Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) today warmly welcomes European Union (EU) resolution on Burma1 stating that elections in 2010 is to justify five decades of military rule and gives the military 25% of the seats in parliament whereas the elections will be based on the army-drafted Constitution which bars Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) from public office.
http://www.bdcburma.org
Friday, 12 February 2010
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) today warmly welcomes European Union (EU) resolution on Burma1 stating that elections in 2010 is to justify five decades of military rule and gives the military 25% of the seats in parliament whereas the elections will be based on the army-drafted Constitution which bars Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) from public office.
http://www.bdcburma.org
http://www.bdcburma.org
Burmese Army authorities based in Tamu town, Sagaing division detained 15 youths from a traditional concert in January for recruitment in the military.
11 February 2010: Burmese Army authorities based in Tamu town, Sagaing division detained 15 youths from a traditional concert in January for recruitment in the military.
“The traditional concert was organized by the military at the Town Park (Myomah Panchan) in Tamu town for three days. During the concert military personnel detained 13 youths for recruitment as soldiers,” said a local in Tamu.
The military authorities detained the youth on false charges of being inebriated.
“The arrested 13 youths have been sent to Ingdygi military training center in Kalemyo, Sagaing division,” said a local.
The authorities have been known to resort to such tricks earlier. They arrest drunken youths at concerts or festivals and then ask their families to pay at least Kyat 20,000 to free them. If their families fail to do so, the youths are sent to the military training centre.
“The army looks for youths at railway stations, cinema halls, bus terminals, concerts and festival venues to recruit them into the military,” a local in Kalemyo said.
Earlier, in Burma, if a person was recruited in the military he could show the recommendation of the village or block till 1988, but after the SPDC grabbed power and ruled the country youths are forcibly recruited in the military.
A source in Tamu town said that most of the soldiers who are serving under the State Peace and Development Council are thieves, under age, orphans and uneducated. – Khonumthung News.
11 February 2010: Burmese Army authorities based in Tamu town, Sagaing division detained 15 youths from a traditional concert in January for recruitment in the military.
“The traditional concert was organized by the military at the Town Park (Myomah Panchan) in Tamu town for three days. During the concert military personnel detained 13 youths for recruitment as soldiers,” said a local in Tamu.
The military authorities detained the youth on false charges of being inebriated.
“The arrested 13 youths have been sent to Ingdygi military training center in Kalemyo, Sagaing division,” said a local.
The authorities have been known to resort to such tricks earlier. They arrest drunken youths at concerts or festivals and then ask their families to pay at least Kyat 20,000 to free them. If their families fail to do so, the youths are sent to the military training centre.
“The army looks for youths at railway stations, cinema halls, bus terminals, concerts and festival venues to recruit them into the military,” a local in Kalemyo said.
Earlier, in Burma, if a person was recruited in the military he could show the recommendation of the village or block till 1988, but after the SPDC grabbed power and ruled the country youths are forcibly recruited in the military.
A source in Tamu town said that most of the soldiers who are serving under the State Peace and Development Council are thieves, under age, orphans and uneducated. – Khonumthung News.
Myanmar to launch new "international" television station
Yangon - Myanmar's junta plans to launch a new 'international' television channel next month, media sources said Thursday.
'We are planning to launch new English-language channel 'Myanmar International' on the coming Armed Forces Day on March 27,' said an official from Ministry of Information who requested anonymity.
'The new channel is aimed at letting the international community know true national trends, progress, beauty, nature and prevailing conditions of Myanmar and helping Myanmar nationals abroad ease the pain of homesickness,' the state-run New Light of Myanmar daily reported Thursday.
The new channel is to use foreign news anchors, according to sources.
'I think it is the very first time for Myanmar state-owned broadcast media to use foreign news anchors. I think they (the government) intend to launch Myanmar International like Channel News Asia style,' a local journalist said, comparing the new Myanmar channel to the popular Singapore news station.
Singapore-based media firm The Green Orange Private is reportedly providing professional assistance for the new station.
Myanmar, which has been under a military dictatorship since 1962, has one of the world's most repressed domestic media. Foreigners are not allowed to be based in the country as journalists and journalist visas are rarely granted.
Much of the local press is government-owned and the remainder comes under heavy government censorship.
http://ping.fm/MnQFi
'We are planning to launch new English-language channel 'Myanmar International' on the coming Armed Forces Day on March 27,' said an official from Ministry of Information who requested anonymity.
'The new channel is aimed at letting the international community know true national trends, progress, beauty, nature and prevailing conditions of Myanmar and helping Myanmar nationals abroad ease the pain of homesickness,' the state-run New Light of Myanmar daily reported Thursday.
The new channel is to use foreign news anchors, according to sources.
'I think it is the very first time for Myanmar state-owned broadcast media to use foreign news anchors. I think they (the government) intend to launch Myanmar International like Channel News Asia style,' a local journalist said, comparing the new Myanmar channel to the popular Singapore news station.
Singapore-based media firm The Green Orange Private is reportedly providing professional assistance for the new station.
Myanmar, which has been under a military dictatorship since 1962, has one of the world's most repressed domestic media. Foreigners are not allowed to be based in the country as journalists and journalist visas are rarely granted.
Much of the local press is government-owned and the remainder comes under heavy government censorship.
http://ping.fm/MnQFi
ယေန႔ တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူတို႔၏ သမိုင္းေရးတာ၀န္
ယေန႔ တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူတို႔၏ သမိုင္းေရးတာ၀န္
ဇင္လင္း (ျပည္ေထာင္စုေန႔ အထူးေဆာင္းပါး)
၁၁/ ေဖေဖာ္၀ါရီ ၂၀၁၀
