary word I keep hearing being repeated here. Cronies, those who are too close to the military and the former governments who've made their money but not benefited the people at the bottom. I think you have to be a little careful about that because some people who made a lot of money over the last two decades are now supporting many humanitarian activities. And I've accepted their donations in order to help humanitarian causes. I have no compunctions about that because I think it's better that they should use their money in that way rather than, for example, buying another private jet or something like that. But with regard to inclusiveness, for our society to be really inclusive, we have to look to our rural community because almost 70% of our people live in the rural areas. And their living depends on agriculture. So if we want to be, if we want our process to be inclusive, it means that there must be a greater share for everybody in the economic growth and development that we expect. And I have been making the point over the last few months because since we entered 2013 that we're now entering the third year of reform. And, all right, good intentions are very well, but what we now want to do to see our results in the way of real change in the lives of our people. And if you talk to the man on the street, if you talk to people in a village, a woman in a village, the great majority of them would say that their lives have not changed in any way since 2010. And I think we have almost passed the short-term a benchmark. After three years, I think you can't keep on saying this is a short term, we will have gotten to the medium term. And our people will expect results. They will want to feel that they have been included in the process of change. And that is nothing to do with the number of cars that you now see in Rangoon or the number of news magazines that you can buy because the great majority of our people have no access to those. Zinbar, this critical issue, whether we call it cronyism, corruption, it's clear the problem. And it's highlighted here by one Facebook entry, what measures are you taking to remove the absolute corruption, according to Mark Hallam, that exists in Myanmar? What's your view about whether this can be tackled and lead to a restoration of confidence in time for the people here? Well, in my point of view, there's a lot of things to be done to get the confidence for all of our people and the foreign investor. You know, I think there's basically three things needs to be done. One thing is that to amend the constitution. And the second thing is to develop the mechanism for the rule of law. And the third one is the infrastructure. And the last one is that for, I would like to focus on the young people, according to the Asia Development Bank report. There's 18% of the young people, the age between 13s and 18s, whose are the 40% of work force. So in here in Myanmar, there's no opportunity to get the decent employment, to get a proper training, to get proper jobs for the young people. I think the current government has lack of mechanism to create jobs for the young people. So. Tatmid, who as the historian, when you look at the legacy that's now left by the military control of this country and what those particularly in the country expect, what's your analysis? No one sort of would object to the idea that there is no or very weak institutional capacity in this country. I mean, there are questions of political will, there are questions of institutional capacity, there's questions of mentalities that have been created over 60 years of military rule, 60 years of isolation from the outside world. I mean, we have to appreciate that what is going on here is something quite unique. I mean, I think we all hope that we're at the beginning of a lasting political transition towards more democratic government. We hope that we're moving from the old type of state-centered economy to one that is more based on freer markets. And we all hope that we can put the armed conflicts behind this, behind us. But this is all happening at a time when the country is also being de-isolated for the first time in decades. I think any country would have difficulty in making this kind of transformation. But if you put into the equation as well these legacies of military rule, the legacies of the way in which the education system has been systematically underfunded, dismantled over decades, I mean, this is a very unique challenge. So I think it's all a question of, I have no, I'm confident that the majority of people want these kinds of changes. And I think our political leadership across the board, I've shown great leadership and responsibility in this direction. But the challenges are enormous. And I think for us to be successful, the political will still needs to be there. But this development of institutional capacity is going to be critical as well. Well, let's pick up this real challenge with Tora Koh, who's managing director of Capital Limited. Particularly the issue of where skills are going to come from in future. Thank you, Nick. A couple of key themes that have come out in this World Economic Forum has really been inclusive, which the panel has talked about, but also sustainable economic growth. And one key resource that our country has in abundance is the people, the 60 million people. And in particular, the growing, it's still small, but the growing middle class population. Because we all need to focus on that, including us in business as well. Because it's not just an altruistic solution, it's an economic solution. This country is gonna grow with a growing, wealthy and educated middle class. An educated middle class I think is gonna keep an eye and keep the politics moving and be engaged in that. An educated middle class will absorb the jobs that we desperately need. At the moment, at the higher end, we are having to import jobs for operational managers. We want to change that and bring the middle class up in order to be able to do that. It's a cost spending power. They will consume, it's a natural consumer market there. And ultimately it's educating this middle class group as well and equipping them. Initially in the shorter term, it's probably vocational schools and vocational skills, but we quickly have to move on to a deeper education as well. So that was my comment and I'd welcome the panel's views on challenges and solutions to growing this middle class, which is a huge resource we have. Usete, the minister, a big challenge. Do you fear that the expectations will be outrun by the realities of trying to handle this problem of education and skills? So the way, the problem, the great challenges, one of the great challenges is the, for the democratic government, new democratic government, people expecting too high, government capacity and it's the gap between that kind of things. We have to try to reduce as much as we can. That's the one thing. Another thing is we create jobs for the people. So a lot of vocational training is, institutes are start establishing now. So a lot of vocational training institutes. Also the private sector can do the vocational training. We can produce more for the skilled workers to create jobs and to give. Jinma, you've set up a school of political science. You are seeing where the inadequacies are with skills and particularly education and the potential. What's your analysis of the ability to build on this real hard problem faced by a lot in business? One thing is that our education system itself is a need to be reformed. And most of the educated young people do not able to get, this education cannot have to get decent job just after getting the degree. So that is the one, the biggest challenges, I think. So for the vocational training, so young people need to use money to get the such kinds of the training. So vocational training, it takes times and it takes money. So most of the young people who live in rural cannot able to attend such kinds of the qualified trainees or like that is who can fill up such kinds of the gaps. Aung San Suu Kyi, the final word in this debate to you from the panel, because you have pushed so long and hard on the issue of skills in education, can the need be matched in this country or not? Yes, because we will have to do it. We don't have a choice. If we do not match the need, then we will not be able to stay the course. So it's not a matter of whether it can be matched or not. It will have to be matched. Can it be done? Yes. Provided, of course, amend the constitution. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And with you as president? Yes. As I bring this debate to a close, can I just turn to Yen Mon Han, you've come back to this country, you are trying to help people who are looking for a future. How do you feel about the debate we've had here? Does it give you optimism or do you still have caution? Like Do Aung San Suu Kyi has said, I am cautiously optimistic about the future. I have seen many changes before me and they've been positive. And from a systemic level, I do believe we are on the forward path to democracy. It may not be perfect, but there are other countries who have been struggling with the issue of democracy for 200, 300 years, and it's still not a perfect system. So we do need to be patient with the process. And something that I would like to encourage the change makers in this room is to actually give a greater communication channel to the people because they also need to be guided and encouraged to speak out on issues that are important to them. And right now, this is the freest we've been in 60 years. And some of the agenda items we have, from the bottom up, it's cheap SIM cards, it's Korean soap operas, it's ethnic violence, and I really think we need to start working with the government hand in hand to create a better future for our next generation, young people like myself. Well, let's just sample here, among the 400 of you sitting in this room in Nippidor, how many of you are still a bit pessimistic about the future for Burma? Could you raise your hand, please? I can count about five hands raised. Who is optimistic for the future of Myanmar? You can hear the hands go up, overwhelmingly optimistic. So thank you very much indeed to all of you. That's not the end. I've still got to finish the debate. Can I thank all our panel here in Nippidor? To Minister Usutain, thank you very much indeed. Aung San Suu Kyi, and of course, Zin Ma as well. Thank you for joining us here, being so frank and confirming you would like to be president one day, Aung San Suu Kyi. You've heard it first here. From all of us here, this is for our audience at the BBC on television, on radio and online. Thank you very much indeed for joining us from Meenakawing here in Nippidor. Bye-bye.