We never hear much about Burma, officially known today as Myanmar, until it's too late. Take, for example, last fall. Crimson-robed monks marched peacefully in the streets of Rangoon, making the case for democratic reforms and human rights.
The monks' nonviolent approach and well-argued appeals were met by beatings, imprisonment and even death -- not all that surprising from a country whose military dictatorship has ruled with an iron fist. Burma -- a country roughly the size of Texas and with a population of some 50 million people -- manages to put some of the better-known human rights violators to shame.
But when those powerful images dropped off the front pages of newspapers and news sites, they also seemed to drop from our consciousness.
That is unconscionable. Under the current junta, the regime has perpetrated a coordinated program of ethnic cleansing that relies on rape as a weapon of terror, while destroying more than 3,200 villages (displacing far more than 1 million people) and conscripting more than 70,000 child soldiers (putting it literally at the top of the list for any country).
In the meantime, Aung San Suu Kyi, the rightfully elected leader of Burma, whose party won 82 percent of the seats in Parliament, has spent roughly 12 of the last 18 years under house arrest. Rather than transforming her nation through her vision and a commitment to nonviolent change, she has been unjustly imprisoned.
So why am I writing this now, when the world's attention is on issues like the tragedy unfolding in Darfur or the fight for political independence in Tibet? The simple answer is that as important as those two issues are -- and they both are of the utmost importance and are deserving of a great deal of our support and attention -- there is something so simple about the issues in Burma.
Among other things, there is fact that the Suu Kyi has the distinction of being the only Nobel Peace Prize recipient who was prevented from ever accepting her prize. She earned another honor on April 24, when she was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian award given by the U.S. Congress.
What can we do? About a month ago, my friend Jack Healey, a former Franciscan priest, told me about his idea to create a new kind of celebrity-based public service announcement to take the case for Burma to the public. Healey is no beginner when it comes to mobilizing big names. I met him nearly 20 years ago when he was executive director of Amnesty International in the United States. At the time, he had pulled together some of the biggest artists of the decade -- Bruce Springsteen, U2, The Police, Peter Gabriel -- to embark on a world tour intended to raise the issue of human rights and to put Amnesty International in the public consciousness.
Healey and Jeremy Woodrum, who runs the U.S. Campaign for Burma, have devoted their lives to fighting for the people of Burma, trying to rescue the country from the overbearing grip of a military junta and a violent dictator.
I volunteered to help. In the last month, we've managed to put together a campaign of 30 television and Internet spots, shot by and starring some of Hollywood's biggest names, with the hope that their messages will reach not only millions of Americans but also the rank-and-file soldiers in Burma, who may not even realize how closely the world is looking at the atrocities many of them are carrying out on everyday citizens and, especially, monks.
Our campaign relies on internationally recognized athletes, actors, directors, writers and musicians to address what is happening today in Burma. We are running the spots on our Web site (www.fanista.com), as well as a host of other online distribution sites, trying to drive a million people to sign a virtual petition at www.burmaitcantwait.org.
We have just finished marking Passover, a holiday that demands of us to both celebrate our freedom and fight for the oppressed. It is incumbent on all of us who live in this great country, who have been blessed with the freedoms of democracy, religious tolerance and equal rights for all, to do anything we can to ensure that others -- be they within our own communities or on the other side of the world -- enjoy those same freedoms.
We are, as I heard Rabbi Elazar Muskin say over Pesach, a "people of hope." That sense of hope not only allows us to dream of a better and more just world but also obligates us to do what we can to make those conditions a reality. May all of our efforts help achieve those goals for Suu Kyi and the people of Burma and for all oppressed people, wherever they may be.
____________________
Dan Adler is the Founder and CEO of Fanista, which is co-producing and sponsoring the entire "Burma: It Can't Wait" campaign, in partnership with the Human Rights Action Center (www.humanrightsactioncenter.org) and the U.S. Campaign for Burma (www.uscampaignforburma.org).
Jewish Journal
Friday, 2 May 2008
Meeting over referendum continues in Waingmaw
By KNG
Mobilising the people for the forthcoming referendum to approve the constitution continues briskly by the Burmese military junta authorities in Waingmaw Township (Wai Maw) in Kachin State, northern Burma, a source said.
Waingmaw Township Peace and Development Council (TPDC or Ma-Ya-Ka) and members of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) held a meeting on April 29 at the government primary school in Nam Wa village to get people to approve the draft constitution. Over 200 people above the age of 18 attended the meeting, a participant told KNG.
The meeting was called by U Min Kyi, USDA member and the head of the organizers for the referendum in Waingmaw, a participant added.
According to a participant, U Min Kyi told them that the drafted constitution was the best and it was not compiled by one person. It was put together by all the representatives of each state and division and it reflects the people's desire. Therefore, the people have to cast the "Yes" vote.
On the other hand, Salang Bawm Ying, a member of referendum commission also told the meeting in tribal language that this was not the time to explain the draft constitution. The people should go to the polling booths and cast the "Yes" vote.
The referendum meeting by the Waingmaw TPDC was also held in Washong village in Waingmaw Township the same day.
Mobilising the people for the forthcoming referendum to approve the constitution continues briskly by the Burmese military junta authorities in Waingmaw Township (Wai Maw) in Kachin State, northern Burma, a source said.
Waingmaw Township Peace and Development Council (TPDC or Ma-Ya-Ka) and members of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) held a meeting on April 29 at the government primary school in Nam Wa village to get people to approve the draft constitution. Over 200 people above the age of 18 attended the meeting, a participant told KNG.
The meeting was called by U Min Kyi, USDA member and the head of the organizers for the referendum in Waingmaw, a participant added.
According to a participant, U Min Kyi told them that the drafted constitution was the best and it was not compiled by one person. It was put together by all the representatives of each state and division and it reflects the people's desire. Therefore, the people have to cast the "Yes" vote.
On the other hand, Salang Bawm Ying, a member of referendum commission also told the meeting in tribal language that this was not the time to explain the draft constitution. The people should go to the polling booths and cast the "Yes" vote.
The referendum meeting by the Waingmaw TPDC was also held in Washong village in Waingmaw Township the same day.
Burmese Biofuel Policy a Debacle: Report
By GRANT PECK / ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
The Irrawaddy News
A plan by Burma’s ruling military for large-scale growing of a promising but little-tested biofuel crop has turned into an agricultural debacle, activists linked with the exile-based opposition alleged in a report on Thursday.
The 48-page report, "Biofuel by Decree: Unmasking Burma's Bio-energy Fiasco," was produced by the Ethnic Community Development Forum, a self-described alliance of seven community development organizations from Burma.
Though not directly political, the groups are all associated with the exile-based opposition to Burma’s military government.
The fiercely critical report, which says the biofuel policy hurts an already ailing agriculture industry, comes as biofuels draw intense scrutiny over whether their benefits in replacing petroleum fuels offset the resources they take from food production.
The forum said the report is based on government documents and press accounts, as well as 131 interviews carried out in all seven states of Burma between November 2006 and April 2006.
"A draconian campaign by Burma's military to grow 8 million acres of the Jatropha curcas tree for biofuel production is resulting in forced labor and land confiscation throughout the country, while evidence of crop failure and mismanagement expose the program as a fiasco," alleges the report.
It recounts how the leader of the Burmese junta, Snr-Gen Than Shwe, in December 2005 publicly ordered the campaign to plant the jatropha crop—better known as physic nut.
The five-year plan was to plant the crop across 202,000 hectares of each state and division in the country, a total of 3,237,000 hectares—an area roughly the size of Belgium.
The report charges that "farmers, civil servants, teachers, schoolchildren, nurses and prisoners have been forced to purchase seeds, fulfill planting quotas and establish biofuel plantations in service to the 'national cause."'
"They must plant the trees along roadsides, in housing, school and hospital compounds, in cemeteries and religious grounds, and on lands formerly producing rice," it says.
It alleges that people "have been fined, beaten, and arrested for not participating," and that food security is being threatened because physic nut is being planted on land usually used for stable crops.
The crop has promise as a biofuel, with greater yields of oil per hectare than other biofuels and one-fifth the carbon emissions. But poor management has doomed efforts to use it in Burma, where the yield so far appears to have been too low to be of much use, the report says.
Some 800 refugees who fled to Thailand from Burma’s Shan State have even cited the program as the reason for fleeing their country, the report says.
"It will not be successful," said one farmer quoted in the report. "You see, the soldiers carry guns. They don't know anything about agriculture."
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization has suggested biofuel crops may be causing shortages of food staples and rises in food prices.
An e-mailed request for comment sent to the Burmese government spokesperson was not answered before release of the report.
However, in January 2006, according to the report, Agriculture Minister Col Aung Thaung said the production of physic nut for biodiesel was the only way Burma could cope with a chronic oil shortage.
Burma in the past few years has become a major producer of natural gas, but lacks the infrastructure to make efficient use of it and instead exports it for desperately needed foreign reserves.
The Irrawaddy News
A plan by Burma’s ruling military for large-scale growing of a promising but little-tested biofuel crop has turned into an agricultural debacle, activists linked with the exile-based opposition alleged in a report on Thursday.
The 48-page report, "Biofuel by Decree: Unmasking Burma's Bio-energy Fiasco," was produced by the Ethnic Community Development Forum, a self-described alliance of seven community development organizations from Burma.
Though not directly political, the groups are all associated with the exile-based opposition to Burma’s military government.
The fiercely critical report, which says the biofuel policy hurts an already ailing agriculture industry, comes as biofuels draw intense scrutiny over whether their benefits in replacing petroleum fuels offset the resources they take from food production.
The forum said the report is based on government documents and press accounts, as well as 131 interviews carried out in all seven states of Burma between November 2006 and April 2006.
"A draconian campaign by Burma's military to grow 8 million acres of the Jatropha curcas tree for biofuel production is resulting in forced labor and land confiscation throughout the country, while evidence of crop failure and mismanagement expose the program as a fiasco," alleges the report.
It recounts how the leader of the Burmese junta, Snr-Gen Than Shwe, in December 2005 publicly ordered the campaign to plant the jatropha crop—better known as physic nut.
The five-year plan was to plant the crop across 202,000 hectares of each state and division in the country, a total of 3,237,000 hectares—an area roughly the size of Belgium.
The report charges that "farmers, civil servants, teachers, schoolchildren, nurses and prisoners have been forced to purchase seeds, fulfill planting quotas and establish biofuel plantations in service to the 'national cause."'
"They must plant the trees along roadsides, in housing, school and hospital compounds, in cemeteries and religious grounds, and on lands formerly producing rice," it says.
It alleges that people "have been fined, beaten, and arrested for not participating," and that food security is being threatened because physic nut is being planted on land usually used for stable crops.
The crop has promise as a biofuel, with greater yields of oil per hectare than other biofuels and one-fifth the carbon emissions. But poor management has doomed efforts to use it in Burma, where the yield so far appears to have been too low to be of much use, the report says.
Some 800 refugees who fled to Thailand from Burma’s Shan State have even cited the program as the reason for fleeing their country, the report says.
"It will not be successful," said one farmer quoted in the report. "You see, the soldiers carry guns. They don't know anything about agriculture."
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization has suggested biofuel crops may be causing shortages of food staples and rises in food prices.
An e-mailed request for comment sent to the Burmese government spokesperson was not answered before release of the report.
However, in January 2006, according to the report, Agriculture Minister Col Aung Thaung said the production of physic nut for biodiesel was the only way Burma could cope with a chronic oil shortage.
Burma in the past few years has become a major producer of natural gas, but lacks the infrastructure to make efficient use of it and instead exports it for desperately needed foreign reserves.
Than Shwe Urges Workers to Vote ‘Yes’
The Irrawaddy News-AP
Burma's junta chief urged workers on Thursday to approve a draft constitution in the upcoming referendum while the main opposition party implored them to reject the document, which critics call a sham intended to cement military rule.
In his May Day message appearing in The New Light of Myanmar newspaper, Snr-Gen Than Shwe said workers should approve the proposed charter in the May 10 referendum because labor groups participated in drafting it.
The charter "was drawn in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the National Convention, which was participated in by delegates of workers," Than Shwe was quoted as saying in the state-run newspaper.
A military-managed national convention was held intermittently for 14 years to lay down guidelines for the country's new constitution. The junta's hand-picked delegates included those representing workers.
The new constitution is supposed to be followed in 2010 by a general election. Both votes are elements of a "roadmap to democracy" drawn up by the junta.
Meanwhile, the country's main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by detained Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, urged workers and farmers to vote against the draft.
"The proposed constitution mentions very little about the rights of workers and farmers," the NLD statement said.
The NLD earlier said the draft charter was written unilaterally by those hand-picked by the military government and would not guarantee democratic and human rights.
Dissidents inside the country as well as exiled groups have urged voters to reject the constitution, saying it is merely a ploy to perpetuate more than four decades of military rule.
Opponents have staged scattered, mostly low-profile protests against the draft charter, but harassment of pro-democracy activists and restrictions on freedom of speech have made a mass movement difficult.
The government has launched an aggressive campaign in the state-controlled media with songs, cartoons, articles and slogans urging voters to approve the constitution.
The draft constitution guarantees 25 percent of parliamentary seats to the military and allows the president to hand over all power to the military in a state of emergency.
It also bans anyone who has enjoyed the rights and privileges of a foreign county from holding public office—a rule that would keep Suu Kyi out of government because her late husband was British.
Suu Kyi, the leader of the NLD, is under house arrest and has been detained for 12 of the past 18 years.
Burma held its previous general election in 1990. Suu Kyi's party won, but the military refused to hand over power.
The international community increased pressure on the junta after it violently quashed peaceful mass protests last September. At least 31 people were killed and thousands more were detained.