ျပည္ေထာင္စုလသို႔ ေရာက္ျပန္ၿပီ။ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ေဖေဖၚ၀ါရီလ (၁၂) ရက္ေန႔၊ ရွမ္းျပည္နယ္ ‘ပင္လုံညီလာခံ’ ၌ ျပည္ေထာင္စုေခါင္းေဆာင္ တိုင္းရင္းသားကိုယ္စားလွယ္ေတာ္မ်ား ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္ကို လက္မွတ္ေရးထိုးခဲ့ၾကသည့္ သမိုင္း၀င္ အခါသမယျဖစ္ေပသည္။ ‘ျပည္ေထာင္စုေသြးစည္းညီၫြတ္ေရးစိတ္ဓာတ္’ သို႔မဟုတ္ ‘ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္’ ကို အေျခခံ၍ ႏိုင္ငံေရး၊ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရး၊ စီးပြားေရး၊ ပညာေရး၊ က်န္းမာေရး အစရွိသည့္ က႑အသီးသီး၌ တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ိဳးအားလုံး တန္းတူခံစားခြင့္ရရွိေရး၊ ကိုယ္ပိုင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ရရွိေရး သေဘာတူစာခ်ဳပ္ကို ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းႏွင့္တကြ တိုင္းရင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ႀကီးမ်ား လက္မွတ္ေရးထိုးခဲ့ၾကသည္မွာ (၆၃) ႏွစ္ေျမာက္ေပၿပီ။
‘ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္’ ကို အေျခခံ၍ တိုင္းရင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ႀကီးမ်ား လြတ္လပ္ေရးရယူခဲ့ၾကသည့္ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္မွာ ျပည္ေထာင္စုဖြား တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူခပ္သိမ္းတို႔အား လြတ္လပ္စြာ ယုံၾကည္ခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာ ကိုးကြယ္ခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာ အသက္ေမြး၀မ္းေက်ာင္းခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာ ေတြးေတာႀကံဆခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာ ေရးသားေျပာဆိုခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာစည္း႐ုံးခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာ စည္းေ၀းခြင့္၊ တရားမဲ့ ဖမ္းဆီးခ်ဳပ္ေႏွာင္မႈမ်ားမွ ကင္းလြတ္ခြင့္၊ တန္းတူအခြင့္အေရး ရပိုင္ခြင့္၊ တန္းတူအလုပ္လုပ္ပိုင္ခြင့္၊ တရားဥပေဒ၏ အကာအကြယ္ေပးမႈကို တေျပးညီ ရပိုင္ခြင့္ အစရွိသည့္ ဒီမိုကေရစီအခြင့္အေရးမ်ားကို တန္းတူညီမွ် ခံစားႏိုင္ၾကေစရန္ျဖစ္သည္။
သို႔ေသာ္ မ်က္ေမွာက္တိုင္းရင္းသားမ်ား၏ အေျခအေနအရပ္ရပ္ကို ေလ့လာလွ်င္ ၿဗိတိသွ်လက္ေအာက္မွာထက္ ပိုမိုခါးသီးစြာ အဖိႏွိပ္ခံေနရေပသည္။ ၂၀၀၅ ေဖေဖာ္၀ါရီလ (၅၈) ႏွစ္ေျမာက္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုေန႔၀န္းက်င္တြင္ ရွမ္းေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားကို ‘ရွမ္းျပည္နယ္ အတိုင္ပင္ခံအဖြဲ႔’ ဖြဲ႔စည္းရန္ ႀကိဳးပမ္း၍ စစ္အစိုးရက ဖမ္းဆီးၿပီး ထိုႏွစ္ ႏို၀င္ဘာတြင္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ပုန္ကန္မႈ အပါအ၀င္ စြဲခ်က္မ်ားျဖင့္ ႏွစ္ရွည္ေထာင္ဒဏ္မ်ား ခ်မွတ္ခဲ့သည္။
ေထာင္ဒဏ္ (၉၃) ႏွစ္ အျပစ္ေပးခံရသည့္ ရွမ္းတိုင္းရင္းသားမ်ားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ (SNLD) ဥကၠ႒ ခြန္ထြန္းဦးသည္ ကခ်င္ျပည္နယ္ ပူတာအိုေထာင္တြင္ အက်ဥ္းက်ခံေနရၿပီး က်န္ရွမ္းေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားသည္လည္း ႏိုင္ငံအစြန္အဖ်ားရွိ အက်ဥ္းေထာင္မ်ားတြင္ အသီးသီး အက်ဥ္းက်ခံေနရသည္။ ခြန္ထြန္းဦးႏွင့္အတူ ႏွစ္ရွည္ေထာင္ဒဏ္မ်ား က်ခံေနရသည့္ ရွမ္းေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားမွာ ‘ရွမ္းျပည္ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးေကာင္စီ’ ဥကၠ႒ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေဆထင္ (၁၀၆) ႏွစ္၊ SNLD အေထြေထြအတြင္းေရးမႉး စိုင္းၫြန္႔လြင္ (၈၅) ႏွစ္၊ ရွမ္းျပည္မ်ဳိးဆက္သစ္ေက်ာင္းသားလူငယ္မ်ားအဖြဲ႔မွ ဦးျမင့္သန္း (၇၉) ႏွစ္၊ ဦးညီညီမိုး (၇၉) ႏွစ္၊ စိုင္းမ်ဳိး၀င္းထြန္း (၇၉) ႏွစ္၊ ဦးထြန္းညိဳ (၇၉) ႏွစ္၊ စိုင္းလွေအာင္ (၇၉) ႏွစ္ႏွင့္ စပ္သာဦး (၁၂) ႏွစ္တို႔ျဖစ္သည္။
လြတ္လပ္ေရးမရမီ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ပင္လုံညီလာခံ က်င္းပေနစဥ္က အလားတူ ‘ေတာင္တန္းသားမ်ား စည္းလုံးညီၫြတ္ေရး ဦးစီးအဖြဲ႔ (Supreme Council of United Hill Peoples) ရွိခဲ့ဖူးသည္။ ေတာင္တန္းသားမ်ားအေရးကို ေတာင္တန္းသားမ်ား ကိုယ္တိုင္ စည္းလုံးညီၫြတ္စြာ ပူးေပါင္းေဆာင္ရြက္ရန္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းထားျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ ထိုအဖြဲ႔တြင္ ဥကၠ႒ စ၀္ေရႊသိုက္၊ ဒုတိယဥကၠ႒ ဆမားဒူး၀ါးဆင္၀ါးေနာင္တို႔ ဦးေဆာင္ၿပီး စ၀္ဟုန္ဖ (ရွမ္း)၊ စ၀္စံထြန္း (ရွမ္း)၊ စ၀္ဘြန္၀ွပ္ (ရွမ္း)၊ ဦးထြန္းျမင့္ (ရွမ္း)၊ ဦးၾကာပု (ရွမ္း)၊ ဒူး၀ါးေဇာ္ရစ္ (ကခ်င္)၊ ဦးဒိန္ရတန္ (ကခ်င္)၊ ဒူး၀ါးေဇာ္လြန္း (ကခ်င္)၊ ဒူး၀ါးေဇာ္လ (ကခ်င္)၊ ပဒစ္လေတာင္ (ကခ်င္)၊ ဦးပြန္ဇမန္း (ခ်င္း)၊ ဦးေထာင္က်င္ထန္း (ခ်င္း)၊ ဦးကီယိုမန္း (ခ်င္း)၊ ဦးစိန္လ်ံ (ခ်င္း)၊ ဦးလႊာမႈန္း (ခ်င္း)၊ ဦးမန္းလင္း (ခ်င္း) အစရွိသည့္ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ (၁၈) ဦး ပါ၀င္သည္။ လက္ရွိစစ္အစိုးရက အလားတူ အဖြဲ႔မ်ိဳးဖြဲ႔ရန္ ႀကိဳးစားသည့္ ရွမ္းေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားအား ႀကီးေလးျပင္းထန္ေသာ ေထာင္ဒဏ္မ်ား ခ်မွတ္သည္ကိုေထာက္လွ်င္ စစ္အုပ္စုသည္ တိုင္းရင္းသားတို႔အား တန္းတူအခြင့္အေရးႏွင့္ ကိုယ္ပိုင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ေပးရန္ လုံး၀သေဘာထားမရွိေၾကာင္း ထင္ရွားသည္။
ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္တြင္ ̏ ေတာင္တန္းေဒသမ်ားအတြက္ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးတြင္ ကိုယ္ပိုင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ အျပည့္အ၀ရွိေၾကာင္း မူအားျဖင့္ သေဘာတူၾကသည္˝ ဟုလည္းေကာင္း၊ ̏ ေတာင္တန္းေဒသရွိ ျပည္သူတို႔သည္ ဒီမိုကေရစီတိုင္းျပည္မ်ားတြင္ သတ္မွတ္ထားသည့္ အေျခခံအခြင့္အေရးႏွင့္ ရပိုင္ခြင့္မ်ားအတိုင္း ရရွိခံစားေစရန္˝ ဟုလည္းေကာင္း ေဖာ္ျပထားသည္။ ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းႏွင့္ တုိင္းရင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ား လက္မွတ္ထုိးခ့ဲသည့္ ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္၌ အထူးအေရးပါေသာ အခ်က္မွာ “တိုင္းရင္းသားတို႔၏ နယ္စပ္ေဒသမ်ားအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးတြင္ ခံစားေနရေသာ ကုိယ္ပုိင္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးကို ေလ်ာ့ပါးသြားေစရန္ မည္သည့္နည္းႏွင့္မဆုိ ဗဟုိအစုိးရက ျပဳလုပ္ျခင္းမရွိေစရ” ဟု ျပ႒ာန္းထားသည္။
ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္ ခ်ဳပ္ဆုိခ့ဲသည့္ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္က သေဘာတူထားသည့္ တုိင္းရင္းသားေဒသ ‘ကုိယ္ပုိင္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ခြင့္’ ဆုိသည္မွာ ယေန႔အခ်ိန္အထိ အေကာင္အထည္ မေပၚေသး။ ထိုအႏွစ္သာရသေဘာတို႔ကို စစ္အာဏာရွင္အဆက္ဆက္သည္ အသိအမွတ္မျပဳ႐ုံမက သမိုင္းစာမ်က္ႏွာထက္မွ ေပ်ာက္ကြယ္သြားရန္အထိ နည္းမ်ဳိးစုံ က်င့္သုံးဖ်က္ဆီးပစ္လ်က္ရွိၾကသည္။ စစ္အာဏာရွင္တို႔အႀကံမွာ ေနာင္လာေနာက္သား မ်ဳိးဆက္သစ္မ်ားထံသို႔ ‘ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္’ သက္၀င္မႈမရွိေစရန္ျဖစ္သည္။
သို႔ေသာ္ ဤဆိုးညစ္သည့္အႀကံမွာ အခ်ည္းႏွီးသာျဖစ္သည္။ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းႏွင့္တကြ တိုင္းရင္းသား ေခါင္းေဆာင္ႀကီးမ်ား၏ ပင္လုံအေမြ၊ ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္သည္ ျမန္မာ့သမိုင္းတြင္ အထင္ကရ ပင္မေက်ာက္တိုင္ႀကီး ျဖစ္သည့္အေလ်ာက္ မေတာ္မတရား အာဏာရယူထားသူမ်ားက မည္သို႔ပင္ ဖယ္ရွားလိုေသာ္လည္း ဖယ္ရွား၍မရ၊ ပို၍သာ မားမတ္ခိုင္ၿမဲလာသည္ကို ေတြ႔ရသည္။ ၁၉၈၈ လူထုအေရးေတာ္ပုံကို ျပန္ၾကည့္လွ်င္ လြတ္လပ္ေရး၊ တရားမွ်တေရး၊ တန္းတူေရး တည္းဟူေသာ ဒီမိုကေရစီရပိုင္ခြင့္ ေတာင္းဆိုသံမ်ားႏွင့္အတူ ‘ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္’ ျပန္လည္ႏိုးထလာသည္ကို ေတြ႔ႏိုင္သည္။
၁၉၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲတြင္ လူထုဆႏၵမဲ (၈၀) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းေက်ာ္ အႏိုင္ရခဲ့ေသာ အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္က “စစ္မွန္ေသာ ပါတီစုံဒီမိုကေရစီစနစ္ တည္ေဆာက္ရာတြင္ တိုင္းရင္းသားအားလုံး၏ သေဘာဆႏၵမ်ားကို ခံယူသြားရန္˝ ဟူသည့္ မူ၀ါဒတရပ္ ခ်မွတ္ခဲ့သည္။ ထိုမူ၀ါဒႏွင့္အညီ တိုင္းရင္းသားႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီ (၂၁) ခု ေပါင္းစုထားေသာ “ျပည္ေထာင္စုတိုင္းရင္းသားမ်ား ဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္” (UNLD) ႏွင့္ ညိႇႏိႈင္းကာ ၁၉၉၀ ၾသဂုတ္လ (၂၉) ရက္ေန႔တြင္ “ဗိုလ္ေအာင္ေက်ာ္လမ္း ထုတ္ျပန္ေၾကညာခ်က္” ကို ထုတ္ျပန္ခဲ့သည္။
ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္မွာ ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္ အျမန္ေခၚယူေပးေရးျဖစ္သည္။ ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္က တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ဳိးစုံ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ား၊ ပါတီအဖြဲ႔အစည္းဆိုင္ရာ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားႏွင့္ တသီးပုဂၢလ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ား ပါ၀င္သည့္ “အမ်ဳိးသားအတိုင္ပင္ခံညီလာခံ” ေခၚယူ၍ တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ဳိးအားလုံး သေဘာတူလက္ခံႏိုင္မည့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံဥပေဒေရးဆြဲေရး မူ၀ါဒမ်ား ခ်မွတ္ရန္ျဖစ္သည္။ သို႔ေသာ္ စစ္အာဏာအလြဲသုံးသူတို႔က ကလိမ္ဉာဏ္အမ်ဳိးမ်ဳိးသုံးကာ ပိတ္ပင္ဟန္႔တားခဲ့သည္။
