Recently I wrote about my visit to Myanmar (also known as Burma), of how the once-wealthy country is now slipping ever downward, its infrastructure in disrepair. Of Suu Kyi, whose house we were not allowed to see. Of how avidly the people watched her on TV. But mostly, of the beauty of the country and its people. There was much I did not write. I was there as a tourist for 12 days. Several readers have criticized that column. Here is why.

I favor tourism because I feel it provides a window to the world for the people and for the government. However, Suu Kyi has urged tourists not to come, explaining that the people of Myanmar are well aware of their problems and know what they want -- democracy -- and that many have died for it. Also, most of the money from tourism goes directly to the generals and gives them reason to think that the international community does not oppose their human rights violations.

On the same subject a reader wrote: "The tourist industry is inextricably linked with widespread and systematic human rights abuses. Millions of men, women and children have been forced to build roads (we saw this, little children breaking, hauling rocks for roadbeds), railways and other tourist infrastructure while the regime reaps the rewards of the tourist dollars." Another reported that conscripted laborers must provide tools and all supplies and work for no pay; many die of disease and exhaustion without medical care.

I quoted the government's daily, New Light of Burma. I did not expect anyone to assume I agreed with it. By reporting their excessive and vilifying condemnation of Suu Kyi, I thought readers, who are well informed, would see how much her influence is feared by the authorities.

"One can see how little she cared for the Burmese. To her, going to Burma is like going to an amusement park, except that Burma offers a different kind of experience/pleasure to her -- a backward society filled with dilapidated vehicles and poor children, perhaps unheard of in her part of the world." I am saddened that someone received that impression from what I wrote.

"Despite the hospitable smiles of ever-forgiving Burmese, Burma is stigmatized with grave social problems, namely dislocations, tortures, abuses, AIDS, drugs, corruption, oppression, caused directly or indirectly by the people who are running the country. This, Pearce did not even bother to mention, nor did she even care." Such exposes demand weeks, months, of careful research. Saying I did not care is a false assumption made without proper research.

"The lovely people and the wonders you describe are sorely missed by many Burmese refugees who are victims of genocide by the military dictatorship and now languish in concentration camps in Thailand and in exile throughout the world." Others made similar comments.

I wrote that the gold and jewels lavished on temples and statues might better be used to build schools, adding that it would depend, of course, on what was taught. (One reader rightly added -- And who teaches it.) Another explained: "The tragic lack of a education is due to the junta's preference to spend a huge percentage of its budget on maintaining suppressive, bullying and exploitative armed forces rather than on schools and teachers' salaries." (We sometimes gave rides to teachers; there was little public transportation.)

When I asked Myanmarese about today's conditions, the answer was invariably that it is necessary to wait, that nothing can be done to hasten change. Their patience is commendable. I have a deep respect for Buddhism, and was humbled by their devotion. (People earn merit and future grace by giving what they can to the temples. Some Buddhist figures are so covered with gold leaf offerings that they are now only lumps.)

Still, I tend to be pragmatic, and I was reminded of the shoguns who kept daimyo impoverished by requiring changes of residence between Edo and the provinces. One of the reasons: effective rebellions generally need extensive financing. Methods such as forced labor, and even encouraging the people's generosity, may be similarly effective.