Burma's junta chief urged workers on Thursday to approve a draft constitution in the upcoming referendum while the main opposition party implored them to reject the document, which critics call a sham intended to cement military rule.
In his May Day message appearing in The New Light of Myanmar newspaper, Snr-Gen Than Shwe said workers should approve the proposed charter in the May 10 referendum because labor groups participated in drafting it.
The charter "was drawn in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the National Convention, which was participated in by delegates of workers," Than Shwe was quoted as saying in the state-run newspaper.
A military-managed national convention was held intermittently for 14 years to lay down guidelines for the country's new constitution. The junta's hand-picked delegates included those representing workers.
The new constitution is supposed to be followed in 2010 by a general election. Both votes are elements of a "roadmap to democracy" drawn up by the junta.
Meanwhile, the country's main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by detained Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, urged workers and farmers to vote against the draft.
"The proposed constitution mentions very little about the rights of workers and farmers," the NLD statement said.
The NLD earlier said the draft charter was written unilaterally by those hand-picked by the military government and would not guarantee democratic and human rights.
Dissidents inside the country as well as exiled groups have urged voters to reject the constitution, saying it is merely a ploy to perpetuate more than four decades of military rule.
Opponents have staged scattered, mostly low-profile protests against the draft charter, but harassment of pro-democracy activists and restrictions on freedom of speech have made a mass movement difficult.
The government has launched an aggressive campaign in the state-controlled media with songs, cartoons, articles and slogans urging voters to approve the constitution.
The draft constitution guarantees 25 percent of parliamentary seats to the military and allows the president to hand over all power to the military in a state of emergency.
It also bans anyone who has enjoyed the rights and privileges of a foreign county from holding public office—a rule that would keep Suu Kyi out of government because her late husband was British.
Suu Kyi, the leader of the NLD, is under house arrest and has been detained for 12 of the past 18 years.
Burma held its previous general election in 1990. Suu Kyi's party won, but the military refused to hand over power.
The international community increased pressure on the junta after it violently quashed peaceful mass protests last September. At least 31 people were killed and thousands more were detained.
Burma's Political Transition Needs People Power
By MIN ZIN
The Irrawaddy News
The notion of political transition initiated by a country’s elite has been a dominant discourse in Burmese politics since the late 1990s. The model advocates that a peaceful transition can be facilitated by negotiations between the regime’s “doves” and opposition moderates. It would involve the opposition initiating a concrete proposal to the military in order to persuade the latter to sit at the negotiating table.
This political strategy gained currency in the early 2000s since it coincided with the political ascendancy of former Intelligence Chief Gen Khin Nyunt. At the time, talks between opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the junta seemed to offer a glimmer of hope. However, simultaneously, the opposition movement was losing its strength in "people power" campaigns, such as the unsuccessful Four Nines (September 9, 1999) Mass Movement, and in armed struggles due to ethnic armies signing ceasefire agreements and the fall of the Karen National Union stronghold in 1992.
Any optimism in Burmese politics is never sustained for long. However, the transitional model remained popular as the only way out for the Burmese people. Proponents claimed there was "No alternative!"
"Many diplomats who we met always encouraged and even pressured us to initiate a proposal to the regime," said Nyan Win, a spokesperson for the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD). "In fact the party has always called for dialogue and has always been ready to negotiate."
In early 2006, the NLD proposed a transitional plan urging the junta to convene parliament with the winners of the 1990 elections in return for giving the regime recognition as an interim executive power holder. Though the party's call for a negotiated transition was rejected by the regime, the opposition forces—including the 92 MP-elects from the 1990 election and notable veteran politicians—continued to offer flexible transitional packages to the junta. None of them worked.
The proponents of the transition model often downplay the role of public action and mass movement. Some believe it will not happen because more than 20 percent of the population has been born since the uprising in 1988 and are therefore much less affected by the people’s power movement of those times. Others worry that mass movement could be counterproductive to a possible negotiated transition—often the momentum of a protesting crowd will spiral out of control and threaten the careful process of negotiation. They all conclude that the army doesn't respond to public pressure.
Then, all of the sudden, the September protests broke out. The so-called “experts” and “policymakers” failed to see it coming. In the wake of the crackdown, UN-led mediation efforts were revived and Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his generals, once again, were called on to sit at the negotiating table. And once again they declined.
The question now to the advocates of the elite-driven transition model is what to do when the regime refuses to negotiate with the opposition? What it is to be done when the military insist on a referendum to approve a constitution that will allow the perpetuation of military rule in the country?
Almost all supporters of the model say the people of Burma must accept whatever offer the junta makes. They say "something is better than nothing." Some suggested using the generals’ flawed model of democracy as a starting point from which to pursue a more acceptable long-term solution.
"We must give consideration to possible generation change within the military," said Harn Yawnghwe, a well-know lobbyist and director of the Brussels-based Euro-Burma office. "The new blood of the army must have options available on the table when their time comes. This constitution and referendum, though they are flawed, can give reform options to a new generation of military officers. It will create a new dynamic for the country to get out of the current deadlock."
That’s why many advocates of the elite-initiated transition advise the Burmese public to accept the constitution and hope it will lead to amendments with the objective of the military's gradual withdrawal from politics at a later period.
Tun Myint Aung, a leader of 88 Generation Students group, disagrees.
"It is such disgraceful advice. The so-called experts and policy makers are pushing our people to live in slavery," he said from his hideout in Burma. "We do not accept the military's constitution; not because we don't want gradual transition, but because the constitution is too rigid to make any change possible. The military holds a veto over any amendments."
Critics said it is now clear—after a series of rejected proposals from oppositions groups and the UN—that rather than political carrots, it is much more likely that effective public action will compel the new military generation to choose the path to reform.
"Unless a mass movement challenges the corrupted military leadership, divisions within the military will not surface," said Kyaw Kyaw, head of the Political Defiant Committee under the National Council of Union of Burma, the umbrella opposition group in exile. "Besides lacking local and international legitimacy, the corrupt leadership is now losing its loyalty from within military ranks since the September protest. In a historical Burmese context, public action, or mass movement, has played a decisive role ever since the struggle for independence to the 1988 democracy uprising to the monk-led protests last September. It will continue to do so until we gain a genuine resolution."
In fact, only when mass movement with strategic leadership rises up against the current military top brass, then the elite’s calculations, regime defection and international pressure will become relevant issues in facilitating a negotiated transition. In other words, political transition is not likely to take place within a framework of proposed constitutional means. Even amendments to the constitution with the hope of gradual reform will not be possible within a military-dominated parliamentary debate. It will happen only when the people challenge the status quo with public pressure.
However, although mass action is believed to be necessary to bring about change in Burma, its inherent dangers mean the possibility of its success remains a big question.
"The calls for public action are getting louder since the prospect of elite-initiated negotiation became impossible," said Nyan Win. "If the regime rigs the referendum result, it could spark mass protests."
A recent history of democratization shows that vote-rigging and stealing elections create favorable conditions and the opportunity for the outbreak of a democratic uprising or, in a worst case scenario, violence.
In fact, vote rigging might not only trigger public outrage in Burma, but also test the loyalty of the regime's staff. It could create divisions and weaken the standing of Than Shwe, who is solely responsible for the decision to move ahead with the unilateral implementation of the current political process by ignoring the UN's call for inclusiveness.
Whether or not public action leads to a negotiated transition depends on the opposition's leadership. No process of democratization has evolved purely and solely from a civil movement or people’s uprising.
It would nevertheless be shortsighted to exclude the role and power of the people in a Burmese political context where elite-driven transition is no longer relevant.
The Irrawaddy News
The notion of political transition initiated by a country’s elite has been a dominant discourse in Burmese politics since the late 1990s. The model advocates that a peaceful transition can be facilitated by negotiations between the regime’s “doves” and opposition moderates. It would involve the opposition initiating a concrete proposal to the military in order to persuade the latter to sit at the negotiating table.
This political strategy gained currency in the early 2000s since it coincided with the political ascendancy of former Intelligence Chief Gen Khin Nyunt. At the time, talks between opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the junta seemed to offer a glimmer of hope. However, simultaneously, the opposition movement was losing its strength in "people power" campaigns, such as the unsuccessful Four Nines (September 9, 1999) Mass Movement, and in armed struggles due to ethnic armies signing ceasefire agreements and the fall of the Karen National Union stronghold in 1992.
Any optimism in Burmese politics is never sustained for long. However, the transitional model remained popular as the only way out for the Burmese people. Proponents claimed there was "No alternative!"
"Many diplomats who we met always encouraged and even pressured us to initiate a proposal to the regime," said Nyan Win, a spokesperson for the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD). "In fact the party has always called for dialogue and has always been ready to negotiate."
In early 2006, the NLD proposed a transitional plan urging the junta to convene parliament with the winners of the 1990 elections in return for giving the regime recognition as an interim executive power holder. Though the party's call for a negotiated transition was rejected by the regime, the opposition forces—including the 92 MP-elects from the 1990 election and notable veteran politicians—continued to offer flexible transitional packages to the junta. None of them worked.
The proponents of the transition model often downplay the role of public action and mass movement. Some believe it will not happen because more than 20 percent of the population has been born since the uprising in 1988 and are therefore much less affected by the people’s power movement of those times. Others worry that mass movement could be counterproductive to a possible negotiated transition—often the momentum of a protesting crowd will spiral out of control and threaten the careful process of negotiation. They all conclude that the army doesn't respond to public pressure.
Then, all of the sudden, the September protests broke out. The so-called “experts” and “policymakers” failed to see it coming. In the wake of the crackdown, UN-led mediation efforts were revived and Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his generals, once again, were called on to sit at the negotiating table. And once again they declined.
The question now to the advocates of the elite-driven transition model is what to do when the regime refuses to negotiate with the opposition? What it is to be done when the military insist on a referendum to approve a constitution that will allow the perpetuation of military rule in the country?
Almost all supporters of the model say the people of Burma must accept whatever offer the junta makes. They say "something is better than nothing." Some suggested using the generals’ flawed model of democracy as a starting point from which to pursue a more acceptable long-term solution.
"We must give consideration to possible generation change within the military," said Harn Yawnghwe, a well-know lobbyist and director of the Brussels-based Euro-Burma office. "The new blood of the army must have options available on the table when their time comes. This constitution and referendum, though they are flawed, can give reform options to a new generation of military officers. It will create a new dynamic for the country to get out of the current deadlock."
That’s why many advocates of the elite-initiated transition advise the Burmese public to accept the constitution and hope it will lead to amendments with the objective of the military's gradual withdrawal from politics at a later period.
Tun Myint Aung, a leader of 88 Generation Students group, disagrees.
"It is such disgraceful advice. The so-called experts and policy makers are pushing our people to live in slavery," he said from his hideout in Burma. "We do not accept the military's constitution; not because we don't want gradual transition, but because the constitution is too rigid to make any change possible. The military holds a veto over any amendments."
Critics said it is now clear—after a series of rejected proposals from oppositions groups and the UN—that rather than political carrots, it is much more likely that effective public action will compel the new military generation to choose the path to reform.
"Unless a mass movement challenges the corrupted military leadership, divisions within the military will not surface," said Kyaw Kyaw, head of the Political Defiant Committee under the National Council of Union of Burma, the umbrella opposition group in exile. "Besides lacking local and international legitimacy, the corrupt leadership is now losing its loyalty from within military ranks since the September protest. In a historical Burmese context, public action, or mass movement, has played a decisive role ever since the struggle for independence to the 1988 democracy uprising to the monk-led protests last September. It will continue to do so until we gain a genuine resolution."
In fact, only when mass movement with strategic leadership rises up against the current military top brass, then the elite’s calculations, regime defection and international pressure will become relevant issues in facilitating a negotiated transition. In other words, political transition is not likely to take place within a framework of proposed constitutional means. Even amendments to the constitution with the hope of gradual reform will not be possible within a military-dominated parliamentary debate. It will happen only when the people challenge the status quo with public pressure.
However, although mass action is believed to be necessary to bring about change in Burma, its inherent dangers mean the possibility of its success remains a big question.
"The calls for public action are getting louder since the prospect of elite-initiated negotiation became impossible," said Nyan Win. "If the regime rigs the referendum result, it could spark mass protests."
A recent history of democratization shows that vote-rigging and stealing elections create favorable conditions and the opportunity for the outbreak of a democratic uprising or, in a worst case scenario, violence.
In fact, vote rigging might not only trigger public outrage in Burma, but also test the loyalty of the regime's staff. It could create divisions and weaken the standing of Than Shwe, who is solely responsible for the decision to move ahead with the unilateral implementation of the current political process by ignoring the UN's call for inclusiveness.
Whether or not public action leads to a negotiated transition depends on the opposition's leadership. No process of democratization has evolved purely and solely from a civil movement or people’s uprising.
It would nevertheless be shortsighted to exclude the role and power of the people in a Burmese political context where elite-driven transition is no longer relevant.
UNLD Calls for Referendum Boycott
By SAW YAN NAING
The Irrawaddy News
While many political campaigners in Burma are calling for a “No” vote in the forthcoming referendum, the United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD) is calling for a complete boycott of the polls on May 10.
Leaders of the UNLD, a Rangoon-based umbrella organization of political parties representing ethnic minority peoples, said that casting a vote in the constitutional referendum is a form of following the regime's orders and supporting their "Seven-step road map" to democracy.
Speaking with The Irrawaddy on Thursday, Thawng Kho Thang, a senior member of the UNLD and the Committee Representing People’s Parliament (CRPP), said: “As we never supported the ‘Seven-step road map,’ why should we go and vote? If we cast a vote, it means we support Step Four of the road map. So, we won’t go and cast a vote in the referendum.”