ဤေနရာတြင္ ၁၉၈၉ ပင္လုံခရီးစဥ္၌ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္၏ ေျပာၾကားခ်က္ကို ကိုးကားလိုသည္။
“ဒီမိုကေရစီအစိုးရတရပ္ တက္လာတဲ့အခါက်ရင္ က်မတို႔ ပင္လုံလိုညီလာခံႀကီး ထပ္ၿပီးေတာ့ ေခၚရမယ္လို႔ ယုံၾကည္ပါတယ္။ ဒီလို ပင္လုံညီလာခံႀကီး ထပ္ေခၚၿပီးေတာ့ က်မတို႔ ျပည္ေထာင္စုသစ္ကို ဘယ္ပုံဘယ္နည္း ထူေထာင္မယ္ဆိုတာ တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ဳိးစုေတြအားလုံးနဲ႔ ေဆြးေႏြးၿပီးေတာ့ ဆုံးျဖတ္ရမွာျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ဒီလိုကိစၥမ်ားဟာ အမ်ားျပည္သူလူထုကေနၿပီးေတာ့ လြတ္လပ္ၿပီး တရားမွ်တတဲ့ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲမ်ားမွတဆင့္ တင္ေျမႇာက္လိုက္တဲ့ အစိုးရမ်ားကသာ လုပ္ပိုင္ခြင့္ရွိတယ္လို႔ က်မတို႔ ယုံၾကည္ပါတယ္။ အမ်ားျပည္သူက တင္ေျမႇာက္မထားတဲ့ အဖြဲ႔အစည္းမ်ဳိးက ဒီလိုညီလာခံမ်ဳိးကို ဘာမွ ထိထိေရာက္ေရာက္ လုပ္ႏိုင္မွာမဟုတ္ပါဘူး”
ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ စစ္အုပ္စုက က်င္းပခဲ့သည့္ အမ်ဳိးသားညီလာခံ၊ လူထုဆႏၵခံယူပြဲႏွင့္ ၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံဥပေဒ စသည္တို႔သည္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ လုပ္ထုံးလုပ္နည္းမ်ားအရ တရား၀င္မႈမရွိေပ။ ၁၉၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲရလဒ္ႏွင့္္ ျပည္သူလူထု၏ဆႏၵကို မ်က္ႏွာလႊဲခဲပစ္ ခ်န္ထားခဲ့ရန္ ႀကံစည္မႈမွ်သာျဖစ္သည္။ ဤနည္းျဖင့္ လူထု Mandate ကို ဖ်က္ဆီးရန္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ခဲ့သည့္ စစ္အာဏာရွင္တို႔သည္ မေ၀းေတာ့ေသာ ကာလတြင္ သမိုင္း၏ ဒဏ္ခတ္ျခင္းကို ခံၾကရေပလိမ့္မည္။ ထို႔အျပင္ အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ႏွင့္ ရွမ္းအမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ (SNLD) တို႔မွ အဓိက အတိုက္အခံေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားကို အက်ဥ္းခ်၊ အမ်ိဳးသားျပန္လည္သင့္ျမတ္ေရးကို ေဘးဖယ္လ်က္ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို က်င္းပရန္ လုပ္ေနျခင္းမွာ ဆင္ျခင္တုံတရား ကင္းမဲ့ရာက်သည့္အျပင္ ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းႏွင့္ တုိင္းရင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ႀကီးမ်ား ခ်မွတ္ခဲ့သည့္ စစ္မွန္ေသာ ဒီမိုကေရစီျပည္ေထာင္စု တည္ေထာင္ေရးလမ္းစဥ္မွလည္း ေသြဖည္ေနေပသည္။ ကုလသမဂၢ အပါအ၀င္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ၏ အႀကံျပဳတိုက္တြန္းခ်က္မ်ားကိုလည္း ဆန္႔က်င္သည့္သေဘာျဖစ္သည္။ ျပည္တြင္းျပည္ပမွ တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူလူထု၏ ဆႏၵသေဘာထားကိုလည္း လ်စ္လ်ဴျပဳျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။
စစ္အုပ္စုသည္ “ျပည္ေထာင္စု မၿပိဳကြဲေရး ဒို႔အေရး”၊ “တိုင္းရင္းသားစည္းလုံးညီၫြတ္မႈ မၿပိဳကြဲေရး ဒို႔အေရး” စသည္ျဖင့္ ေႂကြးေၾကာ္ေနေသာ္လည္း လက္ေတြ႔လုပ္ရပ္မ်ားမွာ ဆန္႔က်င္ဘက္မ်ားသာျဖစ္ေနသည္။ ၂၀၀၈ ေဖေဖာ္၀ါရီ (၁၄) ရက္ေန႔က ကရင္အမ်ဳိးသားအစည္းအ႐ုံး (KNU) အေထြေထြအတြင္းေရးမႉး ဖဒိုမန္းရွာ လုပ္ႀကံခံရသည္။ အရင္းခံအားျဖင့္ ̏အက်ပ္ကိုင္ လက္နက္ခ်ခိုင္းျခင္း˝ ကို လုံး၀လက္မခံဘဲ ̏ ေတြ႔ဆုံေဆြးေႏြး အေျဖရွာေရး˝ နည္းလမ္းျဖင့္သာ လက္ရွိႏိုင္ငံေရးျပႆနာမ်ားကို ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းစြာ ေျဖရွင္းႏိုင္မည္ဟူေသာ ကရင္အမ်ဳိးသားအစည္းအ႐ုံး (KNU) ၏ ႏိုင္ငံေရးခံယူခ်က္ကို ယိုင္နဲ႔ေစရန္၊ ကရင္အမ်ဳိးသားအခ်င္းခ်င္းအၾကား ပိုမိုေသြးကြဲေစရန္ အႀကံပက္စက္မႈဟု ဆိုရမည္။
၂၀၀၉ ၾသဂုတ္လတြင္ စစ္အစိုးရ နယ္ျခားေစာင့္တပ္ဖြဲ႔စည္းရန္ လက္မခံခဲ့သည့္ ကိုးကန္႔ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ဦးဖုန္ၾကားရွင္၏ နယ္ေျမကို နအဖတပ္မ်ားက ထိုးစစ္ဆင္သိမ္းယူလိုက္သည္။ ကိုးကန္႔တပ္ဖြဲ႔မ်ား (MNDAA) ႏွင့္ တိုက္ပြဲမ်ားျဖစ္ပြားၿပီးေနာက္ ယခင္ ဖုန္ၾကားရွင္၏ ကိုးကန္႔နယ္ေျမတြင္ စိတ္ႂကြမူးယစ္ေဆးျပား (၁) သိန္း (၅) ေသာင္းေက်ာ္ႏွင့္ ဆက္စပ္ပစၥည္းမ်ား သိမ္းဆည္းရမိသည္ဟု ျမန္မာ့အလင္းသတင္းစာတြင္ ေဖာ္ျပသည္။ နအဖ၏ လိုတမ်ဳိး မလိုတမ်ဳိး လုပ္တတ္သည့္ ေကာက္က်စ္မႈကို တိုင္းရင္းသားတို႔ သတိထားရန္ ျဖစ္သည္။
ယခု ဇန္န၀ါရီလ (၂၇) ရက္ေန႔က အထူးေဒသ (၄) အပစ္ရပ္ မိုင္းလားအဖြဲ႔ေခၚ “အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကရက္တစ္ မဟာမိတ္တပ္မေတာ္” NDAA-ESS တပ္ဖြဲ႔ အေထြေထြအတြင္းေရးမႉး ဦးမင္းအိမ္ လုပ္ႀကံခံရျပန္သည္။ ေနာက္ကြယ္တြင္ စစ္အုပ္စုလက္ ရွိေနသည္မွာ ေသခ်ာသေလာက္ျဖစ္သည္။ နယ္ျခားေစာင့္တပ္ အသြင္ေျပာင္းလဲေရးကို လက္ခံရန္ အျခားတိုင္းရင္းသားအဖြဲ႔မ်ားအား ဖိအားျပင္းျပင္း ေပးလိုက္သည့္သေဘာလည္းျဖစ္သည္။ ဤအေတာအတြင္း အပစ္ရပ္ တုိင္းရင္းသားအဖဲြ႔မ်ားအားလုံး နယ္ျခားေစာင့္တပ္အျဖစ္ အသြင္ေျပာင္းေရးကုိ ယခုေဖေဖာ္၀ါရီလကုန္ ေနာက္ဆုံးထားၿပီး ျပဳလုပ္ရန္ စစ္ဖက္ဆိုင္ရာ လုံၿခဳံေရးအဖြဲ႔ အႀကီးအကဲ ဒုတိယဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီး ရဲျမင့္က ဆက္လက္ဖိအားေပးေနသည္။
လက္ငင္း စစ္အုပ္စုလုပ္ဟန္မ်ားအရ ျမန္မာစစ္အင္ပါယာက တိုင္းရင္းသားနယ္ေျမေဒသမ်ားအား အတင္းအက်ပ္ ကိုလိုနီလက္ေအာက္ခံျပဳရန္ စီစဥ္ေနေၾကာင္း ထင္ရွားသည္။ ပင္လုံတြင္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းႏွင့္ ရွမ္း၊ ကခ်င္၊ ခ်င္း တိုင္းရင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားသည္ သီးျခားျပည္ေထာင္ (၄) ခုကို “တန္းတူရည္တူ ျပည္ေထာင္စု” ျပဳရန္ အေျမာ္အျမင္ရွိရွိ သေဘာတူခဲ့ၾကၿပီးေနာက္ ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္ကို လက္မွတ္ေရးထိုးခဲ့ၾကျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ ထိုသေဘာကို ၁၉၄၇ ေမလ (၂၄) တြင္ “ဖဆပလ ပဏာမျပင္ဆင္မႈညီလာခံ” တြင္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္း တင္သြင္းေသာ အေျခခံမူမ်ားကို ၾကည့္လွ်င္သိႏိုင္သည္။ ယင္းအေျခခံမူမ်ားအရ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံအတြင္းရွိ (ဗမာလူမ်ိဳး အပါအ၀င္) တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ိဳးအားလုံးသည္ ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္အရ ‘အဆင့္အတန္းတူ’ ျဖစ္သည္။
ထိုညီလာခံတြင္ ေျပာၾကားေသာ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္း၏ မိန္႔ခြန္းတြင္ “တကယ့္ဒီမိုကေရစီဆိုတာ ႏိုင္ငံေရးသေဘာတရားအရ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ႕အက်ိဳးအတြက္ ျပည္သူေတြက တင္ေျမႇာက္တဲ့ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ႕ အစိုးရျဖစ္႐ုံနဲ႔ မၿပီးေသးဘူး။ အဲဒီအစိုးရဟာ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ႕ လက္ငင္း စီးပြားေရးအဆင့္အတန္းကို အခြင့္အေရး တန္းတူရႏိုင္တဲ့ အေျခအေနအထိ ျမႇင့္တင္ႏိုင္ေအာင္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးမွ တကယ့္ဒီမိုကေရစီအထိ တက္လွမ္းႏိုင္မယ္”
“ဒီမိုကေရစီသစ္အရလုပ္မယ့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံအေျခခံဥပေဒမ်ိဳးဟာ ဘယ္လိုျဖစ္ရမလဲဆိုရင္ တိုင္းသူျပည္သား လူမ်ားစုေတြ အာဏာပိုင္အျဖစ္ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ႏိုင္ေအာင္ သူတို႔ေရြးေကာက္တဲ့ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ေတြဟာ ေအာက္ကေန ထိပ္အထိ တိုင္းျပည္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရး၊ တိုင္းျပည္အစိုးရအာဏာကို ကိုင္ထားရမယ္။ သူတို႔ ေရြးေကာက္လိုက္တဲ့ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ေတြကို မႀကိဳက္လို႔ရွိရင္ ျပန္ေခၚႏိုင္ရမယ္”
“လူမ်ိဳးေရးအရ ကြဲျပားေနတဲ့ လူမ်ားစု လူနည္းစုကိစၥေတြမွာေတာ့ လူမ်ားစု လူမ်ိဳးေတြက လူနည္းစု လူမ်ိဳးေတြအေပၚ လႊမ္းမိုးမႈမရွိေစမွ ဒီမိုကေရစီမွန္မယ္။ လူမ်ိဳးအရ၊ ဘာသာအရ၊ လိင္အရ အခြင့္အေရးခြဲျခားမႈ၊ ႏွိမ့္ခ်မႈေတြကို ဥပေဒအရ ပယ္ဖ်က္ၿပီး ဒီလို ႏွိမ္နင္းတာမ်ိဳးေတြ ေတြ႔ရင္ ဥပေဒအရ အျပစ္ေပးတာမ်ိဳးေတာင္ စီမံရမယ္။ ဒါမွ ဒီမိုကေရစီ ပီသမယ္”
ယေန႔ ျပည္သူလူထု အဓိကေတာင္းဆိုေနသည္မွာ (ႀကိဳးကိုင္ ဒီမိုကေရစီ) မဟုတ္။ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္း၏ ပင္လုံတြင္ လမ္းၫႊန္ခဲ့သည့္ “လြတ္လပ္ေရး၊ တရားမွ်တေရး၊ တန္းတူေရး” အႏွစ္သာရပါသည့္ ဒီမိုကေရစီကို ေတာင္းဆိုေနျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ သမိုင္းအေတြ႔အႀကဳံ၊ ႏိုင္ငံတကာသမိုင္းအေတြ႔အႀကဳံမ်ားအရ စစ္တပ္ဦးေဆာင္ လႊတ္ေတာ္အမ်ိဳးအစားကို လူထုက လုံး၀လိုလားသည္မဟုတ္။ လူထုစိတ္ႀကိဳက္ ေရြးခ်ယ္ထားသည့္ လူထုကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားျဖင့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းမည့္ ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္စစ္စစ္ အမ်ိဳးအစားကို လူထုက လိုလားေတာင္းဆိုေနျခင္း ျဖစ္သည္။
နအဖစစ္အုပ္စု၏ လက္ရွိလွမ္းေနေသာ ေျခလွမ္းမ်ားမွာ စစ္တပ္လက္ေ၀ခံ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္အမ်ားစုျဖင့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းမည့္ “စစ္လႊမ္းမိုးေရးလႊတ္ေတာ္” ျဖစ္ေနသည္ကို ၂၀၀၈ နာဂစ္ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံုအရ သိျမင္ေနၾကရၿပီျဖစ္သည္။ စစ္တပ္လႊတ္ေတာ္တြင္ စစ္တပ္က (၂၅) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္း သပိတ္၀င္အိပ္၀င္ ယူထားၿပီးေနာက္ က်န္မဲဆႏၵနယ္မ်ားတြင္လည္း စစ္ျပန္ႏွင့္ စစ္တပ္အလိုေတာ္ရိမ်ား ေနရာရေရးအတြက္ စစ္တပ္က ေသနတ္အားကိုးျဖင့္ မလြဲမေသြ ကလိန္က်ဦးမည္ျဖစ္သည္။ ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ ပါလီမန္တြင္ စစ္တပ္က အနည္းဆုံး (၅၀) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းေက်ာ္ ယူထားမည္မလြဲပါ။ ထို႔ျပင္ စစ္ဗိုလ္သမၼတ၊ စစ္ဗိုလ္၀န္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္၊ အေရးႀကီး၀န္ႀကီးဌာနအားလုံး စစ္ဗိုလ္၀န္ႀကီးမ်ား ႀကိဳးကိုင္မည့္ အစိုးရျဖစ္လာမည္။
၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံအရ ေပၚလာမည့္ (ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္ႏွင့္ အမ်ိဳးသားလႊတ္ေတာ္) ကို ေပါင္းစည္းထားေသာ စစ္တပ္ႀကိဳးကိုင္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုလႊတ္ေတာ္သည္ အျမင့္ဆုံး အာဏာပိုင္အဖြဲ႔အျဖစ္ အခ်ဳပ္အျခာအာဏာ (၃) ရပ္ကို ကိုင္တြယ္က်င့္သုံးရမည္ျဖစ္သည္။ သို႔ေသာ္ အမွန္တကယ္ က်င့္သုံးခြင့္မရွိပါ။ စစ္တပ္အေရးအရာ ကိစၥအ၀၀ႏွင့္ စပ္လ်ဥ္းသည့္ ဥပေဒျပဳေရး၊ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးႏွင့္ တရားစီရင္ေရးကိစၥရပ္မ်ားကို စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္ႏွင့္ စစ္တပ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားကသာ စီမံကိုင္တြယ္မည္ျဖစ္သည္။ လိုရင္းကိုေျပာရလွ်င္ စစ္တပ္ႏွင့္ စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က အာဏာသုံးရပ္ အထက္တြင္ ရွိလိမ့္မည္။ စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္၏ ဆုံးျဖတ္ခ်က္မ်ားကို ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္၊ အမ်ိဳးသားလႊတ္ေတာ္ႏွင့္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုလႊတ္ေတာ္တို႔က အတည္ျပဳေပးရမည္ျဖစ္မည္။ ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ Military-Monopolized Rubber-Stamp Parliament သာ ေပၚလာမည္ျဖစ္သည္။
ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္သမၼတကိုလည္း စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က အဆိုျပဳ လက္ခံသူကိုသာ ခန္႔ထားလိမ့္မည္္။ အစိုးရအဖြဲ႔အတြင္း အေရးႀကီး ၀န္ႀကီးရာထူးမ်ားကိုလည္း စစ္တပ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားကိုသာ ေပးမည္။ ေရွ႕ေနခ်ဳပ္ႏွင့္ တရားသူႀကီးခ်ဳပ္ရာထူးမ်ားကိုလည္း စစ္တပ္စိတ္တိုင္းက်သူမ်ားကိုသာ ခန္႔ေပလိမ့္ဦးမည္။ သေဘာမွာ စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က သမၼတႏွင့္ ကက္ဘိနက္အဖြဲ႔၏ အထက္တြင္ ရွိမည္။ အဖြဲ႔၀င္ (၁၁) ဦး ပါေသာ “အမ်ိဳးသားကာကြယ္ေရးႏွင့္ လုံၿခဳံေရးေကာင္စီ” ဆိုသည္ကလည္း စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္ အလိုက်သူမ်ားႏွင့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းထား၍ အခ်ိန္မေရြး စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က အေရးေပၚ အေျခအေန ေၾကညာႏိုင္သည္။ အာဏာသိမ္းႏိုင္သည္။ စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္သည္ အခ်ဳပ္အျခာအာဏာ (၃) ရပ္၊ သမၼတႏွင့္ အစိုးရအဖြဲ႔တို႔၏ အထက္တြင္ ရွိေနေပေတာ့မည္။
ဤ ၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံကို လႊတ္ေတာ္ထဲေရာက္မွ ျပင္မည္ဟု စဥ္းစားျခင္းမွာ ႏုံအလြန္းရာ က်ေပလိမ့္မည္။ တခုခု ျပင္ဆင္လိုလွ်င္ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ (၂၀) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းက လက္မွတ္ေရးထိုး၍ ျပင္ဆင္ခ်က္မူၾကမ္း တင္ရမည္ျဖစ္သည္။ စစ္တပ္၏ေခ်ာ့လုံး၊ ေျခာက္လုံးမ်ားၾကားတြင္ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ (၂၀) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းရရန္ လြယ္မည္ထင္လွ်င္ မွားပါလိမ့္မည္။ ထိုမွ်မက လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ (၇၅) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းေက်ာ္ႏွင့္ လူထု Referendum က (၅၀) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းေက်ာ္ ေထာက္ခံမဲရမွသာ ျပင္ဆင္ႏိုင္မည္ျဖစ္သည္။ ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ လြတ္လပ္ေရး၊ တန္းတူေရး၊ တရားမွ်တေရးဆိုသည့္ ဒီမုိကေရစီအခြင့္အေရးမ်ားကို အိပ္မက္ပင္္ မက္ခြင့္ရွိမည္မဟုတ္ပါ။
ထိုအခ်င္းအရာမ်ားကို ျမင္သျဖင့္ အမ်ိဳးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္က ‘ေရႊဂုံတိုင္ေၾကညာစာတမ္း’ တြင္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ အပါအ၀င္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားမ်ားလႊတ္ေပးေရး၊ ‘၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒ’ ျပန္လည္သုံးသပ္ေရး၊ တိုင္းရင္းသားအားလုံး တန္းတူညီမွ် အခြင့္အေရးရွိသည့္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုတည္ေဆာက္ေရးႏွင့္ ၁၉၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲရလဒ္ကို တနည္းနည္းျဖင့္ အသိအမွတ္ျပဳေရး စသည္တို႔ကို လက္ငင္းေျဖရွင္းရမည့္ အဓိကျပႆနာမ်ားအျဖစ္ ေဖာ္ျပလ်က္ ေတြ႔ဆုံေဆြးေႏြးအေျဖရွာေရးကို ေတာင္းဆိုေနျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ ထို႔ျပင္ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲဟူသည္ ျဖတ္သန္းရမည့္ မွတ္တိုင္တခုျဖစ္သည္ဟု NLD က လက္ခံထားေၾကာင္းလည္း ေဖာ္ျပထားသည္။ သို႔ေသာ္ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ၏ အနိမ့္ဆုံး လိုအပ္ခ်က္မ်ားအျဖစ္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားအားလုံး ျပန္လႊတ္ရန္၊ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံမွ ဒီမိုကေရစီစံႏႈန္းႏွင့္ မညီသည့္ အခ်က္မ်ားကို ျပင္ရန္၊ အားလုံးလႊမ္းၿခဳံပါ၀င္ႏိုင္မည့္ လြတ္လပ္တရားမွ်တေသာ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲအျဖစ္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာေစာင့္ၾကည့္မႈ ခြင့္ျပဳရန္ စသည္တို႔ကိုလည္း ေၾကညာစာတမ္းတြင္ ေဖာ္ျပထားသည္။
‘၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒ’ ျပန္လည္သုံးသပ္ေရးကိစၥ၊ ေတြ႔ဆုံေဆြးေႏြးေရးကိစၥသည္ ျပည္သူလူထုအမ်ားစု၏ ဆႏၵအမွန္ျဖစ္သည္။ NLD က ထိုအခ်က္မ်ား မီးေမာင္းထိုးျပရျခင္းမွာ ျပည္တြင္းစစ္ ေနာက္တေက်ာ့ ျပန္လည္မလာေစလို၍ ျဖစ္သည္။ စိတ္ကူးယဥ္ကာ မျဖစ္ႏိုင္သည္ကို ေစ်းဆစ္ေနျခင္းမ်ိဳး အလ်ဥ္းမဟုတ္။ ေျမာ္ျမင္ခ်ိန္ဆ၍ ေျပာေသာစကားျဖစ္သည္။ တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူလူထု၏ ေထာက္ခံမႈရွိ၍ လူထုကိုယ္စားေျပာေသာ စကားလည္းျဖစ္သည္။
စင္စစ္ တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူလူထုဆႏၵကို ပစ္ပယ္သူမ်ား၊ ‘ပင္လုံကတိ’ ကို ပစ္ပယ္သူမ်ားမွာ စစ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားႏွင့္ သူတို႔ေနာက္လိုက္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးအေခ်ာင္လမ္းရွာသူမ်ားသာျဖစ္သည္။ ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္အရ တိုင္းရင္းသားအားလုံးအား ‘တန္းတူညီမွ် အခြင့္အေရး’ ႏွင့္တကြ ‘ကိုယ္ပိုင္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရး’ ကို အာမခံသည့္ ‘ျပည္ေထာင္စုစစ္စစ္ တည္ေဆာက္ေရး’ ကို အမွန္တကယ္ လိုလားသေဘာတူလွ်င္ Military-Monopolized Rubber-Stamp Parliament (တနည္း) ဒီမိုကေရစီအေရၿခဳံ စစ္ေကာင္စီကို တရား၀င္ျဖစ္ေအာင္ အကြက္ဆင္ထားသည့္ နအဖ၏ ၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံအတုႏွင့္ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲအတုတို႔ကို တိုင္းရင္းသားအားလုံး ေသြးစည္းညီၫြတ္မႈရွိရွိ ဆန္႔က်င္ၾကရန္သာရွိသည္။
ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္အရင္းခံျဖင့္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုစစ္စစ္ ထြန္းေပၚေရးအတြက္ စစ္အာဏာရွင္၏ အလိုေတာ္ရိမ်ား ေႂကြးေၾကာ္ေနေသာ “ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲမွလြဲ၍ အျခားေရြးခ်ယ္စရာမရွိ” ဟူေသာ ၀ါဒျဖန္႔ခ်ိခ်က္ကို ညီညီၫြတ္ၫြတ္ ၀ိုင္း၀န္းဆန္႔က်င္ၾကရန္မွာ ယေန႔တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူခပ္သိမ္း၏ သမိုင္းေရးတာ၀န္ ျဖစ္သည္ဟု ႏွလုံးသြင္းၾကပါကုန္။
ကိုးကား ။ ။
(၁) ကိုလိုနီေခတ္ျမန္မာ့သမိုင္းအဘိဓာန္၊ ျမဟန္၊ တကၠသိုလ္မ်ား သမိုင္းသုေတသနဌာန။
(၂) တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ိဳးမ်ားအေရးႏွင့္ ၁၉၄၇ အေျခခံဥပေဒ (ဒုတိယတြဲ)၊ သမိုင္းဌာန (သုေတသန) ရန္ကုန္တကၠသိုလ္။
(၃) ေအာင္သန္း၏ ေအာင္ဆန္း၊ ပုဂံစာအုပ္တိုက္၊ ၁၉၆၄။
http://www.khitpyaing.org/articles/2010/february/11210.php
ဇင္လင္း (ျပည္ေထာင္စုေန႔ အထူးေဆာင္းပါး)
၁၁/ ေဖေဖာ္၀ါရီ ၂၀၁၀
ျပည္ေထာင္စုလသို႔ ေရာက္ျပန္ၿပီ။ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ေဖေဖၚ၀ါရီလ (၁၂) ရက္ေန႔၊ ရွမ္းျပည္နယ္ ‘ပင္လုံညီလာခံ’ ၌ ျပည္ေထာင္စုေခါင္းေဆာင္ တိုင္းရင္းသားကိုယ္စားလွယ္ေတာ္မ်ား ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္ကို လက္မွတ္ေရးထိုးခဲ့ၾကသည့္ သမိုင္း၀င္ အခါသမယျဖစ္ေပသည္။ ‘ျပည္ေထာင္စုေသြးစည္းညီၫြတ္ေရးစိတ္ဓာတ္’ သို႔မဟုတ္ ‘ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္’ ကို အေျခခံ၍ ႏိုင္ငံေရး၊ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရး၊ စီးပြားေရး၊ ပညာေရး၊ က်န္းမာေရး အစရွိသည့္ က႑အသီးသီး၌ တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ိဳးအားလုံး တန္းတူခံစားခြင့္ရရွိေရး၊ ကိုယ္ပိုင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ရရွိေရး သေဘာတူစာခ်ဳပ္ကို ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းႏွင့္တကြ တိုင္းရင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ႀကီးမ်ား လက္မွတ္ေရးထိုးခဲ့ၾကသည္မွာ (၆၃) ႏွစ္ေျမာက္ေပၿပီ။
‘ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္’ ကို အေျခခံ၍ တိုင္းရင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ႀကီးမ်ား လြတ္လပ္ေရးရယူခဲ့ၾကသည့္ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္မွာ ျပည္ေထာင္စုဖြား တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူခပ္သိမ္းတို႔အား လြတ္လပ္စြာ ယုံၾကည္ခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာ ကိုးကြယ္ခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာ အသက္ေမြး၀မ္းေက်ာင္းခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာ ေတြးေတာႀကံဆခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာ ေရးသားေျပာဆိုခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာစည္း႐ုံးခြင့္၊ လြတ္လပ္စြာ စည္းေ၀းခြင့္၊ တရားမဲ့ ဖမ္းဆီးခ်ဳပ္ေႏွာင္မႈမ်ားမွ ကင္းလြတ္ခြင့္၊ တန္းတူအခြင့္အေရး ရပိုင္ခြင့္၊ တန္းတူအလုပ္လုပ္ပိုင္ခြင့္၊ တရားဥပေဒ၏ အကာအကြယ္ေပးမႈကို တေျပးညီ ရပိုင္ခြင့္ အစရွိသည့္ ဒီမိုကေရစီအခြင့္အေရးမ်ားကို တန္းတူညီမွ် ခံစားႏိုင္ၾကေစရန္ျဖစ္သည္။
သို႔ေသာ္ မ်က္ေမွာက္တိုင္းရင္းသားမ်ား၏ အေျခအေနအရပ္ရပ္ကို ေလ့လာလွ်င္ ၿဗိတိသွ်လက္ေအာက္မွာထက္ ပိုမိုခါးသီးစြာ အဖိႏွိပ္ခံေနရေပသည္။ ၂၀၀၅ ေဖေဖာ္၀ါရီလ (၅၈) ႏွစ္ေျမာက္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုေန႔၀န္းက်င္တြင္ ရွမ္းေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားကို ‘ရွမ္းျပည္နယ္ အတိုင္ပင္ခံအဖြဲ႔’ ဖြဲ႔စည္းရန္ ႀကိဳးပမ္း၍ စစ္အစိုးရက ဖမ္းဆီးၿပီး ထိုႏွစ္ ႏို၀င္ဘာတြင္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ပုန္ကန္မႈ အပါအ၀င္ စြဲခ်က္မ်ားျဖင့္ ႏွစ္ရွည္ေထာင္ဒဏ္မ်ား ခ်မွတ္ခဲ့သည္။
ေထာင္ဒဏ္ (၉၃) ႏွစ္ အျပစ္ေပးခံရသည့္ ရွမ္းတိုင္းရင္းသားမ်ားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ (SNLD) ဥကၠ႒ ခြန္ထြန္းဦးသည္ ကခ်င္ျပည္နယ္ ပူတာအိုေထာင္တြင္ အက်ဥ္းက်ခံေနရၿပီး က်န္ရွမ္းေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားသည္လည္း ႏိုင္ငံအစြန္အဖ်ားရွိ အက်ဥ္းေထာင္မ်ားတြင္ အသီးသီး အက်ဥ္းက်ခံေနရသည္။ ခြန္ထြန္းဦးႏွင့္အတူ ႏွစ္ရွည္ေထာင္ဒဏ္မ်ား က်ခံေနရသည့္ ရွမ္းေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားမွာ ‘ရွမ္းျပည္ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးေကာင္စီ’ ဥကၠ႒ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေဆထင္ (၁၀၆) ႏွစ္၊ SNLD အေထြေထြအတြင္းေရးမႉး စိုင္းၫြန္႔လြင္ (၈၅) ႏွစ္၊ ရွမ္းျပည္မ်ဳိးဆက္သစ္ေက်ာင္းသားလူငယ္မ်ားအဖြဲ႔မွ ဦးျမင့္သန္း (၇၉) ႏွစ္၊ ဦးညီညီမိုး (၇၉) ႏွစ္၊ စိုင္းမ်ဳိး၀င္းထြန္း (၇၉) ႏွစ္၊ ဦးထြန္းညိဳ (၇၉) ႏွစ္၊ စိုင္းလွေအာင္ (၇၉) ႏွစ္ႏွင့္ စပ္သာဦး (၁၂) ႏွစ္တို႔ျဖစ္သည္။
လြတ္လပ္ေရးမရမီ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ပင္လုံညီလာခံ က်င္းပေနစဥ္က အလားတူ ‘ေတာင္တန္းသားမ်ား စည္းလုံးညီၫြတ္ေရး ဦးစီးအဖြဲ႔ (Supreme Council of United Hill Peoples) ရွိခဲ့ဖူးသည္။ ေတာင္တန္းသားမ်ားအေရးကို ေတာင္တန္းသားမ်ား ကိုယ္တိုင္ စည္းလုံးညီၫြတ္စြာ ပူးေပါင္းေဆာင္ရြက္ရန္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းထားျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ ထိုအဖြဲ႔တြင္ ဥကၠ႒ စ၀္ေရႊသိုက္၊ ဒုတိယဥကၠ႒ ဆမားဒူး၀ါးဆင္၀ါးေနာင္တို႔ ဦးေဆာင္ၿပီး စ၀္ဟုန္ဖ (ရွမ္း)၊ စ၀္စံထြန္း (ရွမ္း)၊ စ၀္ဘြန္၀ွပ္ (ရွမ္း)၊ ဦးထြန္းျမင့္ (ရွမ္း)၊ ဦးၾကာပု (ရွမ္း)၊ ဒူး၀ါးေဇာ္ရစ္ (ကခ်င္)၊ ဦးဒိန္ရတန္ (ကခ်င္)၊ ဒူး၀ါးေဇာ္လြန္း (ကခ်င္)၊ ဒူး၀ါးေဇာ္လ (ကခ်င္)၊ ပဒစ္လေတာင္ (ကခ်င္)၊ ဦးပြန္ဇမန္း (ခ်င္း)၊ ဦးေထာင္က်င္ထန္း (ခ်င္း)၊ ဦးကီယိုမန္း (ခ်င္း)၊ ဦးစိန္လ်ံ (ခ်င္း)၊ ဦးလႊာမႈန္း (ခ်င္း)၊ ဦးမန္းလင္း (ခ်င္း) အစရွိသည့္ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ (၁၈) ဦး ပါ၀င္သည္။ လက္ရွိစစ္အစိုးရက အလားတူ အဖြဲ႔မ်ိဳးဖြဲ႔ရန္ ႀကိဳးစားသည့္ ရွမ္းေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားအား ႀကီးေလးျပင္းထန္ေသာ ေထာင္ဒဏ္မ်ား ခ်မွတ္သည္ကိုေထာက္လွ်င္ စစ္အုပ္စုသည္ တိုင္းရင္းသားတို႔အား တန္းတူအခြင့္အေရးႏွင့္ ကိုယ္ပိုင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ေပးရန္ လုံး၀သေဘာထားမရွိေၾကာင္း ထင္ရွားသည္။
ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္တြင္ ̏ ေတာင္တန္းေဒသမ်ားအတြက္ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးတြင္ ကိုယ္ပိုင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ အျပည့္အ၀ရွိေၾကာင္း မူအားျဖင့္ သေဘာတူၾကသည္˝ ဟုလည္းေကာင္း၊ ̏ ေတာင္တန္းေဒသရွိ ျပည္သူတို႔သည္ ဒီမိုကေရစီတိုင္းျပည္မ်ားတြင္ သတ္မွတ္ထားသည့္ အေျခခံအခြင့္အေရးႏွင့္ ရပိုင္ခြင့္မ်ားအတိုင္း ရရွိခံစားေစရန္˝ ဟုလည္းေကာင္း ေဖာ္ျပထားသည္။ ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းႏွင့္ တုိင္းရင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ား လက္မွတ္ထုိးခ့ဲသည့္ ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္၌ အထူးအေရးပါေသာ အခ်က္မွာ “တိုင္းရင္းသားတို႔၏ နယ္စပ္ေဒသမ်ားအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးတြင္ ခံစားေနရေသာ ကုိယ္ပုိင္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးကို ေလ်ာ့ပါးသြားေစရန္ မည္သည့္နည္းႏွင့္မဆုိ ဗဟုိအစုိးရက ျပဳလုပ္ျခင္းမရွိေစရ” ဟု ျပ႒ာန္းထားသည္။
ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္ ခ်ဳပ္ဆုိခ့ဲသည့္ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္က သေဘာတူထားသည့္ တုိင္းရင္းသားေဒသ ‘ကုိယ္ပုိင္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ခြင့္’ ဆုိသည္မွာ ယေန႔အခ်ိန္အထိ အေကာင္အထည္ မေပၚေသး။ ထိုအႏွစ္သာရသေဘာတို႔ကို စစ္အာဏာရွင္အဆက္ဆက္သည္ အသိအမွတ္မျပဳ႐ုံမက သမိုင္းစာမ်က္ႏွာထက္မွ ေပ်ာက္ကြယ္သြားရန္အထိ နည္းမ်ဳိးစုံ က်င့္သုံးဖ်က္ဆီးပစ္လ်က္ရွိၾကသည္။ စစ္အာဏာရွင္တို႔အႀကံမွာ ေနာင္လာေနာက္သား မ်ဳိးဆက္သစ္မ်ားထံသို႔ ‘ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္’ သက္၀င္မႈမရွိေစရန္ျဖစ္သည္။
သို႔ေသာ္ ဤဆိုးညစ္သည့္အႀကံမွာ အခ်ည္းႏွီးသာျဖစ္သည္။ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းႏွင့္တကြ တိုင္းရင္းသား ေခါင္းေဆာင္ႀကီးမ်ား၏ ပင္လုံအေမြ၊ ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္သည္ ျမန္မာ့သမိုင္းတြင္ အထင္ကရ ပင္မေက်ာက္တိုင္ႀကီး ျဖစ္သည့္အေလ်ာက္ မေတာ္မတရား အာဏာရယူထားသူမ်ားက မည္သို႔ပင္ ဖယ္ရွားလိုေသာ္လည္း ဖယ္ရွား၍မရ၊ ပို၍သာ မားမတ္ခိုင္ၿမဲလာသည္ကို ေတြ႔ရသည္။ ၁၉၈၈ လူထုအေရးေတာ္ပုံကို ျပန္ၾကည့္လွ်င္ လြတ္လပ္ေရး၊ တရားမွ်တေရး၊ တန္းတူေရး တည္းဟူေသာ ဒီမိုကေရစီရပိုင္ခြင့္ ေတာင္းဆိုသံမ်ားႏွင့္အတူ ‘ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္’ ျပန္လည္ႏိုးထလာသည္ကို ေတြ႔ႏိုင္သည္။
၁၉၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲတြင္ လူထုဆႏၵမဲ (၈၀) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းေက်ာ္ အႏိုင္ရခဲ့ေသာ အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္က “စစ္မွန္ေသာ ပါတီစုံဒီမိုကေရစီစနစ္ တည္ေဆာက္ရာတြင္ တိုင္းရင္းသားအားလုံး၏ သေဘာဆႏၵမ်ားကို ခံယူသြားရန္˝ ဟူသည့္ မူ၀ါဒတရပ္ ခ်မွတ္ခဲ့သည္။ ထိုမူ၀ါဒႏွင့္အညီ တိုင္းရင္းသားႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီ (၂၁) ခု ေပါင္းစုထားေသာ “ျပည္ေထာင္စုတိုင္းရင္းသားမ်ား ဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္” (UNLD) ႏွင့္ ညိႇႏိႈင္းကာ ၁၉၉၀ ၾသဂုတ္လ (၂၉) ရက္ေန႔တြင္ “ဗိုလ္ေအာင္ေက်ာ္လမ္း ထုတ္ျပန္ေၾကညာခ်က္” ကို ထုတ္ျပန္ခဲ့သည္။
ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္မွာ ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္ အျမန္ေခၚယူေပးေရးျဖစ္သည္။ ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္က တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ဳိးစုံ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ား၊ ပါတီအဖြဲ႔အစည္းဆိုင္ရာ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားႏွင့္ တသီးပုဂၢလ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ား ပါ၀င္သည့္ “အမ်ဳိးသားအတိုင္ပင္ခံညီလာခံ” ေခၚယူ၍ တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ဳိးအားလုံး သေဘာတူလက္ခံႏိုင္မည့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံဥပေဒေရးဆြဲေရး မူ၀ါဒမ်ား ခ်မွတ္ရန္ျဖစ္သည္။ သို႔ေသာ္ စစ္အာဏာအလြဲသုံးသူတို႔က ကလိမ္ဉာဏ္အမ်ဳိးမ်ဳိးသုံးကာ ပိတ္ပင္ဟန္႔တားခဲ့သည္။
ဤေနရာတြင္ ၁၉၈၉ ပင္လုံခရီးစဥ္၌ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္၏ ေျပာၾကားခ်က္ကို ကိုးကားလိုသည္။
“ဒီမိုကေရစီအစိုးရတရပ္ တက္လာတဲ့အခါက်ရင္ က်မတို႔ ပင္လုံလိုညီလာခံႀကီး ထပ္ၿပီးေတာ့ ေခၚရမယ္လို႔ ယုံၾကည္ပါတယ္။ ဒီလို ပင္လုံညီလာခံႀကီး ထပ္ေခၚၿပီးေတာ့ က်မတို႔ ျပည္ေထာင္စုသစ္ကို ဘယ္ပုံဘယ္နည္း ထူေထာင္မယ္ဆိုတာ တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ဳိးစုေတြအားလုံးနဲ႔ ေဆြးေႏြးၿပီးေတာ့ ဆုံးျဖတ္ရမွာျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ဒီလိုကိစၥမ်ားဟာ အမ်ားျပည္သူလူထုကေနၿပီးေတာ့ လြတ္လပ္ၿပီး တရားမွ်တတဲ့ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲမ်ားမွတဆင့္ တင္ေျမႇာက္လိုက္တဲ့ အစိုးရမ်ားကသာ လုပ္ပိုင္ခြင့္ရွိတယ္လို႔ က်မတို႔ ယုံၾကည္ပါတယ္။ အမ်ားျပည္သူက တင္ေျမႇာက္မထားတဲ့ အဖြဲ႔အစည္းမ်ဳိးက ဒီလိုညီလာခံမ်ဳိးကို ဘာမွ ထိထိေရာက္ေရာက္ လုပ္ႏိုင္မွာမဟုတ္ပါဘူး”
ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ စစ္အုပ္စုက က်င္းပခဲ့သည့္ အမ်ဳိးသားညီလာခံ၊ လူထုဆႏၵခံယူပြဲႏွင့္ ၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံဥပေဒ စသည္တို႔သည္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ လုပ္ထုံးလုပ္နည္းမ်ားအရ တရား၀င္မႈမရွိေပ။ ၁၉၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲရလဒ္ႏွင့္္ ျပည္သူလူထု၏ဆႏၵကို မ်က္ႏွာလႊဲခဲပစ္ ခ်န္ထားခဲ့ရန္ ႀကံစည္မႈမွ်သာျဖစ္သည္။ ဤနည္းျဖင့္ လူထု Mandate ကို ဖ်က္ဆီးရန္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ခဲ့သည့္ စစ္အာဏာရွင္တို႔သည္ မေ၀းေတာ့ေသာ ကာလတြင္ သမိုင္း၏ ဒဏ္ခတ္ျခင္းကို ခံၾကရေပလိမ့္မည္။ ထို႔အျပင္ အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ႏွင့္ ရွမ္းအမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ (SNLD) တို႔မွ အဓိက အတိုက္အခံေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားကို အက်ဥ္းခ်၊ အမ်ိဳးသားျပန္လည္သင့္ျမတ္ေရးကို ေဘးဖယ္လ်က္ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို က်င္းပရန္ လုပ္ေနျခင္းမွာ ဆင္ျခင္တုံတရား ကင္းမဲ့ရာက်သည့္အျပင္ ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းႏွင့္ တုိင္းရင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ႀကီးမ်ား ခ်မွတ္ခဲ့သည့္ စစ္မွန္ေသာ ဒီမိုကေရစီျပည္ေထာင္စု တည္ေထာင္ေရးလမ္းစဥ္မွလည္း ေသြဖည္ေနေပသည္။ ကုလသမဂၢ အပါအ၀င္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ၏ အႀကံျပဳတိုက္တြန္းခ်က္မ်ားကိုလည္း ဆန္႔က်င္သည့္သေဘာျဖစ္သည္။ ျပည္တြင္းျပည္ပမွ တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူလူထု၏ ဆႏၵသေဘာထားကိုလည္း လ်စ္လ်ဴျပဳျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။
စစ္အုပ္စုသည္ “ျပည္ေထာင္စု မၿပိဳကြဲေရး ဒို႔အေရး”၊ “တိုင္းရင္းသားစည္းလုံးညီၫြတ္မႈ မၿပိဳကြဲေရး ဒို႔အေရး” စသည္ျဖင့္ ေႂကြးေၾကာ္ေနေသာ္လည္း လက္ေတြ႔လုပ္ရပ္မ်ားမွာ ဆန္႔က်င္ဘက္မ်ားသာျဖစ္ေနသည္။ ၂၀၀၈ ေဖေဖာ္၀ါရီ (၁၄) ရက္ေန႔က ကရင္အမ်ဳိးသားအစည္းအ႐ုံး (KNU) အေထြေထြအတြင္းေရးမႉး ဖဒိုမန္းရွာ လုပ္ႀကံခံရသည္။ အရင္းခံအားျဖင့္ ̏အက်ပ္ကိုင္ လက္နက္ခ်ခိုင္းျခင္း˝ ကို လုံး၀လက္မခံဘဲ ̏ ေတြ႔ဆုံေဆြးေႏြး အေျဖရွာေရး˝ နည္းလမ္းျဖင့္သာ လက္ရွိႏိုင္ငံေရးျပႆနာမ်ားကို ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းစြာ ေျဖရွင္းႏိုင္မည္ဟူေသာ ကရင္အမ်ဳိးသားအစည္းအ႐ုံး (KNU) ၏ ႏိုင္ငံေရးခံယူခ်က္ကို ယိုင္နဲ႔ေစရန္၊ ကရင္အမ်ဳိးသားအခ်င္းခ်င္းအၾကား ပိုမိုေသြးကြဲေစရန္ အႀကံပက္စက္မႈဟု ဆိုရမည္။
၂၀၀၉ ၾသဂုတ္လတြင္ စစ္အစိုးရ နယ္ျခားေစာင့္တပ္ဖြဲ႔စည္းရန္ လက္မခံခဲ့သည့္ ကိုးကန္႔ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ဦးဖုန္ၾကားရွင္၏ နယ္ေျမကို နအဖတပ္မ်ားက ထိုးစစ္ဆင္သိမ္းယူလိုက္သည္။ ကိုးကန္႔တပ္ဖြဲ႔မ်ား (MNDAA) ႏွင့္ တိုက္ပြဲမ်ားျဖစ္ပြားၿပီးေနာက္ ယခင္ ဖုန္ၾကားရွင္၏ ကိုးကန္႔နယ္ေျမတြင္ စိတ္ႂကြမူးယစ္ေဆးျပား (၁) သိန္း (၅) ေသာင္းေက်ာ္ႏွင့္ ဆက္စပ္ပစၥည္းမ်ား သိမ္းဆည္းရမိသည္ဟု ျမန္မာ့အလင္းသတင္းစာတြင္ ေဖာ္ျပသည္။ နအဖ၏ လိုတမ်ဳိး မလိုတမ်ဳိး လုပ္တတ္သည့္ ေကာက္က်စ္မႈကို တိုင္းရင္းသားတို႔ သတိထားရန္ ျဖစ္သည္။
ယခု ဇန္န၀ါရီလ (၂၇) ရက္ေန႔က အထူးေဒသ (၄) အပစ္ရပ္ မိုင္းလားအဖြဲ႔ေခၚ “အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကရက္တစ္ မဟာမိတ္တပ္မေတာ္” NDAA-ESS တပ္ဖြဲ႔ အေထြေထြအတြင္းေရးမႉး ဦးမင္းအိမ္ လုပ္ႀကံခံရျပန္သည္။ ေနာက္ကြယ္တြင္ စစ္အုပ္စုလက္ ရွိေနသည္မွာ ေသခ်ာသေလာက္ျဖစ္သည္။ နယ္ျခားေစာင့္တပ္ အသြင္ေျပာင္းလဲေရးကို လက္ခံရန္ အျခားတိုင္းရင္းသားအဖြဲ႔မ်ားအား ဖိအားျပင္းျပင္း ေပးလိုက္သည့္သေဘာလည္းျဖစ္သည္။ ဤအေတာအတြင္း အပစ္ရပ္ တုိင္းရင္းသားအဖဲြ႔မ်ားအားလုံး နယ္ျခားေစာင့္တပ္အျဖစ္ အသြင္ေျပာင္းေရးကုိ ယခုေဖေဖာ္၀ါရီလကုန္ ေနာက္ဆုံးထားၿပီး ျပဳလုပ္ရန္ စစ္ဖက္ဆိုင္ရာ လုံၿခဳံေရးအဖြဲ႔ အႀကီးအကဲ ဒုတိယဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီး ရဲျမင့္က ဆက္လက္ဖိအားေပးေနသည္။
လက္ငင္း စစ္အုပ္စုလုပ္ဟန္မ်ားအရ ျမန္မာစစ္အင္ပါယာက တိုင္းရင္းသားနယ္ေျမေဒသမ်ားအား အတင္းအက်ပ္ ကိုလိုနီလက္ေအာက္ခံျပဳရန္ စီစဥ္ေနေၾကာင္း ထင္ရွားသည္။ ပင္လုံတြင္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းႏွင့္ ရွမ္း၊ ကခ်င္၊ ခ်င္း တိုင္းရင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားသည္ သီးျခားျပည္ေထာင္ (၄) ခုကို “တန္းတူရည္တူ ျပည္ေထာင္စု” ျပဳရန္ အေျမာ္အျမင္ရွိရွိ သေဘာတူခဲ့ၾကၿပီးေနာက္ ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္ကို လက္မွတ္ေရးထိုးခဲ့ၾကျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ ထိုသေဘာကို ၁၉၄၇ ေမလ (၂၄) တြင္ “ဖဆပလ ပဏာမျပင္ဆင္မႈညီလာခံ” တြင္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္း တင္သြင္းေသာ အေျခခံမူမ်ားကို ၾကည့္လွ်င္သိႏိုင္သည္။ ယင္းအေျခခံမူမ်ားအရ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံအတြင္းရွိ (ဗမာလူမ်ိဳး အပါအ၀င္) တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ိဳးအားလုံးသည္ ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္အရ ‘အဆင့္အတန္းတူ’ ျဖစ္သည္။
ထိုညီလာခံတြင္ ေျပာၾကားေသာ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္း၏ မိန္႔ခြန္းတြင္ “တကယ့္ဒီမိုကေရစီဆိုတာ ႏိုင္ငံေရးသေဘာတရားအရ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ႕အက်ိဳးအတြက္ ျပည္သူေတြက တင္ေျမႇာက္တဲ့ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ႕ အစိုးရျဖစ္႐ုံနဲ႔ မၿပီးေသးဘူး။ အဲဒီအစိုးရဟာ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ႕ လက္ငင္း စီးပြားေရးအဆင့္အတန္းကို အခြင့္အေရး တန္းတူရႏိုင္တဲ့ အေျခအေနအထိ ျမႇင့္တင္ႏိုင္ေအာင္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးမွ တကယ့္ဒီမိုကေရစီအထိ တက္လွမ္းႏိုင္မယ္”
“ဒီမိုကေရစီသစ္အရလုပ္မယ့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံအေျခခံဥပေဒမ်ိဳးဟာ ဘယ္လိုျဖစ္ရမလဲဆိုရင္ တိုင္းသူျပည္သား လူမ်ားစုေတြ အာဏာပိုင္အျဖစ္ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ႏိုင္ေအာင္ သူတို႔ေရြးေကာက္တဲ့ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ေတြဟာ ေအာက္ကေန ထိပ္အထိ တိုင္းျပည္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရး၊ တိုင္းျပည္အစိုးရအာဏာကို ကိုင္ထားရမယ္။ သူတို႔ ေရြးေကာက္လိုက္တဲ့ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ေတြကို မႀကိဳက္လို႔ရွိရင္ ျပန္ေခၚႏိုင္ရမယ္”
“လူမ်ိဳးေရးအရ ကြဲျပားေနတဲ့ လူမ်ားစု လူနည္းစုကိစၥေတြမွာေတာ့ လူမ်ားစု လူမ်ိဳးေတြက လူနည္းစု လူမ်ိဳးေတြအေပၚ လႊမ္းမိုးမႈမရွိေစမွ ဒီမိုကေရစီမွန္မယ္။ လူမ်ိဳးအရ၊ ဘာသာအရ၊ လိင္အရ အခြင့္အေရးခြဲျခားမႈ၊ ႏွိမ့္ခ်မႈေတြကို ဥပေဒအရ ပယ္ဖ်က္ၿပီး ဒီလို ႏွိမ္နင္းတာမ်ိဳးေတြ ေတြ႔ရင္ ဥပေဒအရ အျပစ္ေပးတာမ်ိဳးေတာင္ စီမံရမယ္။ ဒါမွ ဒီမိုကေရစီ ပီသမယ္”
ယေန႔ ျပည္သူလူထု အဓိကေတာင္းဆိုေနသည္မွာ (ႀကိဳးကိုင္ ဒီမိုကေရစီ) မဟုတ္။ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္း၏ ပင္လုံတြင္ လမ္းၫႊန္ခဲ့သည့္ “လြတ္လပ္ေရး၊ တရားမွ်တေရး၊ တန္းတူေရး” အႏွစ္သာရပါသည့္ ဒီမိုကေရစီကို ေတာင္းဆိုေနျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ သမိုင္းအေတြ႔အႀကဳံ၊ ႏိုင္ငံတကာသမိုင္းအေတြ႔အႀကဳံမ်ားအရ စစ္တပ္ဦးေဆာင္ လႊတ္ေတာ္အမ်ိဳးအစားကို လူထုက လုံး၀လိုလားသည္မဟုတ္။ လူထုစိတ္ႀကိဳက္ ေရြးခ်ယ္ထားသည့္ လူထုကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားျဖင့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းမည့္ ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္စစ္စစ္ အမ်ိဳးအစားကို လူထုက လိုလားေတာင္းဆိုေနျခင္း ျဖစ္သည္။
နအဖစစ္အုပ္စု၏ လက္ရွိလွမ္းေနေသာ ေျခလွမ္းမ်ားမွာ စစ္တပ္လက္ေ၀ခံ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္အမ်ားစုျဖင့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းမည့္ “စစ္လႊမ္းမိုးေရးလႊတ္ေတာ္” ျဖစ္ေနသည္ကို ၂၀၀၈ နာဂစ္ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံုအရ သိျမင္ေနၾကရၿပီျဖစ္သည္။ စစ္တပ္လႊတ္ေတာ္တြင္ စစ္တပ္က (၂၅) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္း သပိတ္၀င္အိပ္၀င္ ယူထားၿပီးေနာက္ က်န္မဲဆႏၵနယ္မ်ားတြင္လည္း စစ္ျပန္ႏွင့္ စစ္တပ္အလိုေတာ္ရိမ်ား ေနရာရေရးအတြက္ စစ္တပ္က ေသနတ္အားကိုးျဖင့္ မလြဲမေသြ ကလိန္က်ဦးမည္ျဖစ္သည္။ ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ ပါလီမန္တြင္ စစ္တပ္က အနည္းဆုံး (၅၀) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းေက်ာ္ ယူထားမည္မလြဲပါ။ ထို႔ျပင္ စစ္ဗိုလ္သမၼတ၊ စစ္ဗိုလ္၀န္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္၊ အေရးႀကီး၀န္ႀကီးဌာနအားလုံး စစ္ဗိုလ္၀န္ႀကီးမ်ား ႀကိဳးကိုင္မည့္ အစိုးရျဖစ္လာမည္။
၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံအရ ေပၚလာမည့္ (ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္ႏွင့္ အမ်ိဳးသားလႊတ္ေတာ္) ကို ေပါင္းစည္းထားေသာ စစ္တပ္ႀကိဳးကိုင္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုလႊတ္ေတာ္သည္ အျမင့္ဆုံး အာဏာပိုင္အဖြဲ႔အျဖစ္ အခ်ဳပ္အျခာအာဏာ (၃) ရပ္ကို ကိုင္တြယ္က်င့္သုံးရမည္ျဖစ္သည္။ သို႔ေသာ္ အမွန္တကယ္ က်င့္သုံးခြင့္မရွိပါ။ စစ္တပ္အေရးအရာ ကိစၥအ၀၀ႏွင့္ စပ္လ်ဥ္းသည့္ ဥပေဒျပဳေရး၊ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးႏွင့္ တရားစီရင္ေရးကိစၥရပ္မ်ားကို စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္ႏွင့္ စစ္တပ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားကသာ စီမံကိုင္တြယ္မည္ျဖစ္သည္။ လိုရင္းကိုေျပာရလွ်င္ စစ္တပ္ႏွင့္ စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က အာဏာသုံးရပ္ အထက္တြင္ ရွိလိမ့္မည္။ စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္၏ ဆုံးျဖတ္ခ်က္မ်ားကို ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္၊ အမ်ိဳးသားလႊတ္ေတာ္ႏွင့္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုလႊတ္ေတာ္တို႔က အတည္ျပဳေပးရမည္ျဖစ္မည္။ ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ Military-Monopolized Rubber-Stamp Parliament သာ ေပၚလာမည္ျဖစ္သည္။
ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္သမၼတကိုလည္း စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က အဆိုျပဳ လက္ခံသူကိုသာ ခန္႔ထားလိမ့္မည္္။ အစိုးရအဖြဲ႔အတြင္း အေရးႀကီး ၀န္ႀကီးရာထူးမ်ားကိုလည္း စစ္တပ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားကိုသာ ေပးမည္။ ေရွ႕ေနခ်ဳပ္ႏွင့္ တရားသူႀကီးခ်ဳပ္ရာထူးမ်ားကိုလည္း စစ္တပ္စိတ္တိုင္းက်သူမ်ားကိုသာ ခန္႔ေပလိမ့္ဦးမည္။ သေဘာမွာ စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က သမၼတႏွင့္ ကက္ဘိနက္အဖြဲ႔၏ အထက္တြင္ ရွိမည္။ အဖြဲ႔၀င္ (၁၁) ဦး ပါေသာ “အမ်ိဳးသားကာကြယ္ေရးႏွင့္ လုံၿခဳံေရးေကာင္စီ” ဆိုသည္ကလည္း စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္ အလိုက်သူမ်ားႏွင့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းထား၍ အခ်ိန္မေရြး စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္က အေရးေပၚ အေျခအေန ေၾကညာႏိုင္သည္။ အာဏာသိမ္းႏိုင္သည္။ စစ္ဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္သည္ အခ်ဳပ္အျခာအာဏာ (၃) ရပ္၊ သမၼတႏွင့္ အစိုးရအဖြဲ႔တို႔၏ အထက္တြင္ ရွိေနေပေတာ့မည္။
ဤ ၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံကို လႊတ္ေတာ္ထဲေရာက္မွ ျပင္မည္ဟု စဥ္းစားျခင္းမွာ ႏုံအလြန္းရာ က်ေပလိမ့္မည္။ တခုခု ျပင္ဆင္လိုလွ်င္ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ (၂၀) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းက လက္မွတ္ေရးထိုး၍ ျပင္ဆင္ခ်က္မူၾကမ္း တင္ရမည္ျဖစ္သည္။ စစ္တပ္၏ေခ်ာ့လုံး၊ ေျခာက္လုံးမ်ားၾကားတြင္ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ (၂၀) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းရရန္ လြယ္မည္ထင္လွ်င္ မွားပါလိမ့္မည္။ ထိုမွ်မက လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ (၇၅) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းေက်ာ္ႏွင့္ လူထု Referendum က (၅၀) ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းေက်ာ္ ေထာက္ခံမဲရမွသာ ျပင္ဆင္ႏိုင္မည္ျဖစ္သည္။ ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ လြတ္လပ္ေရး၊ တန္းတူေရး၊ တရားမွ်တေရးဆိုသည့္ ဒီမုိကေရစီအခြင့္အေရးမ်ားကို အိပ္မက္ပင္္ မက္ခြင့္ရွိမည္မဟုတ္ပါ။
ထိုအခ်င္းအရာမ်ားကို ျမင္သျဖင့္ အမ်ိဳးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္က ‘ေရႊဂုံတိုင္ေၾကညာစာတမ္း’ တြင္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ အပါအ၀င္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားမ်ားလႊတ္ေပးေရး၊ ‘၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒ’ ျပန္လည္သုံးသပ္ေရး၊ တိုင္းရင္းသားအားလုံး တန္းတူညီမွ် အခြင့္အေရးရွိသည့္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုတည္ေဆာက္ေရးႏွင့္ ၁၉၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲရလဒ္ကို တနည္းနည္းျဖင့္ အသိအမွတ္ျပဳေရး စသည္တို႔ကို လက္ငင္းေျဖရွင္းရမည့္ အဓိကျပႆနာမ်ားအျဖစ္ ေဖာ္ျပလ်က္ ေတြ႔ဆုံေဆြးေႏြးအေျဖရွာေရးကို ေတာင္းဆိုေနျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ ထို႔ျပင္ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲဟူသည္ ျဖတ္သန္းရမည့္ မွတ္တိုင္တခုျဖစ္သည္ဟု NLD က လက္ခံထားေၾကာင္းလည္း ေဖာ္ျပထားသည္။ သို႔ေသာ္ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ၏ အနိမ့္ဆုံး လိုအပ္ခ်က္မ်ားအျဖစ္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားအားလုံး ျပန္လႊတ္ရန္၊ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံမွ ဒီမိုကေရစီစံႏႈန္းႏွင့္ မညီသည့္ အခ်က္မ်ားကို ျပင္ရန္၊ အားလုံးလႊမ္းၿခဳံပါ၀င္ႏိုင္မည့္ လြတ္လပ္တရားမွ်တေသာ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲအျဖစ္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာေစာင့္ၾကည့္မႈ ခြင့္ျပဳရန္ စသည္တို႔ကိုလည္း ေၾကညာစာတမ္းတြင္ ေဖာ္ျပထားသည္။
‘၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒ’ ျပန္လည္သုံးသပ္ေရးကိစၥ၊ ေတြ႔ဆုံေဆြးေႏြးေရးကိစၥသည္ ျပည္သူလူထုအမ်ားစု၏ ဆႏၵအမွန္ျဖစ္သည္။ NLD က ထိုအခ်က္မ်ား မီးေမာင္းထိုးျပရျခင္းမွာ ျပည္တြင္းစစ္ ေနာက္တေက်ာ့ ျပန္လည္မလာေစလို၍ ျဖစ္သည္။ စိတ္ကူးယဥ္ကာ မျဖစ္ႏိုင္သည္ကို ေစ်းဆစ္ေနျခင္းမ်ိဳး အလ်ဥ္းမဟုတ္။ ေျမာ္ျမင္ခ်ိန္ဆ၍ ေျပာေသာစကားျဖစ္သည္။ တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူလူထု၏ ေထာက္ခံမႈရွိ၍ လူထုကိုယ္စားေျပာေသာ စကားလည္းျဖစ္သည္။
စင္စစ္ တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူလူထုဆႏၵကို ပစ္ပယ္သူမ်ား၊ ‘ပင္လုံကတိ’ ကို ပစ္ပယ္သူမ်ားမွာ စစ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားႏွင့္ သူတို႔ေနာက္လိုက္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးအေခ်ာင္လမ္းရွာသူမ်ားသာျဖစ္သည္။ ပင္လုံစာခ်ဳပ္အရ တိုင္းရင္းသားအားလုံးအား ‘တန္းတူညီမွ် အခြင့္အေရး’ ႏွင့္တကြ ‘ကိုယ္ပိုင္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရး’ ကို အာမခံသည့္ ‘ျပည္ေထာင္စုစစ္စစ္ တည္ေဆာက္ေရး’ ကို အမွန္တကယ္ လိုလားသေဘာတူလွ်င္ Military-Monopolized Rubber-Stamp Parliament (တနည္း) ဒီမိုကေရစီအေရၿခဳံ စစ္ေကာင္စီကို တရား၀င္ျဖစ္ေအာင္ အကြက္ဆင္ထားသည့္ နအဖ၏ ၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပုံအတုႏွင့္ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲအတုတို႔ကို တိုင္းရင္းသားအားလုံး ေသြးစည္းညီၫြတ္မႈရွိရွိ ဆန္႔က်င္ၾကရန္သာရွိသည္။
ထို႔ေၾကာင့္ ပင္လုံစိတ္ဓာတ္အရင္းခံျဖင့္ ျပည္ေထာင္စုစစ္စစ္ ထြန္းေပၚေရးအတြက္ စစ္အာဏာရွင္၏ အလိုေတာ္ရိမ်ား ေႂကြးေၾကာ္ေနေသာ “ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲမွလြဲ၍ အျခားေရြးခ်ယ္စရာမရွိ” ဟူေသာ ၀ါဒျဖန္႔ခ်ိခ်က္ကို ညီညီၫြတ္ၫြတ္ ၀ိုင္း၀န္းဆန္႔က်င္ၾကရန္မွာ ယေန႔တိုင္းရင္းသားျပည္သူခပ္သိမ္း၏ သမိုင္းေရးတာ၀န္ ျဖစ္သည္ဟု ႏွလုံးသြင္းၾကပါကုန္။
ကိုးကား ။ ။
(၁) ကိုလိုနီေခတ္ျမန္မာ့သမိုင္းအဘိဓာန္၊ ျမဟန္၊ တကၠသိုလ္မ်ား သမိုင္းသုေတသနဌာန။
(၂) တိုင္းရင္းသားလူမ်ိဳးမ်ားအေရးႏွင့္ ၁၉၄၇ အေျခခံဥပေဒ (ဒုတိယတြဲ)၊ သမိုင္းဌာန (သုေတသန) ရန္ကုန္တကၠသိုလ္။
(၃) ေအာင္သန္း၏ ေအာင္ဆန္း၊ ပုဂံစာအုပ္တိုက္၊ ၁၉၆၄။
http://www.khitpyaing.org/articles/2010/february/11210.php
No decision on polls till electoral process is announced: Suu Kyi
New Delhi (Mizzima) – Burmese democracy icon and National League for Democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi has declared that a decision on contesting the general election in Burma cannot be taken till the electoral process is publicized.
