Split Story review (1/4)

This post presents page 1 of 4 of a review by U Nyein Way of Guardian Sein Win's book Split Story. The book was originally published in 1959 and re-published in 1989. The book is available online here, but I have had trouble with the font used in this copy. A photo of guardian U Sein Win is available here.

Vocabulary:

အရေးတော်ပုံ ။ social or political uprising; revolution
ဖြိုခွဲ ။ demolish, scatter, destroy
လွှဲ ။ to entrust
အခေါ်အဝေါ် ။ term, nomenclature
အတောမသတ် ။ go on and on, endlessly, without let up, non stop
ဂုဏ် ။ qualities, characteristics, attributes, prestige
မြှင့်တင် ။ to raise, elevate
ယစ်မူး ။ intoxicated (with power, pride)
ဖောက်ပြန် ။ change for the worse; be a turncoat; be abnormal (in mind)
မှားယွင်း ။ to be displaced, be disturbed, be wrong, err, deviate
လုပ်ရပ် ။ deed, perpetration
သုံးသပ် ။ ponder, consider
ရှ ။ to cut superficially,
ယူဆ ။ to deduce, form an opinion, presume
ဖွယ် ။ word denoting ' for the purpose of ', suffixed to a verb to form a verbal noun
ဖွင့်ချ ။ to expose, disclose, reveal

Translation:

Split Story
Nyein Way Saturday, 23 April 2011, Book Shelf Section

Immediately after the military violently demolished the 8-8-88 uprising, U Ne Win entrusted power to the generals who backed him. The military said that they were taking power. That is an issue that everyone knows.

When the the military took power, saying that they were taking power and U Ne Win saying that he was entrusting power to the military, there was a need to show why they had taken power. They gave many kinds of reasons.

[The explanation] given was not even the kind of explanation that [the military] was taking [power] for about one or two years. Up to more that two decade later the reason goes on without end. When the reason was given like this, the main reasons [the military] gave [for taking power] were that civilians did not have has as much goodwill as soldiers for the country, soldiers loved the country more than civilians, a military government had more unity than a civilian government, and soldiers were more capable than civilians in ruling the country.

In this way, at the time when the the military leaders were working hard to raise the prestige of military politics, some civilians wrote, published and distributed books criticising the weaknesses of civilian politics.

When the people who wrote and published these books explained the intention of publishing these books they explained that they wrote to take lessons so that the people would know about how previously under the rule of a civilian government, the civilian government leaders were not united, they were intoxicated with power, they misused power, and such deeds that deviated for the worse.

It is good that we consider history. That consideration is not a bad thing. Consideration is a good thing. However, we should be careful that the resulting benefit is able [to be as is intended]. When comparing two systems, if it said that one system is not good, then it becomes kind of like saying that the other system is good.

What is worse is when soldiers who take power over the country say that soldier politics is good, for a person who publishes a book and says civilian government is not good it becomes like saying that soldier politics are good, and we should be careful about that.

Among books that can be presumed to have caused this kind of affair, the most famous is the book Split Story written and published by Guardian U Sein Win.

* * * * * *

The book Split Story is a book that writes primarily of the conflict that emerged within the civilian government that got power between April and October 1958. To say the least, [the book] reveals the intoxication with power, misuse of power, and conspiring with each other like enemies of the leaders of the civilian government that got power during the seven months between that April and October.