The national referendum is the fourth step on the junta’s so-called “Seven-step road map” toward democracy in Burma. The junta has also announced the fifth step of the road map—multi-party elections in 2010.
Thawng Kho Thang said that no leader or member of the UNLD will cast a vote in the national referendum. The group called for a boycott of the referendum on May 10 and urged Burmese citizens to join the boycott.
Senior leaders of the UNLD also include: Aye Tha Aung, the chairman of the Arakan League for Democracy and the secretary of the CRPP; Thar Ban of the Arakan League for Democracy; and veteran politician Aung Tin Oo.
Thawng Kho Thang said that even if a majority of Burmese citizens vote “No” in the referendum, the junta will try to legitimize the draft constitution somehow.
The UNLD leader also said that the military regime was holding the national referendum too early after releasing the draft of the constitution, which gave voters insufficient time to read the 194-page document. He said many citizens were unclear about the new constitution and didn’t know whether to support it or oppose it.
"The junta should allow another two years for people to study the constitution,” he added. “If possible, they should translate the draft constitution into ethnic languages, because some ethnic minority people can’t read Burmese."
Thawng Kho Thang predicted that the majority of Burmese citizens would vote “Yes” in the referendum out of fear of repercussions from the security forces.
He also criticized the National League for Democracy, saying that the opposition party did not launch its “Vote No” campaign widely enough in Burma nor seek to educate people about the junta's constitution.
UNLD senior member Aye Thar Aung also confirmed that he would not participate in the May 10 referendum. He said that to solve the conflict in Burma, the military regime should create a genuine dialogue with the opposition parties—not hold a constitutional referendum.
The UNLD leaders condemned the draft constitution as a one-sided document written by the military generals alone, which lacked the suggestions of the 1990 elected members of the CRPP.
Meanwhile, Rangoon-based veteran politician Amyotheryei Win Naing suggested that Burmese citizens should seriously consider casting a vote on May 10 based on two points.
He said that if 32 million people are eligible to vote in the referendum, then a turnout of 16 million plus one person would legitimize the referendum.
If half of the participants, 8 million plus one person, vote “Yes,” the draft constitution would be legitimized, he said.
“If people don’t vote, the junta cannot legitimize the draft constitution,” Amyotheryei Win Naing said in a letter received by The Irrawaddy on Thursday.
The Irrawaddy News
While many political campaigners in Burma are calling for a “No” vote in the forthcoming referendum, the United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD) is calling for a complete boycott of the polls on May 10.
Leaders of the UNLD, a Rangoon-based umbrella organization of political parties representing ethnic minority peoples, said that casting a vote in the constitutional referendum is a form of following the regime's orders and supporting their "Seven-step road map" to democracy.
Speaking with The Irrawaddy on Thursday, Thawng Kho Thang, a senior member of the UNLD and the Committee Representing People’s Parliament (CRPP), said: “As we never supported the ‘Seven-step road map,’ why should we go and vote? If we cast a vote, it means we support Step Four of the road map. So, we won’t go and cast a vote in the referendum.”
The national referendum is the fourth step on the junta’s so-called “Seven-step road map” toward democracy in Burma. The junta has also announced the fifth step of the road map—multi-party elections in 2010.
Thawng Kho Thang said that no leader or member of the UNLD will cast a vote in the national referendum. The group called for a boycott of the referendum on May 10 and urged Burmese citizens to join the boycott.
Senior leaders of the UNLD also include: Aye Tha Aung, the chairman of the Arakan League for Democracy and the secretary of the CRPP; Thar Ban of the Arakan League for Democracy; and veteran politician Aung Tin Oo.
Thawng Kho Thang said that even if a majority of Burmese citizens vote “No” in the referendum, the junta will try to legitimize the draft constitution somehow.
The UNLD leader also said that the military regime was holding the national referendum too early after releasing the draft of the constitution, which gave voters insufficient time to read the 194-page document. He said many citizens were unclear about the new constitution and didn’t know whether to support it or oppose it.
"The junta should allow another two years for people to study the constitution,” he added. “If possible, they should translate the draft constitution into ethnic languages, because some ethnic minority people can’t read Burmese."
Thawng Kho Thang predicted that the majority of Burmese citizens would vote “Yes” in the referendum out of fear of repercussions from the security forces.
He also criticized the National League for Democracy, saying that the opposition party did not launch its “Vote No” campaign widely enough in Burma nor seek to educate people about the junta's constitution.
UNLD senior member Aye Thar Aung also confirmed that he would not participate in the May 10 referendum. He said that to solve the conflict in Burma, the military regime should create a genuine dialogue with the opposition parties—not hold a constitutional referendum.
The UNLD leaders condemned the draft constitution as a one-sided document written by the military generals alone, which lacked the suggestions of the 1990 elected members of the CRPP.
Meanwhile, Rangoon-based veteran politician Amyotheryei Win Naing suggested that Burmese citizens should seriously consider casting a vote on May 10 based on two points.
He said that if 32 million people are eligible to vote in the referendum, then a turnout of 16 million plus one person would legitimize the referendum.
If half of the participants, 8 million plus one person, vote “Yes,” the draft constitution would be legitimized, he said.
“If people don’t vote, the junta cannot legitimize the draft constitution,” Amyotheryei Win Naing said in a letter received by The Irrawaddy on Thursday.
'Burma Referendum A Shame'
Special Correspondent
Guwahati, Northeast India: The May 10 referendum on a new constitution in Burma has been termed as a shame process aimed at entrenching the military by the Human Rights Watch. The New York based rights body in a statement on May 1 asserted that the conditions for a free and fair referendum do not exist in Burma because of widespread repression, including arrests of opposition activists, media censorship, bans on political meetings and gatherings, the lack of an independent referendum commission and courts to supervise the vote, and a pervasive climate of fear created by the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) in the run-up to the referendum.
"The Burmese generals are showing their true colors by continuing to arrest anyone opposed to their sham referendum, and denying the population the right to a public discussion of the merits of the draft constitution," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "International acceptance of this process will be a big step backward."
The 61-page report, "Vote to Nowhere: The May 2008 Constitutional Referendum in Burma," shows that the referendum is being carried out in an environment of severe restrictions on access to information, repressive media restrictions, an almost total ban on freedom of expression, assembly, and association, and the continuing widespread detention of political activists. It highlights recent government arrests, harassment and attacks on activists opposed to the draft constitution.
Since the announcement of the referendum in February 2008, the Burmese military government has stepped up its repression, detaining those expressing opposition to the draft constitution. For example, on March 30 and April 1, security forces detained a total of seven opposition activists who had held a peaceful protest wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the word "No" in Rangoon. Throughout Burma, similarly peaceful protests are immediately broken up by the authorities. The Thailand-based Association for Assistance to Political Prisoners in Burma reported that over 70 Burmese activists have been arrested trying to stage demonstrations in Burma between April 25-28.
The SPDC's wide use of spies and informants severely limits the ability of people to speak freely even when talking with friends in teahouses or private homes. Any gathering of more than five people is banned in Burma, and even solitary peaceful protesters face imprisonment.
SPDC-backed groups routinely threaten violence against members of the leading opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). In April 2008, such groups allegedly were responsible for physical attacks on NLD officials and human rights activists.
The draft constitution, a 194-page document only available in Burmese and English, was released just a month before the referendum. Many Burmese citizens are ethnic minorities who do not speak Burmese or English, and so have no ability to read the draft.
"You can't hold a free and fair referendum when you deny every basic right to your people," Adams said. "The generals expect the Burmese people to just shut up, follow their orders, and approve the draft constitution without any discussion or debate. That's not exactly how democracies are born."
The referendum is taking place just months after the Burmese junta violently crushed massive nationwide pro-democracy protests in September 2007, documented in the Human Rights Watch report, "Crackdown: Repression of the 2007 Popular Protests in Burma." The brutal crackdown drew international condemnation and renewed pressure on the government to end its repression and bring about real democratic reform. Apparently in response, the SPDC accelerated its "seven-step path to democracy" and announced the referendum.
The draft constitution emerged from the 14-year-long National Convention. The National Convention was a tightly controlled, repressive, and undemocratic process that excluded the vast majority of the representatives elected in the annulled 1990 parliamentary elections. Any statement to be made at the National Convention had to be pre-approved and censored by the military-controlled Convening Commission. Criticism of the National Convention was punishable by prison sentences of up to 20 years. Two delegates were sentenced to 15- and 20-year prison terms respectively, simply for disseminating speeches delivered at the convention.
The new report analyzes key elements of the draft constitution, demonstrating that it seeks to entrench military rule and limit the role of independent political parties. Under the draft constitution, the commander-in-chief will appoint military officers for a quarter of all seats in both houses of parliament, and the military has even broader representation in the selection of the president and two vice-presidents.
The draft constitution treats political parties with open hostility: draconian restrictions exclude many opposition politicians from running for office, and a custom-drafted clause prevents NLD opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from holding any elected office because she is the widow of a foreigner. The draft constitution makes it virtually impossible to amend these clauses, because more than three-quarters of the members of both houses of parliament need to approve any amendment. Given that the military holds at least one quarter of the seats – they can also run for any "open seats," so their representation will be significantly higher – it holds an effective veto.
Human Rights Watch called on the international community not to give any credibility to the referendum process, and to firmly insist on real reform from Burma's military rulers. The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his special envoy on Burma have a particular responsibility to speak out clearly and forcefully and make it clear that only a referendum that meets international standards will be recognized.
"This referendum and the draft constitution it seeks to impose on the Burmese people are designed to forever entrench more of the same abusive rule that Burma has endured for nearly half a century already," said Adams. "The Burmese junta's friends, including China, India, and Thailand, should not give any credibility to this process. If they do, it will simply expose them to ridicule for having said they were committed to democratic change in Burma."
Supporting: Narinjara News
Guwahati, Northeast India: The May 10 referendum on a new constitution in Burma has been termed as a shame process aimed at entrenching the military by the Human Rights Watch. The New York based rights body in a statement on May 1 asserted that the conditions for a free and fair referendum do not exist in Burma because of widespread repression, including arrests of opposition activists, media censorship, bans on political meetings and gatherings, the lack of an independent referendum commission and courts to supervise the vote, and a pervasive climate of fear created by the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) in the run-up to the referendum.
"The Burmese generals are showing their true colors by continuing to arrest anyone opposed to their sham referendum, and denying the population the right to a public discussion of the merits of the draft constitution," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "International acceptance of this process will be a big step backward."
The 61-page report, "Vote to Nowhere: The May 2008 Constitutional Referendum in Burma," shows that the referendum is being carried out in an environment of severe restrictions on access to information, repressive media restrictions, an almost total ban on freedom of expression, assembly, and association, and the continuing widespread detention of political activists. It highlights recent government arrests, harassment and attacks on activists opposed to the draft constitution.
Since the announcement of the referendum in February 2008, the Burmese military government has stepped up its repression, detaining those expressing opposition to the draft constitution. For example, on March 30 and April 1, security forces detained a total of seven opposition activists who had held a peaceful protest wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the word "No" in Rangoon. Throughout Burma, similarly peaceful protests are immediately broken up by the authorities. The Thailand-based Association for Assistance to Political Prisoners in Burma reported that over 70 Burmese activists have been arrested trying to stage demonstrations in Burma between April 25-28.
The SPDC's wide use of spies and informants severely limits the ability of people to speak freely even when talking with friends in teahouses or private homes. Any gathering of more than five people is banned in Burma, and even solitary peaceful protesters face imprisonment.
SPDC-backed groups routinely threaten violence against members of the leading opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). In April 2008, such groups allegedly were responsible for physical attacks on NLD officials and human rights activists.
The draft constitution, a 194-page document only available in Burmese and English, was released just a month before the referendum. Many Burmese citizens are ethnic minorities who do not speak Burmese or English, and so have no ability to read the draft.
"You can't hold a free and fair referendum when you deny every basic right to your people," Adams said. "The generals expect the Burmese people to just shut up, follow their orders, and approve the draft constitution without any discussion or debate. That's not exactly how democracies are born."
The referendum is taking place just months after the Burmese junta violently crushed massive nationwide pro-democracy protests in September 2007, documented in the Human Rights Watch report, "Crackdown: Repression of the 2007 Popular Protests in Burma." The brutal crackdown drew international condemnation and renewed pressure on the government to end its repression and bring about real democratic reform. Apparently in response, the SPDC accelerated its "seven-step path to democracy" and announced the referendum.
The draft constitution emerged from the 14-year-long National Convention. The National Convention was a tightly controlled, repressive, and undemocratic process that excluded the vast majority of the representatives elected in the annulled 1990 parliamentary elections. Any statement to be made at the National Convention had to be pre-approved and censored by the military-controlled Convening Commission. Criticism of the National Convention was punishable by prison sentences of up to 20 years. Two delegates were sentenced to 15- and 20-year prison terms respectively, simply for disseminating speeches delivered at the convention.
The new report analyzes key elements of the draft constitution, demonstrating that it seeks to entrench military rule and limit the role of independent political parties. Under the draft constitution, the commander-in-chief will appoint military officers for a quarter of all seats in both houses of parliament, and the military has even broader representation in the selection of the president and two vice-presidents.
The draft constitution treats political parties with open hostility: draconian restrictions exclude many opposition politicians from running for office, and a custom-drafted clause prevents NLD opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from holding any elected office because she is the widow of a foreigner. The draft constitution makes it virtually impossible to amend these clauses, because more than three-quarters of the members of both houses of parliament need to approve any amendment. Given that the military holds at least one quarter of the seats – they can also run for any "open seats," so their representation will be significantly higher – it holds an effective veto.
