My attitude to peace is rather based on the Burmese definition of peace - it really means removing all the negative factors that destroy peace in this world. So peace does not mean just putting an end to violence or to war, but to all other factors that threaten peace, such as discrimination, such as inequality, poverty.
Some believe that the only way to remove the authoritarian regime and replace it with a democratic one is through violent means. I would like to set the precedent of political change through political settlement, not through violence.
The democracy process provides for political and social change without violence.
I do not hold to non-violence for moral reasons, but for political and practical reasons.
There is nothing to be gained by being unnecessarily nasty. Violence begets violence.
Leaders of political parties need to keep in contact with the people; that's what it's all about. If violence were to erupt, I am fairly confident that we could control our people. Whether or not the authorities can control theirs is another matter altogether.
I've always been strongly on the side of non-violence. Also, I think that if you use the wrong means, the ends themselves get distorted.
I was speaking to a writer the other day and he gave me a valuable piece of advice. He said that you may get to where you want to go quicker through violence, but the healing process takes longer. Whereas if you don't use violence, there is not much healing necessary, so you win in the long run.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: