“"I welcome the democratic process allowing all sections of society to express their views on the proposed legislation. The debate taking place is, in itself, helping the nation to understand that reconciliation is a difficult but necessary process." (on the government's controversial plans to set up a Commission empowered to compensate victims and pardon perpetrators of the political upheaval of 2000).”

Additional remarks about the proposed Reconciliation and Unity Commission, Response to continuing opposition to the Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill, 30 July 2005

Dissenting, Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1229 (2011).

2012, Yangon University Speech (November 2012)
Context: No process of reform will succeed without national reconciliation. [... ] National reconciliation will take time, but for the sake of our common humanity, and for the sake of this country’s future, it is necessary to stop incitement and to stop violence.

After the Revolution? (1970; 1990), Ch. 1 : Three Criteria for Authority

Third Session of Parliament (June 30, 2007)

2 August 2005
Opposition to the proposed Reconciliation and Unity Commission

Source: 1940s-1950s, Public administration, 1950, p. 7

Source: Enterprise modeling within an enterprise engineering framework (1996), p. 994

The United States (1971)
Context: The Senate has unlimited debate; in the House, debate is ruthlessly circumscribed. There is frequent discussion as to which technique most effectively frustrates democratic process. However, a more important antidote to American democracy is American gerontocracy. The positions of eminence and authority in Congress are allotted in accordance with length of service, regardless of quality. Superficial observers have long criticized the United States for making a fetish of youth. This is unfair. Uniquely among modern organs of public and private administration, its national legislature rewards senility.