Human Rights Watch called on the international community not to give any credibility to the referendum process, and to firmly insist on real reform from Burma's military rulers. The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his special envoy on Burma have a particular responsibility to speak out clearly and forcefully and make it clear that only a referendum that meets international standards will be recognized.
"This referendum and the draft constitution it seeks to impose on the Burmese people are designed to forever entrench more of the same abusive rule that Burma has endured for nearly half a century already," said Adams. "The Burmese junta's friends, including China, India, and Thailand, should not give any credibility to this process. If they do, it will simply expose them to ridicule for having said they were committed to democratic change in Burma."
Supporting: Narinjara News
USDA Member Stabbed to Death
Sittwe: A member of the USDA, or Union Solidarity Development Association, in Sittwe, Arakan State, died at the Sittwe hospital on 20 April from injuries sustained in a knife attack, reports a town resident.
The victim has been identified as Ko Maung Maung, 26 years old, from Singu Land Ward in Sittwe. He was a close associate of Arakan State USDA General Secretary U Kyaw Yin.
The incident took place on a ferry ship that was harbored at Sittwe's inland water transportation jetty on the day of April 20.
An 18-year-old youth named Ko Kyaw Win reportedly stabbed Maung Maung with a knife during a quarrel over the matter of the transportation of goods to Buthidaung from Sittwe via the ferry ship.
Maung Maung was a supervisor of goods transportation on the waterway from Sittwe to Buthidaung, and had been appointed to his position by U Kyaw Yin.
U Kyaw Yin has received several good business opportunities from the Burmese military government, among them the control of the transportation of goods between Sittwe and Buthidaung.
Many USDA members have been appointed by U Kyaw Yin as workers in the transportation sector, and the USDA members are known to harass ordinary travelers and traders and collect large tolls for transportation services.
It is believed that Ko Kyaw Win stabbed Ko Maung Maung on board the ship out of frustration with this harassment and extortion.
Supporting: Narinjara News
The victim has been identified as Ko Maung Maung, 26 years old, from Singu Land Ward in Sittwe. He was a close associate of Arakan State USDA General Secretary U Kyaw Yin.
The incident took place on a ferry ship that was harbored at Sittwe's inland water transportation jetty on the day of April 20.
An 18-year-old youth named Ko Kyaw Win reportedly stabbed Maung Maung with a knife during a quarrel over the matter of the transportation of goods to Buthidaung from Sittwe via the ferry ship.
Maung Maung was a supervisor of goods transportation on the waterway from Sittwe to Buthidaung, and had been appointed to his position by U Kyaw Yin.
U Kyaw Yin has received several good business opportunities from the Burmese military government, among them the control of the transportation of goods between Sittwe and Buthidaung.
Many USDA members have been appointed by U Kyaw Yin as workers in the transportation sector, and the USDA members are known to harass ordinary travelers and traders and collect large tolls for transportation services.
It is believed that Ko Kyaw Win stabbed Ko Maung Maung on board the ship out of frustration with this harassment and extortion.
Supporting: Narinjara News
U.S. widens sanctions on Myanmar
WASHINGTON (Reuters-IHT): President George W. Bush said Thursday that he had ordered a new round of sanctions on state companies in Myanmar to pressure the military leadership there over human rights abuses and to push for political change.
"Today I've issued a new executive order that instructs the Treasury Department to freeze the assets of Burmese state-owned companies that are major sources of funds that prop up the junta."
The sanctions were targeted at companies and industries that produce timber, pearls and gems. They mark the latest effort by Bush to ratchet up pressure on Myanmar after its crackdown against pro-democracy protesters last September.
"Today I'm sending yet another clear message that we expect there to be change and we expect generals to honor the will of the people," Bush said.
The Treasury Department has already imposed sanctions on Myanmar's private companies and military leaders.
Myanmar last held elections in 1990, but ignored the results when the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won a landslide. Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has spent more than 12 of the past 18 years under some form of detention.
The current junta has scheduled a referendum on May 10 as a critical stage in a seven-step "road-map to democracy" that should culminate in multi-party elections in 2010, as a replacement to the absolute power wielded by the army since a 1962 coup.
Human Rights Watch has said that at least 20 people were killed in the crackdown on protesters last September, but Western governments say the toll may have been much higher.
"Today I've issued a new executive order that instructs the Treasury Department to freeze the assets of Burmese state-owned companies that are major sources of funds that prop up the junta."
The sanctions were targeted at companies and industries that produce timber, pearls and gems. They mark the latest effort by Bush to ratchet up pressure on Myanmar after its crackdown against pro-democracy protesters last September.
"Today I'm sending yet another clear message that we expect there to be change and we expect generals to honor the will of the people," Bush said.
The Treasury Department has already imposed sanctions on Myanmar's private companies and military leaders.
Myanmar last held elections in 1990, but ignored the results when the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won a landslide. Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has spent more than 12 of the past 18 years under some form of detention.
The current junta has scheduled a referendum on May 10 as a critical stage in a seven-step "road-map to democracy" that should culminate in multi-party elections in 2010, as a replacement to the absolute power wielded by the army since a 1962 coup.
Human Rights Watch has said that at least 20 people were killed in the crackdown on protesters last September, but Western governments say the toll may have been much higher.
Burma's army digs in
By Peter Janssen, dpa
Bangkok Post
When Burmese vote in a May 10 referendum on the country's new constitution, they will be getting a bitter foretaste of the "discipline-flourishing democracy" the military has in store for them.
The referendum, Burma's third in the past five decades, will theoretically decide the fate of the country's new charter, a document that promises to cement the dominant role of the military in Burmese politics following the next general election, planned in 2010.
In fact, the outcome of the referendum is a foregone conclusion, according to veteran Burma watchers.
"It's going to be a yes vote," said Naing Aung Oo, a former Burmese student activist who was forced to flee the country in the aftermath of the 1988 anti-military protests. "There are two reasons, one is intimidation and the other reason is the high probability of rigging the vote," he explained.
The military junta, calling itself the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), has left little up to free choice in the upcoming referendum.
The generals no doubt learned their lesson from the 1990 election, which, contrary to their expectations and planning, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, won by a landslide.
Despite their electoral victory, the NLD was blocked from power on the military's argument that a new constitution was needed before civilian rule could be risked in Burma, a country suffering from a long history of ethnic-based insurgencies and separatist struggles.
The referendum on the constitution, which took 14 years to draft, was announced in February, amid intensifying international pressure on the Burmese military regime to demonstrate its sincerity in moving towards some form of democratic system in the aftermath of its latest crackdown on its own people in September of last year, when the government brutally suppressed protests led by Buddhist monks.
In the same month, but less publicly, the regime also announced a new law that punishes anyone caught publicly criticizing the referendum with a three-year jail term and a fine.
The law has been readily enforced. Between March and April scores of activists have been detained for holding peaceful protests urging a "No" vote on the referendum, including five members of National League for Democracy (NLD) who participated in a peaceful protest in Rangoon, according Human Rights Watch (HRW).
The New York-based rights group said conditions for a free and fair referendum on May 10 do not exist because of widespread repression, media censorship, bans on political gatherings, the lack of an independent referendum commission and courts to supervise the vote, and a pervasive climate of fear created by the ruling junta in the run-up to the election.
But given the content of the constitution being voted on, the nature of this "discipline-flourishing" referendum should come as a surprise to nobody.
Two of the fundamental principles of the military-drafted constitution are to provide "a discipline-flourishing genuine multiparty democracy" and "for the Tatmadaw (military) to be able to participate in the national political leadership role."
How the military will dominate Burma's post-election politics is clearly spelled out.
Under the draft charter, 110 members of 440-seat lower house, or People's Parliament, and 56 members of the 224-seat upper house, or National Parliament, would be selected by the military.
Control of this 25 per cent of both houses would effectively bar amendments to the charter that might threaten the military's dominance, since for an amendment to pass, it would require more than 75-per-cent support.
The draft constitution also includes restrictions excluding many opposition politicians from running for office and a clause that effectively prevents opposition leader Suu Kyi from holding any elected office because she is the widow of a foreigner.
The new charter also enshrines the right of Burma's future president, a non-elected post that is likely to be claimed by the commander-in-chief, to seize executive and legislative powers in case of an emergency.
"A military coup could be implemented in Burma by constitutional means," noted Lian Sakhong, general secretary of the Ethnic National Council, representing the ethnic minority groups opposed to the military.
Bangkok Post
When Burmese vote in a May 10 referendum on the country's new constitution, they will be getting a bitter foretaste of the "discipline-flourishing democracy" the military has in store for them.
The referendum, Burma's third in the past five decades, will theoretically decide the fate of the country's new charter, a document that promises to cement the dominant role of the military in Burmese politics following the next general election, planned in 2010.
In fact, the outcome of the referendum is a foregone conclusion, according to veteran Burma watchers.
"It's going to be a yes vote," said Naing Aung Oo, a former Burmese student activist who was forced to flee the country in the aftermath of the 1988 anti-military protests. "There are two reasons, one is intimidation and the other reason is the high probability of rigging the vote," he explained.
The military junta, calling itself the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), has left little up to free choice in the upcoming referendum.
The generals no doubt learned their lesson from the 1990 election, which, contrary to their expectations and planning, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, won by a landslide.
Despite their electoral victory, the NLD was blocked from power on the military's argument that a new constitution was needed before civilian rule could be risked in Burma, a country suffering from a long history of ethnic-based insurgencies and separatist struggles.
The referendum on the constitution, which took 14 years to draft, was announced in February, amid intensifying international pressure on the Burmese military regime to demonstrate its sincerity in moving towards some form of democratic system in the aftermath of its latest crackdown on its own people in September of last year, when the government brutally suppressed protests led by Buddhist monks.
In the same month, but less publicly, the regime also announced a new law that punishes anyone caught publicly criticizing the referendum with a three-year jail term and a fine.
The law has been readily enforced. Between March and April scores of activists have been detained for holding peaceful protests urging a "No" vote on the referendum, including five members of National League for Democracy (NLD) who participated in a peaceful protest in Rangoon, according Human Rights Watch (HRW).
The New York-based rights group said conditions for a free and fair referendum on May 10 do not exist because of widespread repression, media censorship, bans on political gatherings, the lack of an independent referendum commission and courts to supervise the vote, and a pervasive climate of fear created by the ruling junta in the run-up to the election.
But given the content of the constitution being voted on, the nature of this "discipline-flourishing" referendum should come as a surprise to nobody.
Two of the fundamental principles of the military-drafted constitution are to provide "a discipline-flourishing genuine multiparty democracy" and "for the Tatmadaw (military) to be able to participate in the national political leadership role."
How the military will dominate Burma's post-election politics is clearly spelled out.
Under the draft charter, 110 members of 440-seat lower house, or People's Parliament, and 56 members of the 224-seat upper house, or National Parliament, would be selected by the military.
Control of this 25 per cent of both houses would effectively bar amendments to the charter that might threaten the military's dominance, since for an amendment to pass, it would require more than 75-per-cent support.
The draft constitution also includes restrictions excluding many opposition politicians from running for office and a clause that effectively prevents opposition leader Suu Kyi from holding any elected office because she is the widow of a foreigner.
The new charter also enshrines the right of Burma's future president, a non-elected post that is likely to be claimed by the commander-in-chief, to seize executive and legislative powers in case of an emergency.
"A military coup could be implemented in Burma by constitutional means," noted Lian Sakhong, general secretary of the Ethnic National Council, representing the ethnic minority groups opposed to the military.
Thursday, 1 May 2008
Foreign journalists likely to be barred from referendum
By Nem Davies
Mizzima News
30 April 2008 - New Delhi - Burma's military junta's Ministry of Information has reportedly leaked that foreign journalists will not be invited to cover the upcoming May 10 constitutional referendum.
A Rangoon-based journalist, citing an official from the Ministry of Information, said foreign journalists and media groups will possibly be prevented from reporting on the referendum's proceedings.
"The official said foreign journalists will not be allowed to cover the May referendum. But he did not mention the reasons why and we could not ask him," the journalist told Mizzima.
A Reuters reporter, who has applied for a visa to enter Burma, has had their application kept pending, another journalist in Rangoon commented on condition of anonymity.
"We heard that the Reuters reporter will not be allowed to enter. The case is still pending and no reply has yet been made," explained the journalist.
Similarly, an Indian journalist in New Delhi told Mizzima that several of his friends who applied for visas to cover the referendum have had their initiatives rejected.
"All of their applications for a visa have been denied," said the Indian journalist.
However, an official at the Information and Public Relations Department in Burma's new capital, Naypyitaw, denied claims that applications have been refused.
"I don't know of any such thing. What I know is that we have not stopped issuing visas. Visas are possible not only for journalists but are available for any kind of tourist," the official said.
While foreign journalists are finding difficulties in obtaining Burmese visas, a Rangoon-based journal editor expressed fear that local journalists would not be allowed to freely cover the upcoming referendum either.
"Though the government has announced that journalists and media will be allowed to cover the event, I have a feeling that there will be several restrictions. What we have learned is that the government will place people to take photos of journalists who are covering the event. This could prove intimidating," the editor added.
Meanwhile, sources in Rangoon said the government has ordered all Rangoon-based weeklies to insert the government's campaign logo, which urges people to vote 'Yes' in support of the draft constitution, into their periodicals.
"We have been ordered to put the campaign logo either on the front page, back page or third page," remarked a Rangoon-based editor of a weekly journal.
Mizzima News
30 April 2008 - New Delhi - Burma's military junta's Ministry of Information has reportedly leaked that foreign journalists will not be invited to cover the upcoming May 10 constitutional referendum.
A Rangoon-based journalist, citing an official from the Ministry of Information, said foreign journalists and media groups will possibly be prevented from reporting on the referendum's proceedings.
"The official said foreign journalists will not be allowed to cover the May referendum. But he did not mention the reasons why and we could not ask him," the journalist told Mizzima.
A Reuters reporter, who has applied for a visa to enter Burma, has had their application kept pending, another journalist in Rangoon commented on condition of anonymity.
"We heard that the Reuters reporter will not be allowed to enter. The case is still pending and no reply has yet been made," explained the journalist.
Similarly, an Indian journalist in New Delhi told Mizzima that several of his friends who applied for visas to cover the referendum have had their initiatives rejected.
"All of their applications for a visa have been denied," said the Indian journalist.
However, an official at the Information and Public Relations Department in Burma's new capital, Naypyitaw, denied claims that applications have been refused.
"I don't know of any such thing. What I know is that we have not stopped issuing visas. Visas are possible not only for journalists but are available for any kind of tourist," the official said.
While foreign journalists are finding difficulties in obtaining Burmese visas, a Rangoon-based journal editor expressed fear that local journalists would not be allowed to freely cover the upcoming referendum either.
"Though the government has announced that journalists and media will be allowed to cover the event, I have a feeling that there will be several restrictions. What we have learned is that the government will place people to take photos of journalists who are covering the event. This could prove intimidating," the editor added.
Meanwhile, sources in Rangoon said the government has ordered all Rangoon-based weeklies to insert the government's campaign logo, which urges people to vote 'Yes' in support of the draft constitution, into their periodicals.
"We have been ordered to put the campaign logo either on the front page, back page or third page," remarked a Rangoon-based editor of a weekly journal.
Junta's U- turn and future Sino-Burma Relation
By Myat Soe
Mizzima News
01 May 2008 - Dishonest Burmese rulers' decision to bar Aung San Suu Kyi from contesting the elections shows that its process leading to a democratic transition in the country is not convincing. The purpose of this decision was that the military regime threatened to ban the NLD and its leadership completely.
This announcement evidently defied the international community by refusing to pursue democratization and national reconciliation. It appeared to be on the verge of a major U-turn, and it was aimed at undermining the on-going regional and international efforts.
Since the September people's movement in 2007, no political tangible result has been achieved. The regime did not free Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners which the international community has been urging for. The house arrest of U Tin Oo, the deputy leader of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) party was extended. More political prisoners have been locked up. The UN special envoy was not allowed to go back to Burma whenever he needed to follow up on the UNSC resolution. Freedom of press has been prohibited, and citizens have no space to express their views openly and peacefully. In addition, the junta's referendum law released in February 2008 prohibits people from criticizing or campaigning against the referendum process and imposes a penalty of three years in prison. In fact, the regime's lip service to political solutions, buying time, blaming the opposition, and attacking its own citizens will not take the place of substantial reforms and will not resolve the country's problems.
Why does the regime remain deaf to the rest of the world? The reason is the regime had two trump cards in the form of Russia and China at the UNSC. Indeed, China and Russia, as permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, can promote or prevent meaningful U.N. action on Burma. Recently, the Burmese military regime agreed to let Russia's Glory International Pte Ltd search for gold and other minerals in the country's northern Kachin State, which borders China. Later, Lt. General Evnevich Valery G from the Russian Defence Ministry followed his visit to Burma. According to reliable sources, the regime is trying to acquire knowledge and nuclear technology from Russia to build nuclear reactors in the country for energy purposes since dealing with North Korea and Iran has been criticized by the neighbours and the international community. Another reason is that the regime is trying to strike a balance with China and find out an alternative source for military supplies. On the other hand, China's interest in Burmese gas and building military bases in Burma's islands are life supports for the ruling regime.
Indeed, Russia and China have ignored many thousands of people in the war zones of Burma who are suffering growing humanitarian crisis for their own self-interests. They never take the burden of the UN for this humanitarian crisis. In doing so, the immoral self-interests will increase threats to Burma's neighbouring countries and the entire region. Currently, more than 4 million people are living in neighbouring countries, and one million people are suffering humanitarian crisis. The recent deaths on 9 April of 54 illegal migrant workers from Burma, who suffocated in the back of a container truck while being smuggled to the Thai resort island of Phuket, highlighted the vulnerability of foreign migrant labourers in Thailand, said UN International Labour Organization (ILO) officials. This tragedy underscored the need to for cooperation to fight against human trafficking, and similar plights in Malaysia, Singapore, India, Bangladesh, and other neighbours. These are obviously evidence that people are suffering humanitarian crisis under military rule. China and Russia should not prevent meaningful U.N. action on Burma. As a consequence, Russia and China will have to pay a huge political price when building a relationship with Burma's future generation.
Yet, Burma's prominent student activists group, widely known as '8.8.88 generation has called for a worldwide boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics in response to China's bankrolling of the military junta that rules Burma with guns and threats. The group also joined a growing chorus of critics urging an Olympic boycott over complaints ranging from China's human rights record to its failure to press Sudan to end the Darfur conflict and to resolve the Tibet issue. Certainly, the china involvement with the oppressive military regime of Burma has largely been questioned at the beginning of the Beijing Olympics. Now, the world leaders including Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, UK PM Gordon Brown, German chancellor Angela Merkel, Canada's PM Stephen Harper, Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai had considered not attending Beijing Olympics opening ceremony. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is considering staying away, and U.S. President George W.Bush has not yet committed to attending the opening ceremony.
Certainly, China wants the Beijing Olympics to show off, and the freedom-loving people of Burma, Tibet, and Sudan are not allowed to do that. The voices of one world and one dream have loudly been heard, and it can not be possible that China can continue help to oppress human rights in Tibet, Burma, Darfur and elsewhere and still be considered untouchable for economic reasons.
Now, Burma's regime is going back to a major U turn again, and it is driving the country down a dangerous road. In fact, Burma's military rulers have announced they will hold a referendum on a draft constitution on May 10 and a general election in 2010. However, the opposition groups including 88 generation and the NLD called on the people of Burma to vote 'No' in the ballot boxes to prevent "the country from falling into the depths as a result of the junta's one-sided road-map. By voting 'No' we are not only against the junta's referendum, we want the junta and world to know that the people of Burma do not recognize every step of its road-map or their rule, a statement released by 88 generation group said. The time of casting "No Votes" for the junta's U-turn is near and let us see how the result will affect the Beijing Olympics in political terms. China should not remain deaf to the people of Burma.
The question is: will China defend its policy for the notorious Burmese junta at the UNSC again? Truth to be told, the more China supports Burma's junta, the higher the future relationship of Sino-Burma will be at risk and will cost China dearly in political terms.
(The writer Myat Soe is a former Central Executive Committee member of All Burma Federation of Student Unions (1988) and currently serves as the Research Director of Justice for Human Rights in Burma. He graduated from Indiana University, and earned his MBA from Indiana Wesleyan University.)
Mizzima News
01 May 2008 - Dishonest Burmese rulers' decision to bar Aung San Suu Kyi from contesting the elections shows that its process leading to a democratic transition in the country is not convincing. The purpose of this decision was that the military regime threatened to ban the NLD and its leadership completely.
This announcement evidently defied the international community by refusing to pursue democratization and national reconciliation. It appeared to be on the verge of a major U-turn, and it was aimed at undermining the on-going regional and international efforts.
Since the September people's movement in 2007, no political tangible result has been achieved. The regime did not free Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners which the international community has been urging for. The house arrest of U Tin Oo, the deputy leader of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) party was extended. More political prisoners have been locked up. The UN special envoy was not allowed to go back to Burma whenever he needed to follow up on the UNSC resolution. Freedom of press has been prohibited, and citizens have no space to express their views openly and peacefully. In addition, the junta's referendum law released in February 2008 prohibits people from criticizing or campaigning against the referendum process and imposes a penalty of three years in prison. In fact, the regime's lip service to political solutions, buying time, blaming the opposition, and attacking its own citizens will not take the place of substantial reforms and will not resolve the country's problems.
Why does the regime remain deaf to the rest of the world? The reason is the regime had two trump cards in the form of Russia and China at the UNSC. Indeed, China and Russia, as permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, can promote or prevent meaningful U.N. action on Burma. Recently, the Burmese military regime agreed to let Russia's Glory International Pte Ltd search for gold and other minerals in the country's northern Kachin State, which borders China. Later, Lt. General Evnevich Valery G from the Russian Defence Ministry followed his visit to Burma. According to reliable sources, the regime is trying to acquire knowledge and nuclear technology from Russia to build nuclear reactors in the country for energy purposes since dealing with North Korea and Iran has been criticized by the neighbours and the international community. Another reason is that the regime is trying to strike a balance with China and find out an alternative source for military supplies. On the other hand, China's interest in Burmese gas and building military bases in Burma's islands are life supports for the ruling regime.
Indeed, Russia and China have ignored many thousands of people in the war zones of Burma who are suffering growing humanitarian crisis for their own self-interests. They never take the burden of the UN for this humanitarian crisis. In doing so, the immoral self-interests will increase threats to Burma's neighbouring countries and the entire region. Currently, more than 4 million people are living in neighbouring countries, and one million people are suffering humanitarian crisis. The recent deaths on 9 April of 54 illegal migrant workers from Burma, who suffocated in the back of a container truck while being smuggled to the Thai resort island of Phuket, highlighted the vulnerability of foreign migrant labourers in Thailand, said UN International Labour Organization (ILO) officials. This tragedy underscored the need to for cooperation to fight against human trafficking, and similar plights in Malaysia, Singapore, India, Bangladesh, and other neighbours. These are obviously evidence that people are suffering humanitarian crisis under military rule. China and Russia should not prevent meaningful U.N. action on Burma. As a consequence, Russia and China will have to pay a huge political price when building a relationship with Burma's future generation.
Yet, Burma's prominent student activists group, widely known as '8.8.88 generation has called for a worldwide boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics in response to China's bankrolling of the military junta that rules Burma with guns and threats. The group also joined a growing chorus of critics urging an Olympic boycott over complaints ranging from China's human rights record to its failure to press Sudan to end the Darfur conflict and to resolve the Tibet issue. Certainly, the china involvement with the oppressive military regime of Burma has largely been questioned at the beginning of the Beijing Olympics. Now, the world leaders including Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, UK PM Gordon Brown, German chancellor Angela Merkel, Canada's PM Stephen Harper, Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai had considered not attending Beijing Olympics opening ceremony. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is considering staying away, and U.S. President George W.Bush has not yet committed to attending the opening ceremony.
Certainly, China wants the Beijing Olympics to show off, and the freedom-loving people of Burma, Tibet, and Sudan are not allowed to do that. The voices of one world and one dream have loudly been heard, and it can not be possible that China can continue help to oppress human rights in Tibet, Burma, Darfur and elsewhere and still be considered untouchable for economic reasons.
Now, Burma's regime is going back to a major U turn again, and it is driving the country down a dangerous road. In fact, Burma's military rulers have announced they will hold a referendum on a draft constitution on May 10 and a general election in 2010. However, the opposition groups including 88 generation and the NLD called on the people of Burma to vote 'No' in the ballot boxes to prevent "the country from falling into the depths as a result of the junta's one-sided road-map. By voting 'No' we are not only against the junta's referendum, we want the junta and world to know that the people of Burma do not recognize every step of its road-map or their rule, a statement released by 88 generation group said. The time of casting "No Votes" for the junta's U-turn is near and let us see how the result will affect the Beijing Olympics in political terms. China should not remain deaf to the people of Burma.
The question is: will China defend its policy for the notorious Burmese junta at the UNSC again? Truth to be told, the more China supports Burma's junta, the higher the future relationship of Sino-Burma will be at risk and will cost China dearly in political terms.
(The writer Myat Soe is a former Central Executive Committee member of All Burma Federation of Student Unions (1988) and currently serves as the Research Director of Justice for Human Rights in Burma. He graduated from Indiana University, and earned his MBA from Indiana Wesleyan University.)
U Kovida Passes Away
Masoeyein Sayadaw, U KovidaBy AYE LAE
The Irrawaddy News
Renowned Burmese monk U Kovida passed away peacefully on Tuesday at 13:07 Eastern Standard Time in New York. He was 81 and had been hospitalized that morning suffering from heart disease.
Also known as Masoeyein Sayadaw, U Kovida was a highly respected senior monk who was born in Irrawaddy Division in Burma in 1927.
For 50 years U Kovida was one of the abbots at Masoeyein Monastery, one of the oldest Buddhist schools in Mandalay, where he taught Buddhist literature.
In1990, U Kovida led a patam nikkujjana kamma—an alms boycott of military families—in response to a violent crackdown on Buddhist monks in Mandalay. He was subsequently imprisoned from 1990 to1993.
After the Burmese junta violently cracked down on monk-led protesters in September 2007, U Kovida founded Sasana Moli—the International Burmese Monks Organization—to promote Buddhist monks’ affairs and democracy in Burma.
Since 2001 he had been dividing his time between Burma and New York, where he worked for the Sasana Joti Center.
Pyinnya Jota, a leading member of the All Burma Monks Alliance who fled to Thailand in February, told The Irrawaddy: “Sayadaw respected Buddhist religion, promoted Burmese Buddhism and was a well-known teacher of Buddhism.”
He added, “In his last days, Sayadaw was urging Burmese people to boycott the referendum.”
The ‘Third Force’ in Burmese Politics
By WAI MOE
The Irrawaddy News
Burmese at home and abroad say they don’t think the junta-backed constitution offers any democratic guarantees, but some have decided to vote in favor of it, anyway, saying that a ‘Yes’ vote could nudge the country towards democratization.
One of those who have taken this stance is Aye Lwin, a student leader in the 1988 popular uprising. He was briefly arrested for demanding democracy in March 1988 and was later arrested again for a business-related offense. He has since done a complete about-face, abandoning his pro-democracy stand in favor of supporting the country’s ruling military regime.
In 2005, he formed the junta-sponsored Union of Burma 88 Generation Students group, set up to counter the better known and almost identically named 88 Generation Students group, founded by Min Ko Naing and other prominent student leaders, some of whom had spent more than a decade in prison.
Aye Lwin claims his group is neither pro-junta nor pro-opposition; it is, he says, part of the “third force” in Burmese politics that is seeking a more pragmatic response to the country’s needs. In 2006, it launched an anti-sanctions campaign, urging Western countries to stop standing in the way of the country’s economic development. More recently, it has reportedly been actively involved in efforts to win support for the military-drafted constitution ahead of the May 10 referendum.
There are others like Aye Lwin, some of them former members of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD), including elected representatives Soe Lin, Kyi Win and Tin Tun Maung, who have also formed their own “third force group.”
Dissidents who refuse to back the junta’s agenda note that former colleagues usually win hard-to-get business licenses and lucrative contracts soon after undergoing their political conversions.
A well-known journalist in Rangoon, Nay Win Maung, and several other intellectuals, such as Ma Theingi and Khin Zaw Win, have also claimed to occupy the middle ground. According to Rangoon-based journalists, Nay Win Maung has told them that although the junta’s constitution lacks basic democratic foundations, it is better than nothing.
Nay Win Maung also recently called on Aung San Suu Kyi to endorse the constitution to ensure that the NLD is not “disenfranchised.”
“Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should provide a goodwill gesture by saying ‘Yes’ to the constitution,” he wrote in a letter circulated within a circle of Burmese intellectuals. He claimed that such a gesture would provide junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe with a face-saving way to step down from power.
Nay Win Maung is quite well-connected to the ruling generals—he reportedly has concessions in the timber industry and is also an executive member of Kanbawza Bank, which is closely connected to the junta’s No. 2, Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye.
Besides economic rewards, members of the “third force” also enjoy greater freedoms than dissidents. Unlike democratic opposition figures, who are typically forced to remain in exile if they ever leave the country, Nay Win Maung, Ma Theingi and Khin Zaw Win have all been permitted to attend international conferences on Burmese issues in foreign countries, arranged by diplomats in Rangoon.
Tin Maung Than, a well-known Burmese writer now living in the United States, said in his regular Democratic Voice of Burma radio program on April 4 that the “third group” could have a significant impact on the referendum outcome. But others—notably Moe Thee Zun, a prominent former student leader of the 1988 uprising—say that Tin Maung Than is overestimating the influence of the “third force” groups.
“The ‘third force’ is only a few people who claim to be the ‘new elite’ and intellectuals. They are only known among some diplomats,” Moe Thee Zun wrote on his blog.
“Unlike the democracy icons Aung San Suu Kyi and Min Ko Naing and the 88 Generation Students group, nobody from urban and rural areas of Burma know about the ‘third force.’”
Thakin Chan Tun, a veteran politician in Rangoon, also said that people in Burma don’t know anything about the “third force.” They are the product of a handful of diplomats who want to create a “new political elite,” he said, and would be completely unknown if not for the attention they receive from Burmese radio stations based abroad.
“The Burmese political conflict is between the rulers and the subjected people. The opposition, particularly the NLD, is only a tool of the democracy struggle,” he added.
“During the struggle period, there is no third group. They are merely apologists for the rulers, rather than advocates for the subjected people.”
The Irrawaddy News
Burmese at home and abroad say they don’t think the junta-backed constitution offers any democratic guarantees, but some have decided to vote in favor of it, anyway, saying that a ‘Yes’ vote could nudge the country towards democratization.
One of those who have taken this stance is Aye Lwin, a student leader in the 1988 popular uprising. He was briefly arrested for demanding democracy in March 1988 and was later arrested again for a business-related offense. He has since done a complete about-face, abandoning his pro-democracy stand in favor of supporting the country’s ruling military regime.
In 2005, he formed the junta-sponsored Union of Burma 88 Generation Students group, set up to counter the better known and almost identically named 88 Generation Students group, founded by Min Ko Naing and other prominent student leaders, some of whom had spent more than a decade in prison.
Aye Lwin claims his group is neither pro-junta nor pro-opposition; it is, he says, part of the “third force” in Burmese politics that is seeking a more pragmatic response to the country’s needs. In 2006, it launched an anti-sanctions campaign, urging Western countries to stop standing in the way of the country’s economic development. More recently, it has reportedly been actively involved in efforts to win support for the military-drafted constitution ahead of the May 10 referendum.
There are others like Aye Lwin, some of them former members of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD), including elected representatives Soe Lin, Kyi Win and Tin Tun Maung, who have also formed their own “third force group.”
Dissidents who refuse to back the junta’s agenda note that former colleagues usually win hard-to-get business licenses and lucrative contracts soon after undergoing their political conversions.
A well-known journalist in Rangoon, Nay Win Maung, and several other intellectuals, such as Ma Theingi and Khin Zaw Win, have also claimed to occupy the middle ground. According to Rangoon-based journalists, Nay Win Maung has told them that although the junta’s constitution lacks basic democratic foundations, it is better than nothing.
Nay Win Maung also recently called on Aung San Suu Kyi to endorse the constitution to ensure that the NLD is not “disenfranchised.”
“Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should provide a goodwill gesture by saying ‘Yes’ to the constitution,” he wrote in a letter circulated within a circle of Burmese intellectuals. He claimed that such a gesture would provide junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe with a face-saving way to step down from power.
Nay Win Maung is quite well-connected to the ruling generals—he reportedly has concessions in the timber industry and is also an executive member of Kanbawza Bank, which is closely connected to the junta’s No. 2, Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye.
Besides economic rewards, members of the “third force” also enjoy greater freedoms than dissidents. Unlike democratic opposition figures, who are typically forced to remain in exile if they ever leave the country, Nay Win Maung, Ma Theingi and Khin Zaw Win have all been permitted to attend international conferences on Burmese issues in foreign countries, arranged by diplomats in Rangoon.
Tin Maung Than, a well-known Burmese writer now living in the United States, said in his regular Democratic Voice of Burma radio program on April 4 that the “third group” could have a significant impact on the referendum outcome. But others—notably Moe Thee Zun, a prominent former student leader of the 1988 uprising—say that Tin Maung Than is overestimating the influence of the “third force” groups.
“The ‘third force’ is only a few people who claim to be the ‘new elite’ and intellectuals. They are only known among some diplomats,” Moe Thee Zun wrote on his blog.
“Unlike the democracy icons Aung San Suu Kyi and Min Ko Naing and the 88 Generation Students group, nobody from urban and rural areas of Burma know about the ‘third force.’”
Thakin Chan Tun, a veteran politician in Rangoon, also said that people in Burma don’t know anything about the “third force.” They are the product of a handful of diplomats who want to create a “new political elite,” he said, and would be completely unknown if not for the attention they receive from Burmese radio stations based abroad.
“The Burmese political conflict is between the rulers and the subjected people. The opposition, particularly the NLD, is only a tool of the democracy struggle,” he added.
“During the struggle period, there is no third group. They are merely apologists for the rulers, rather than advocates for the subjected people.”
Burma in the spotlight
May 1, 2008
Bangkok was humming with anti-Burmese sentiment yesterday as local and international human rights organisations took turns to lash out at the military government of Burma and the visit of Prime Minister General Thein Sein to Thailand.
Thai Action Committee for Democracy called on Thailand to halt all major investment in the military-run state until the junta shows that it is committed to democracy. The group also called on the government to use whatever influence it has on the Burmese junta to push the country towards the path of democracy.
New York-based Human Rights Watch, in a press statement, called Burma's May 10 referendum on a new constitution "a sham process aimed at entrenching the military" in the country's political system.
"The Burmese generals are showing their true colours by continuing to arrest anyone opposed to their sham referendum, and denying the population the right to a public discussion of the merits of the draft constitution," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "International acceptance of this process will be a big step backward."
"The generals expect the Burmese people to just shut up, follow their orders, and approve the draft constitution without any discussion or debate. That's not exactly how democracies are born."
Separately, the Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG) launched a report, "Growing up under Militarisation."
Stephen Hull, one of the authors of the report, said: "Children in Karen State are facing a disastrous collapse of their opportunities for health, education and social development as a direct result of a systematic policy of military control and civilian exploitation by the Burmese junta."
At 174 pages and drawing on over 160 interviews with children, their families and their communities on a wide variety of issues relevant to children's welfare, the report claims to be the most comprehensive account ever produced on children's rights in Burma.
KHRG programme director, Naw Rebecca Dun explained the dismal situation faced by children in areas of Karen State where the State Police and Development Council (SPDC) army is attacking civilians and destroying villages, leading villagers to flee into hiding in the forest where they face malnutrition, disease, landmines and the constant threat of further attacks.
Naw Rebecca Dun has herself witnessed the hardships of such children, during her nearly 20 years teaching in an IDP jungle school.
Breaking down at the memories, she described the lives of these children as "physically, emotionally and mentally scarred".
Nation Multimedia
Bangkok was humming with anti-Burmese sentiment yesterday as local and international human rights organisations took turns to lash out at the military government of Burma and the visit of Prime Minister General Thein Sein to Thailand.
Thai Action Committee for Democracy called on Thailand to halt all major investment in the military-run state until the junta shows that it is committed to democracy. The group also called on the government to use whatever influence it has on the Burmese junta to push the country towards the path of democracy.
New York-based Human Rights Watch, in a press statement, called Burma's May 10 referendum on a new constitution "a sham process aimed at entrenching the military" in the country's political system.
"The Burmese generals are showing their true colours by continuing to arrest anyone opposed to their sham referendum, and denying the population the right to a public discussion of the merits of the draft constitution," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "International acceptance of this process will be a big step backward."
"The generals expect the Burmese people to just shut up, follow their orders, and approve the draft constitution without any discussion or debate. That's not exactly how democracies are born."
Separately, the Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG) launched a report, "Growing up under Militarisation."
Stephen Hull, one of the authors of the report, said: "Children in Karen State are facing a disastrous collapse of their opportunities for health, education and social development as a direct result of a systematic policy of military control and civilian exploitation by the Burmese junta."
At 174 pages and drawing on over 160 interviews with children, their families and their communities on a wide variety of issues relevant to children's welfare, the report claims to be the most comprehensive account ever produced on children's rights in Burma.
KHRG programme director, Naw Rebecca Dun explained the dismal situation faced by children in areas of Karen State where the State Police and Development Council (SPDC) army is attacking civilians and destroying villages, leading villagers to flee into hiding in the forest where they face malnutrition, disease, landmines and the constant threat of further attacks.
Naw Rebecca Dun has herself witnessed the hardships of such children, during her nearly 20 years teaching in an IDP jungle school.
Breaking down at the memories, she described the lives of these children as "physically, emotionally and mentally scarred".
Nation Multimedia
Hitting the Junta
Celebs are trying a new tactic to win the freedom of Burmese democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi. Can their viral video possibly have an impact?
Watch Video
Watch Video
Myanmar's spoiled vote for democracy
By Larry Jagan
BANGKOK - On May 10, Myanmar holds a national referendum on a new constitution, a charter which very few of the military-run country's citizens have actually seen and one which the media and commentators are barred from publicly criticizing in the run-up to the vote. If passed, the charter will move the country into a new political era, though one still firmly controlled by the military.
Myanmar's military rulers are leaving little to democratic chance, as they apply restrictions and processes to orchestrate a "yes" vote, which by most international standards will not be considered a free and fair referendum. To be sure, without opinion polls, public sentiment is hard to gauge in Myanmar's tightly controlled society.
The vote significantly represents the first time since 1990 general elections, which military-backed candidates resoundingly lost to the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), that Myanmar's voters will go to the polls. The military famously annulled the 1990 election results and set in slow motion a 14-year process for drafting a new charter aimed at paving the way for new general elections.
There are competing interpretations of what the vote actually means. Some analysts believe both rural and urban voters, frustrated by the government's severe mismanagement of the country, will overwhelmingly vote "no" as an expression of their discontent.
"They see it as a referendum on the military government; so expect a resounding 'no' from them," said a Western aid worker in reference to rural voters in the country's main central rice growing area. "It's the first opportunity since the 1990 election that they have had to express themselves," she said.
Others view it differently. "I'm going to vote 'yes' because I'm tired of the top brass running the country, and doing it very badly," said a military colonel who wanted to remain anonymous due to concerns over his personal safety. "It's time to get them out of government and a new constitution is the only sure way of doing that," he added.
"You don't need to read the constitution to know its simply conferring power on the military for eternity," said an elderly Burmese academic who likewise wanted to remain anonymous. "The choice is simple - a vote in favor of adopting the constitution means we want the military to play the leading role in politics and run the county," he said.
For its part, the military has repeatedly promised the referendum will be transparent, fair and systematic. Political opposition groups and diplomats, meanwhile, have expressed strong concerns that the results could easily be rigged in the military's favor.
For instance, the regime has already said the results at each polling station will not be announced, even at a provincial level. The only announcement of the vote's result will come from the military's equivalent of an electoral commission in the new capital of Naypyidaw. "This is very different from the 1990 elections, when the election results were made public at each local polling station," said Zin Linn, a former political prisoner and now spokesman for the Burmese government in exile. "It means they will be able to manipulate the results to their own ends."
Adding to those concerns is the fact that the general public, not to mention the political opposition, will not be allowed to scrutinize the actual vote counting. A senior general recently told military and government officials in Yangon that only the last ten voters before the polls close would be allowed to stay and witness the actual count.
"These last 10 voters who can monitor the counting of the votes by the poll commission members will certainly be members of the Union Solidarity and Development Association, who Than Shwe has given the job of running the referendum and getting the result he wants," said Win Min, a Burmese academic at Chiang Mai University in northern Thailand.
See no evil
Significantly, international election monitors have been banned from overseeing the vote and it is likely that only a few regime-friendly foreign journalists will be given visas to cover the referendum. Foreign monitoring is essential if the referendum is to have any international credibility, the former United Nations rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Pinheiro, told Asia Times Online in an exclusive interview.
"After decades without an election, at least international observers could verify the conditions of the vote," said Pinheiro, who served in his UN capacity for seven years through April this year. "And the UN has a unit that just deals with elections, but the military government has refused their help."
"I've been following political transitions throughout the world, including Asia for more than 30 years and I am yet to see a successful transition to democracy without a previous phase of liberalism," he said. "There isn't the faintest sign of that yet in the case of Myanmar."
Indeed, state-run newspapers are predictably flush with statements endorsing the new constitution. "To approve the state constitution is a national duty of the entire people, let us all cast a 'yes' vote in the national interest." Meanwhile the local media have been forbidden from reporting the "no" campaign, which has been perpetuated on the Internet and by political opposition groups.
The government has issued orders banning any criticism of the new constitution and violations are punishable with a possible ten-year jail sentence. Those who have dared to defy those orders have come under physical attack by pro-government thugs and at least twenty young NLD members have recently been arrested for wearing T-shirts that read "Vote No".
The NLD has nonetheless launched a vigorous campaign in opposition to the constitution. "For the people who have the right to vote, we would like to encourage again all voters to go to the polling booths and make an 'x' [no] mark without fear," the NLD urged voters in statement released to the press last week. It nonetheless portrayed the process as a sham. "An intimidating atmosphere for the people is created by physically assaulting some of the members of [the] NLD," its statement read.
International observers endorse that assessment. "The whole process is surreal - to have a referendum where only those who are in favor of the constitution can campaign," said Pinheiro in an interview. "A referendum without some basic freedoms - of assembly, political parties and free speech - is a farce. What the Myanmar government calls a process of democratization is in fact a process of consolidation of an authoritarian regime," he said.
The new constitution took more than 14 years to draft, a tightly controlled process that excluded the NLD's participation. The actual constitution was only revealed to the public a few weeks ago and is now on sale at 1,000 kyat per copy - the equivalent of US$1 in a country where more than eight out of 10 families live on less than $2 a day. Even then it's nearly impossible to find copies, according to Western diplomats who in recent days have scoured the old capital of Yangon in search of the document.
Under the proposed constitution the president must hail from the military, while one-quarter of the parliamentary seats will be nominated by the army chief and key ministries under the military's control, including the defense and interior portfolios. According to the charter's text, the army also reserves the right to oust any civilian administration it deems to have jeopardized national security.
NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi, meanwhile, will be barred from politics under the charter because she was married to a foreigner, the eminent British academic and scholar of Tibet and Buddhism, Michael Aris, who died of prostate cancer in 1999. Nonetheless, the military is pitching the passage of the new charter as a step towards multi-party democracy, as laid out in the junta's seven-stage roadmap to democracy.
The junta's second in command, General Maung Aye, recently told a parade of new recruits that the constitution would pave the way for democracy. "Comrades, it is the Tatamadaw [military] that is constantly striving for the emergence of a constitution capable of shaping the multi-party democratic system," he told the army recruits last week.
But even if the junta fixes the referendum's results in its favor, it will face other major challenges in the run-up to general elections in 2010. That includes the formation of a transition government, which will entail the wholesale sacking of the current military cabinet, many of whom have entrenched business interests protected by their positions. It also in theory must allow new political parties to be formed and freely associate and campaign to contest the 2010 polls.
These steps will all likely be delayed substantially if there is a significant "no" vote at next week's referendum. While the real vote count may never be made public, top military leaders will know whether or not voters support their envisaged transition to a form of military-led democracy. Depending on how the people vote, a negative result could cause Than Shwe and other top junta officials to yet again redraw their political reform roadmap.
Larry Jagan previously covered Myanmar politics for the British Broadcasting Corp. He is currently a freelance journalist based in Bangkok.
Asian Times
BANGKOK - On May 10, Myanmar holds a national referendum on a new constitution, a charter which very few of the military-run country's citizens have actually seen and one which the media and commentators are barred from publicly criticizing in the run-up to the vote. If passed, the charter will move the country into a new political era, though one still firmly controlled by the military.
Myanmar's military rulers are leaving little to democratic chance, as they apply restrictions and processes to orchestrate a "yes" vote, which by most international standards will not be considered a free and fair referendum. To be sure, without opinion polls, public sentiment is hard to gauge in Myanmar's tightly controlled society.
The vote significantly represents the first time since 1990 general elections, which military-backed candidates resoundingly lost to the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), that Myanmar's voters will go to the polls. The military famously annulled the 1990 election results and set in slow motion a 14-year process for drafting a new charter aimed at paving the way for new general elections.
There are competing interpretations of what the vote actually means. Some analysts believe both rural and urban voters, frustrated by the government's severe mismanagement of the country, will overwhelmingly vote "no" as an expression of their discontent.
"They see it as a referendum on the military government; so expect a resounding 'no' from them," said a Western aid worker in reference to rural voters in the country's main central rice growing area. "It's the first opportunity since the 1990 election that they have had to express themselves," she said.
Others view it differently. "I'm going to vote 'yes' because I'm tired of the top brass running the country, and doing it very badly," said a military colonel who wanted to remain anonymous due to concerns over his personal safety. "It's time to get them out of government and a new constitution is the only sure way of doing that," he added.
"You don't need to read the constitution to know its simply conferring power on the military for eternity," said an elderly Burmese academic who likewise wanted to remain anonymous. "The choice is simple - a vote in favor of adopting the constitution means we want the military to play the leading role in politics and run the county," he said.
For its part, the military has repeatedly promised the referendum will be transparent, fair and systematic. Political opposition groups and diplomats, meanwhile, have expressed strong concerns that the results could easily be rigged in the military's favor.
For instance, the regime has already said the results at each polling station will not be announced, even at a provincial level. The only announcement of the vote's result will come from the military's equivalent of an electoral commission in the new capital of Naypyidaw. "This is very different from the 1990 elections, when the election results were made public at each local polling station," said Zin Linn, a former political prisoner and now spokesman for the Burmese government in exile. "It means they will be able to manipulate the results to their own ends."
Adding to those concerns is the fact that the general public, not to mention the political opposition, will not be allowed to scrutinize the actual vote counting. A senior general recently told military and government officials in Yangon that only the last ten voters before the polls close would be allowed to stay and witness the actual count.
"These last 10 voters who can monitor the counting of the votes by the poll commission members will certainly be members of the Union Solidarity and Development Association, who Than Shwe has given the job of running the referendum and getting the result he wants," said Win Min, a Burmese academic at Chiang Mai University in northern Thailand.
See no evil
Significantly, international election monitors have been banned from overseeing the vote and it is likely that only a few regime-friendly foreign journalists will be given visas to cover the referendum. Foreign monitoring is essential if the referendum is to have any international credibility, the former United Nations rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Pinheiro, told Asia Times Online in an exclusive interview.
"After decades without an election, at least international observers could verify the conditions of the vote," said Pinheiro, who served in his UN capacity for seven years through April this year. "And the UN has a unit that just deals with elections, but the military government has refused their help."
"I've been following political transitions throughout the world, including Asia for more than 30 years and I am yet to see a successful transition to democracy without a previous phase of liberalism," he said. "There isn't the faintest sign of that yet in the case of Myanmar."
Indeed, state-run newspapers are predictably flush with statements endorsing the new constitution. "To approve the state constitution is a national duty of the entire people, let us all cast a 'yes' vote in the national interest." Meanwhile the local media have been forbidden from reporting the "no" campaign, which has been perpetuated on the Internet and by political opposition groups.
The government has issued orders banning any criticism of the new constitution and violations are punishable with a possible ten-year jail sentence. Those who have dared to defy those orders have come under physical attack by pro-government thugs and at least twenty young NLD members have recently been arrested for wearing T-shirts that read "Vote No".
The NLD has nonetheless launched a vigorous campaign in opposition to the constitution. "For the people who have the right to vote, we would like to encourage again all voters to go to the polling booths and make an 'x' [no] mark without fear," the NLD urged voters in statement released to the press last week. It nonetheless portrayed the process as a sham. "An intimidating atmosphere for the people is created by physically assaulting some of the members of [the] NLD," its statement read.
International observers endorse that assessment. "The whole process is surreal - to have a referendum where only those who are in favor of the constitution can campaign," said Pinheiro in an interview. "A referendum without some basic freedoms - of assembly, political parties and free speech - is a farce. What the Myanmar government calls a process of democratization is in fact a process of consolidation of an authoritarian regime," he said.
The new constitution took more than 14 years to draft, a tightly controlled process that excluded the NLD's participation. The actual constitution was only revealed to the public a few weeks ago and is now on sale at 1,000 kyat per copy - the equivalent of US$1 in a country where more than eight out of 10 families live on less than $2 a day. Even then it's nearly impossible to find copies, according to Western diplomats who in recent days have scoured the old capital of Yangon in search of the document.
Under the proposed constitution the president must hail from the military, while one-quarter of the parliamentary seats will be nominated by the army chief and key ministries under the military's control, including the defense and interior portfolios. According to the charter's text, the army also reserves the right to oust any civilian administration it deems to have jeopardized national security.
NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi, meanwhile, will be barred from politics under the charter because she was married to a foreigner, the eminent British academic and scholar of Tibet and Buddhism, Michael Aris, who died of prostate cancer in 1999. Nonetheless, the military is pitching the passage of the new charter as a step towards multi-party democracy, as laid out in the junta's seven-stage roadmap to democracy.
The junta's second in command, General Maung Aye, recently told a parade of new recruits that the constitution would pave the way for democracy. "Comrades, it is the Tatamadaw [military] that is constantly striving for the emergence of a constitution capable of shaping the multi-party democratic system," he told the army recruits last week.
But even if the junta fixes the referendum's results in its favor, it will face other major challenges in the run-up to general elections in 2010. That includes the formation of a transition government, which will entail the wholesale sacking of the current military cabinet, many of whom have entrenched business interests protected by their positions. It also in theory must allow new political parties to be formed and freely associate and campaign to contest the 2010 polls.
These steps will all likely be delayed substantially if there is a significant "no" vote at next week's referendum. While the real vote count may never be made public, top military leaders will know whether or not voters support their envisaged transition to a form of military-led democracy. Depending on how the people vote, a negative result could cause Than Shwe and other top junta officials to yet again redraw their political reform roadmap.
Larry Jagan previously covered Myanmar politics for the British Broadcasting Corp. He is currently a freelance journalist based in Bangkok.
Asian Times
A vote offers Burma a democratic dilemma
By Amy Kazmin
April 30 2008 (FT)- After nearly three decades of repressive dictatorship and a year and a half after the army killed thousands in the suppression of massive democracy protests, the Burmese went to the polls in May 1990 to vote in their first national multiparty elections in 30 years.
The electorate and the outside world were sceptical. Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of Burma’s slain independence hero and leader of the opposition National League for Democracy, had been under house arrest for 11 months. Other top NLD leaders – and important figures from the 1988 uprising – were also under house arrest or in prison. Nearly all campaigning was banned. Most Burmese people doubted the genuine vote count would ever be known.
Events did not play out quite as expected. When the votes were tallied, the Burmese military conceded that Ms Suu Kyi’s NLD had won more than 80 per cent of the vote, a landslide victory. But, stung by the shock result, the generals refused to hand over power, insisting the military first had to oversee the drafting of a new constitution.
In that failure to honour the will of the people lies the root of the Burmese military junta’s crisis of legitimacy. Since then, Burma has been trapped in a paralysing stand-off pitting Ms Suu Kyi, regarded by many Burmese people and western governments as the rightful leader, against Senior General Than Shwe, the junta’s top man, who rejects any political role for her. International calls for a political dialogue between the two – and United Nations efforts to broker such talks – have gone unheeded.
Burma’s 52m people, meanwhile, have been left to fend for themselves in an economy hobbled by all-pervasive military control, and western trade and investment sanctions. Grinding poverty and lack of jobs have driven abroad millions of Burmese, including at least 1.5m to Thailand, who face exploitation from employers and official persecution.
Burmese public frustration at their hardships boiled over in September, when tens of thousands took to the streets led by Buddhist monks to express their desire for change. The army quashed the protests with force, killing at least 31 and arresting thousands – hundreds of whom remain imprisoned.
Now – 18 years after that fateful election – Burma’s population is
again being called to the ballot box. This time, the junta is asking for public endorsement of a new military-backed constitution that it says will lay the foundation for a “discipline-flourishing democracy”, paving the way for new elections in 2010. For many despairing Burmese, people fed up with the poor governance and harsh repression of the past two decades, the referendum poses something of a dilemma.
Many have a strong impulse to vote against the charter, partially because they object to its contents, but more as an act of defiance against their despised rulers. Yet many of these same voters feel that the charter – despite its illiberal nature – offers the only possibility, however faint, of a change from the desperately bleak status quo.
Few voters have illusions about the nature of what is on offer. Inspired by Indonesia’s Suharto-era constitution, the charter explicitly proclaims the army’s leading role in public affairs and reserves 25 per cent of seats in a new national parliament for military appointees. The eligibility criteria for running for office have been designed to exclude Ms Suu Kyi and political exiles from contesting future elections.
Not surprisingly, the NLD, other prominent dissidents and exile groups are urging a public rejection of the constitution, which they say is merely an attempt to legitimise the military’s entrenched rule and to satisfy the junta’s Asian friends by making a show of political reform. These opposition activists argue that the loss of face, both internally and internationally, from a massive No vote could force the generals into the political dialogue with Ms Suu Kyi they have so long resisted.
Yet other Burmese, seeing little realistic likelihood of change coming from other directions, argue that by planting the seeds of new institutions – such as a parliament – and a more complex decision-making structure, the new constitution may bring something, if only an element of unpredictability that could bring new opportunities for opposition groups.
Internal debate on these crucial matters is stifled. State-controlled media relentlessly tout the charter, and voters’ “patriotic duty” to support it, while excluding dissenting voices; Ms Suu Kyi and other prominent dissidents remain locked up and anti-charter campaigning is restricted. Yet the charter is discussed intensely on overseas Burmese-language radio stations, such as the BBC, which are followed avidly in Burma.
It is unlikely that the world will ever really know what Burma’s voters decide, given Gen Than Shwe’s determination to see the charter pushed through. In its turbulent modern history, Burma has never had an orderly handover of power that did not result in the ousted leaders’ imprisonment, impoverishment, exile or worse. Yet Gen Than Shwe apparently sees the charter as a way to ensure that he can step down while protecting his and his family’s financial interests and freedom.
A frustrated Burmese businessman – no fan of the regime – said he wanted to vote No, but to see the constitution adopted. Many seem to share that sentiment and they may, indeed, get their wish.
April 30 2008 (FT)- After nearly three decades of repressive dictatorship and a year and a half after the army killed thousands in the suppression of massive democracy protests, the Burmese went to the polls in May 1990 to vote in their first national multiparty elections in 30 years.
The electorate and the outside world were sceptical. Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of Burma’s slain independence hero and leader of the opposition National League for Democracy, had been under house arrest for 11 months. Other top NLD leaders – and important figures from the 1988 uprising – were also under house arrest or in prison. Nearly all campaigning was banned. Most Burmese people doubted the genuine vote count would ever be known.
Events did not play out quite as expected. When the votes were tallied, the Burmese military conceded that Ms Suu Kyi’s NLD had won more than 80 per cent of the vote, a landslide victory. But, stung by the shock result, the generals refused to hand over power, insisting the military first had to oversee the drafting of a new constitution.
In that failure to honour the will of the people lies the root of the Burmese military junta’s crisis of legitimacy. Since then, Burma has been trapped in a paralysing stand-off pitting Ms Suu Kyi, regarded by many Burmese people and western governments as the rightful leader, against Senior General Than Shwe, the junta’s top man, who rejects any political role for her. International calls for a political dialogue between the two – and United Nations efforts to broker such talks – have gone unheeded.
Burma’s 52m people, meanwhile, have been left to fend for themselves in an economy hobbled by all-pervasive military control, and western trade and investment sanctions. Grinding poverty and lack of jobs have driven abroad millions of Burmese, including at least 1.5m to Thailand, who face exploitation from employers and official persecution.
Burmese public frustration at their hardships boiled over in September, when tens of thousands took to the streets led by Buddhist monks to express their desire for change. The army quashed the protests with force, killing at least 31 and arresting thousands – hundreds of whom remain imprisoned.
Now – 18 years after that fateful election – Burma’s population is
again being called to the ballot box. This time, the junta is asking for public endorsement of a new military-backed constitution that it says will lay the foundation for a “discipline-flourishing democracy”, paving the way for new elections in 2010. For many despairing Burmese, people fed up with the poor governance and harsh repression of the past two decades, the referendum poses something of a dilemma.
Many have a strong impulse to vote against the charter, partially because they object to its contents, but more as an act of defiance against their despised rulers. Yet many of these same voters feel that the charter – despite its illiberal nature – offers the only possibility, however faint, of a change from the desperately bleak status quo.
Few voters have illusions about the nature of what is on offer. Inspired by Indonesia’s Suharto-era constitution, the charter explicitly proclaims the army’s leading role in public affairs and reserves 25 per cent of seats in a new national parliament for military appointees. The eligibility criteria for running for office have been designed to exclude Ms Suu Kyi and political exiles from contesting future elections.
Not surprisingly, the NLD, other prominent dissidents and exile groups are urging a public rejection of the constitution, which they say is merely an attempt to legitimise the military’s entrenched rule and to satisfy the junta’s Asian friends by making a show of political reform. These opposition activists argue that the loss of face, both internally and internationally, from a massive No vote could force the generals into the political dialogue with Ms Suu Kyi they have so long resisted.
Yet other Burmese, seeing little realistic likelihood of change coming from other directions, argue that by planting the seeds of new institutions – such as a parliament – and a more complex decision-making structure, the new constitution may bring something, if only an element of unpredictability that could bring new opportunities for opposition groups.
Internal debate on these crucial matters is stifled. State-controlled media relentlessly tout the charter, and voters’ “patriotic duty” to support it, while excluding dissenting voices; Ms Suu Kyi and other prominent dissidents remain locked up and anti-charter campaigning is restricted. Yet the charter is discussed intensely on overseas Burmese-language radio stations, such as the BBC, which are followed avidly in Burma.
It is unlikely that the world will ever really know what Burma’s voters decide, given Gen Than Shwe’s determination to see the charter pushed through. In its turbulent modern history, Burma has never had an orderly handover of power that did not result in the ousted leaders’ imprisonment, impoverishment, exile or worse. Yet Gen Than Shwe apparently sees the charter as a way to ensure that he can step down while protecting his and his family’s financial interests and freedom.
A frustrated Burmese businessman – no fan of the regime – said he wanted to vote No, but to see the constitution adopted. Many seem to share that sentiment and they may, indeed, get their wish.
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Junta directs tour operators to monitor tourists
By Mungpi
Mizzima News
30 April 2008 - New Delhi – An over cautious Burmese military junta is not taking any chances in the run up to the referendum and is taking all the precautions it can think off. It has directed tour operators to monitor and take responsibility of tourists recommended to obtain 'Visa on Arrival'. Stern action would be initiated if the tour operators do not oblige.
In a notice issued by the Burmese Ministry of Hotels and Tourism to Myanmar tour operators association, it instructed tour operators to ensure that tourists, whom it recommend for 'Visa on Arrival', should not be involved in any kind of political activities.
The letter, a copy of which is with Mizzima, said, Burma is conducting a referendum to approve its draft constitution on May 10. "And in order to ensure that the referendum is successfully conducted all tour operators must ensure that foreign tourists do not get embroiled in the political process."
Tour operators from May 1 to 15 must ensure that tourists stick to the four categories of tourism allowed by the ministry - Leisure tourism, Business Concentrated tourism, Regular Business travel and Special Interest tourism, that includes Eco-tourism, Cultural tourism, and Agro-tourism.
"Respective tour companies would be held accountable if tourists, whom they recommend, should create unwanted administrative and security problems," said the letter, signed by retired Lt-Col Yan Naing on behalf of the Minister.
The notice was send to the Myanmar Tour Operators Association by the Burmese Ministry of Hotels and Tourism on April 21, 2008.
While the letter does not mention restricting tourists from traveling to Burma during the month of May, a tour company spokesman in Rangoon said there are only a few tourists, who have bookings to travel into the country in May.
This, however, coincides with rumours that the Burmese government has imposed restrictions in issuing visas to tourists.
However, an official of the Burmese Ministry of Hotels and Tourism, denied the rumors saying visa application procedures remain the same and that it continues to issue several visas as well as 'Visa on Arrival'.
Despite the official's denial, a tourist in Thailand, who applied for an entry visa at the Burmese embassy in Bangkok said the procedures have been slightly modified and that it requires personal interviews before the embassy issues visas.
The tourist said obtaining a Burmese visa, now requires proving that the applicant has a clean record and has to sign a pledge stating that the tourist does not have any connection with political activities.
According to a tour company in Burma, to obtain a 'Visa on Arrival' one needs at least two weeks of advance booking.
Mizzima News
30 April 2008 - New Delhi – An over cautious Burmese military junta is not taking any chances in the run up to the referendum and is taking all the precautions it can think off. It has directed tour operators to monitor and take responsibility of tourists recommended to obtain 'Visa on Arrival'. Stern action would be initiated if the tour operators do not oblige.
In a notice issued by the Burmese Ministry of Hotels and Tourism to Myanmar tour operators association, it instructed tour operators to ensure that tourists, whom it recommend for 'Visa on Arrival', should not be involved in any kind of political activities.
The letter, a copy of which is with Mizzima, said, Burma is conducting a referendum to approve its draft constitution on May 10. "And in order to ensure that the referendum is successfully conducted all tour operators must ensure that foreign tourists do not get embroiled in the political process."
Tour operators from May 1 to 15 must ensure that tourists stick to the four categories of tourism allowed by the ministry - Leisure tourism, Business Concentrated tourism, Regular Business travel and Special Interest tourism, that includes Eco-tourism, Cultural tourism, and Agro-tourism.
"Respective tour companies would be held accountable if tourists, whom they recommend, should create unwanted administrative and security problems," said the letter, signed by retired Lt-Col Yan Naing on behalf of the Minister.
The notice was send to the Myanmar Tour Operators Association by the Burmese Ministry of Hotels and Tourism on April 21, 2008.
While the letter does not mention restricting tourists from traveling to Burma during the month of May, a tour company spokesman in Rangoon said there are only a few tourists, who have bookings to travel into the country in May.
This, however, coincides with rumours that the Burmese government has imposed restrictions in issuing visas to tourists.
However, an official of the Burmese Ministry of Hotels and Tourism, denied the rumors saying visa application procedures remain the same and that it continues to issue several visas as well as 'Visa on Arrival'.
Despite the official's denial, a tourist in Thailand, who applied for an entry visa at the Burmese embassy in Bangkok said the procedures have been slightly modified and that it requires personal interviews before the embassy issues visas.
The tourist said obtaining a Burmese visa, now requires proving that the applicant has a clean record and has to sign a pledge stating that the tourist does not have any connection with political activities.
According to a tour company in Burma, to obtain a 'Visa on Arrival' one needs at least two weeks of advance booking.
Anti-riot training in Rangoon
By Mizzima News
30 April 2008
New Delhi: The military junta is stepping on the gas in preparation for the ensuing referendum to have people approve the draft constitution. The authorities in Rangoon's suburbs has been recruiting more members into its puppet organization the Swan Arrshin and imparting anti anti-riot training to them.
The anti-riot training programme was organized by the authorities after the Chairmen of the Township Peace and Development Council in Dagon Myothit North and South of Rangoon suburbs instructed members of Swan Arrshin, Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) and reserve fire fighters to gear up and remain alert for the referendum on May 10.
"Baton charge and small arms training are being imparted to Swan Arrshin and fire brigade members at the Kyaikkasan ground over the last three days," an eyewitness said.
The authorities selected 15 people from each ward to be trained as Special Swan Arrshin. They have been given blue uniforms and will be made to go through a special course again, local residents said.
However, details of the trainings are still not known.
"We have heard that the training is all about how to tackle and beat up the crowds and how to apprehend them and put them onto trucks. The training was imparted at the North Dagon Myothit Town Hall and South Dagon Town Hall. Most of the trainees are local officials from each ward, Red Cross and Fire Brigade members," a local resident from South Dagon Myothit said.
The local authorities pick up these special trainees of each ward from their homes at about 6 in the morning in Toyota Dyna pick-up light trucks and deployed about 20 of them at each key and crowded places such as South Okkalapa Sanpya market, Yankin Centre and Yankin Teachers' Training School. They were picked up again at 6 in the evening.
The special Swan Arrshin groups are equipped with walkie-talkies and a policeman is attached to each group. The authorities mobilised them by promising to give them Kyat 25,000 each. These paid thugs were recruited by the junta and used in crushing the monk led August-September demonstrations in Burma last year.
30 April 2008
New Delhi: The military junta is stepping on the gas in preparation for the ensuing referendum to have people approve the draft constitution. The authorities in Rangoon's suburbs has been recruiting more members into its puppet organization the Swan Arrshin and imparting anti anti-riot training to them.
The anti-riot training programme was organized by the authorities after the Chairmen of the Township Peace and Development Council in Dagon Myothit North and South of Rangoon suburbs instructed members of Swan Arrshin, Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) and reserve fire fighters to gear up and remain alert for the referendum on May 10.
"Baton charge and small arms training are being imparted to Swan Arrshin and fire brigade members at the Kyaikkasan ground over the last three days," an eyewitness said.
The authorities selected 15 people from each ward to be trained as Special Swan Arrshin. They have been given blue uniforms and will be made to go through a special course again, local residents said.
However, details of the trainings are still not known.
"We have heard that the training is all about how to tackle and beat up the crowds and how to apprehend them and put them onto trucks. The training was imparted at the North Dagon Myothit Town Hall and South Dagon Town Hall. Most of the trainees are local officials from each ward, Red Cross and Fire Brigade members," a local resident from South Dagon Myothit said.
The local authorities pick up these special trainees of each ward from their homes at about 6 in the morning in Toyota Dyna pick-up light trucks and deployed about 20 of them at each key and crowded places such as South Okkalapa Sanpya market, Yankin Centre and Yankin Teachers' Training School. They were picked up again at 6 in the evening.
The special Swan Arrshin groups are equipped with walkie-talkies and a policeman is attached to each group. The authorities mobilised them by promising to give them Kyat 25,000 each. These paid thugs were recruited by the junta and used in crushing the monk led August-September demonstrations in Burma last year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)