She made her view clear to those who visited her yesterday. She also spoke of the necessity of right to information to make the election free and fair.
"A decision on electoral affairs cannot be taken at the moment. There are a lot of facts regarding the electoral process which needs to be known. Before that, it is impossible to take decision on the election - Daw Aung San Suu Kyi told us,” National League for Democracy (NLD) party spokesman and lawyer Nyan Win said.
Lawyer Nyan Win and Htin Kyaw, who have been assigned by Suu Kyi to monitor the renovation of her residence, met her at her home yesterday between 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
"Any election must have right to information, media freedom, and freedom in releasing news. Without these freedoms, no election can be free and fair,” Nyan Win quoted her as saying.
The basic needs of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of organization are essential for free and fair election, NLD General Secretary Suu Kyi told them.
Senior NLD leader Win Tin commenting on Suu Kyi’s observations said, “She cannot say more than that as the electoral laws and regulations are yet to be announced. I think she will give her precise views sand opinions when the time is ripe".
"What Daw Suu said is very important. They are the main requirements for the election. It is also a political requirement. What Daw Suu said is we must make our demands to get to know the full electoral process," Win Tin further said.
Daw is an honorific similar to madam for older, revered women.
If the election is conducted within the framework of the 2008 constitution, it will not help implement the democratic system, Suu Kyi once said, Nyan Win recalled.
In the backdrop of the announcement made by the junta on the forthcoming election to be held during this year after forcibly approving the 2008 constitution under media blackout, the opposition groups are demanding amendment to the constitution, release of all political prisoners including Suu Kyi and engagement in dialogue with the opposition.
New Delhi (Mizzima) – Burmese democracy icon and National League for Democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi has declared that a decision on contesting the general election in Burma cannot be taken till the electoral process is publicized.
She made her view clear to those who visited her yesterday. She also spoke of the necessity of right to information to make the election free and fair.
"A decision on electoral affairs cannot be taken at the moment. There are a lot of facts regarding the electoral process which needs to be known. Before that, it is impossible to take decision on the election - Daw Aung San Suu Kyi told us,” National League for Democracy (NLD) party spokesman and lawyer Nyan Win said.
Lawyer Nyan Win and Htin Kyaw, who have been assigned by Suu Kyi to monitor the renovation of her residence, met her at her home yesterday between 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
"Any election must have right to information, media freedom, and freedom in releasing news. Without these freedoms, no election can be free and fair,” Nyan Win quoted her as saying.
The basic needs of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of organization are essential for free and fair election, NLD General Secretary Suu Kyi told them.
Senior NLD leader Win Tin commenting on Suu Kyi’s observations said, “She cannot say more than that as the electoral laws and regulations are yet to be announced. I think she will give her precise views sand opinions when the time is ripe".
"What Daw Suu said is very important. They are the main requirements for the election. It is also a political requirement. What Daw Suu said is we must make our demands to get to know the full electoral process," Win Tin further said.
Daw is an honorific similar to madam for older, revered women.
If the election is conducted within the framework of the 2008 constitution, it will not help implement the democratic system, Suu Kyi once said, Nyan Win recalled.
In the backdrop of the announcement made by the junta on the forthcoming election to be held during this year after forcibly approving the 2008 constitution under media blackout, the opposition groups are demanding amendment to the constitution, release of all political prisoners including Suu Kyi and engagement in dialogue with the opposition.
No decision on polls till electoral process is announced: Suu Kyi
New Delhi (Mizzima) – Burmese democracy icon and National League for Democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi has declared that a decision on contesting the general election in Burma cannot be taken till the electoral process is publicized.
She made her view clear to those who visited her yesterday. She also spoke of the necessity of right to information to make the election free and fair.
"A decision on electoral affairs cannot be taken at the moment. There are a lot of facts regarding the electoral process which needs to be known. Before that, it is impossible to take decision on the election - Daw Aung San Suu Kyi told us,” National League for Democracy (NLD) party spokesman and lawyer Nyan Win said.
Lawyer Nyan Win and Htin Kyaw, who have been assigned by Suu Kyi to monitor the renovation of her residence, met her at her home yesterday between 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
"Any election must have right to information, media freedom, and freedom in releasing news. Without these freedoms, no election can be free and fair,” Nyan Win quoted her as saying.
The basic needs of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of organization are essential for free and fair election, NLD General Secretary Suu Kyi told them.
Senior NLD leader Win Tin commenting on Suu Kyi’s observations said, “She cannot say more than that as the electoral laws and regulations are yet to be announced. I think she will give her precise views sand opinions when the time is ripe".
"What Daw Suu said is very important. They are the main requirements for the election. It is also a political requirement. What Daw Suu said is we must make our demands to get to know the full electoral process," Win Tin further said.
Daw is an honorific similar to madam for older, revered women.
If the election is conducted within the framework of the 2008 constitution, it will not help implement the democratic system, Suu Kyi once said, Nyan Win recalled.
In the backdrop of the announcement made by the junta on the forthcoming election to be held during this year after forcibly approving the 2008 constitution under media blackout, the opposition groups are demanding amendment to the constitution, release of all political prisoners including Suu Kyi and engagement in dialogue with the opposition.
She made her view clear to those who visited her yesterday. She also spoke of the necessity of right to information to make the election free and fair.
"A decision on electoral affairs cannot be taken at the moment. There are a lot of facts regarding the electoral process which needs to be known. Before that, it is impossible to take decision on the election - Daw Aung San Suu Kyi told us,” National League for Democracy (NLD) party spokesman and lawyer Nyan Win said.
Lawyer Nyan Win and Htin Kyaw, who have been assigned by Suu Kyi to monitor the renovation of her residence, met her at her home yesterday between 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
"Any election must have right to information, media freedom, and freedom in releasing news. Without these freedoms, no election can be free and fair,” Nyan Win quoted her as saying.
The basic needs of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of organization are essential for free and fair election, NLD General Secretary Suu Kyi told them.
Senior NLD leader Win Tin commenting on Suu Kyi’s observations said, “She cannot say more than that as the electoral laws and regulations are yet to be announced. I think she will give her precise views sand opinions when the time is ripe".
"What Daw Suu said is very important. They are the main requirements for the election. It is also a political requirement. What Daw Suu said is we must make our demands to get to know the full electoral process," Win Tin further said.
Daw is an honorific similar to madam for older, revered women.
If the election is conducted within the framework of the 2008 constitution, it will not help implement the democratic system, Suu Kyi once said, Nyan Win recalled.
In the backdrop of the announcement made by the junta on the forthcoming election to be held during this year after forcibly approving the 2008 constitution under media blackout, the opposition groups are demanding amendment to the constitution, release of all political prisoners including Suu Kyi and engagement in dialogue with the opposition.
REMEMBERING A FRIEND WALT RATTERMAN
REMEMBERING A FRIEND
By Roland Watson
February 11, 2010
We have to accept a hard truth now: Walt Ratterman, a man who truly
dedicated his life to helping people help themselves, passed away in the
Haiti earthquake.
Walt was a great friend of the people of Burma, and of many other
societies. He was an alternative energy expert, in solar and micro-hydro
power. He brought energy systems to people in remote communities, along
with training and spare parts so they could maintain the systems once he
had left. This simple introduction of a small amount of electricity had a
profound impact, lighting schools and clinics, refrigerating medicines,
powering computers and communications gear, and for innumerable other
uses.
For Burma, Walt was most active in the war zones in the east of the
country. His systems provide electricity for over twenty Karen clinics,
and for schools in refugee camps and villages. Walt visited the clinics
himself, to install the gear, and on one trip he walked all the way to the
Karen National Union’s Third Brigade. He generously gave us his photos,
which remain on the Dictator Watch site, of the solar installations as
well as the internally displaced persons and other victims of Burma’s
military regime that he met along the way (photo essays 62, 59, 52, 45 and
31). Walt was also kind enough to support some of our most aggressive
efforts to help free Burma.
A few of my memories of Walt are of being called by BBC Burmese for an
interview while I was in his room at the Ambassador Hotel in Bangkok;
meeting him at the Mawcheet bus station before he left for the border,
with a stack of solar panels for cargo, and wondering how he would get
them through the checkpoints; at a training he held at the Backpack Medics
facility; and at his Pennsylvania farm, which was off grid – self-powered
– and where I had the pleasure to meet his wife Jeanne and daughter
Briana. I never met his son Shane, although Walt spoke of him with great
pride many times.
Walt was warm, but also gruff and no-nonsense. He had work to do and if
you could help you were very welcome. If not, his time was too valuable
to waste.
He led a convoy of aid trucks into Northern Afghanistan, immediately after
the country was freed. He worked in such places as Rwanda, Haiti, Ecuador,
Arunachal Pradesh in northeast India, and Basilan and Mindanao in the
southern Philippines. As a confirmed travel addict, I used to joke with
him that I would be happy to carry his bags if I could accompany him on
his trips. He helped a huge number of people, and in the dangerous places
that most humanitarians avoid. It is an extraordinary legacy. Would that
it could have continued. He will be missed.
By Roland Watson
February 11, 2010
We have to accept a hard truth now: Walt Ratterman, a man who truly
dedicated his life to helping people help themselves, passed away in the
Haiti earthquake.
Walt was a great friend of the people of Burma, and of many other
societies. He was an alternative energy expert, in solar and micro-hydro
power. He brought energy systems to people in remote communities, along
with training and spare parts so they could maintain the systems once he
had left. This simple introduction of a small amount of electricity had a
profound impact, lighting schools and clinics, refrigerating medicines,
powering computers and communications gear, and for innumerable other
uses.
For Burma, Walt was most active in the war zones in the east of the
country. His systems provide electricity for over twenty Karen clinics,
and for schools in refugee camps and villages. Walt visited the clinics
himself, to install the gear, and on one trip he walked all the way to the
Karen National Union’s Third Brigade. He generously gave us his photos,
which remain on the Dictator Watch site, of the solar installations as
well as the internally displaced persons and other victims of Burma’s
military regime that he met along the way (photo essays 62, 59, 52, 45 and
31). Walt was also kind enough to support some of our most aggressive
efforts to help free Burma.
A few of my memories of Walt are of being called by BBC Burmese for an
interview while I was in his room at the Ambassador Hotel in Bangkok;
meeting him at the Mawcheet bus station before he left for the border,
with a stack of solar panels for cargo, and wondering how he would get
them through the checkpoints; at a training he held at the Backpack Medics
facility; and at his Pennsylvania farm, which was off grid – self-powered
– and where I had the pleasure to meet his wife Jeanne and daughter
Briana. I never met his son Shane, although Walt spoke of him with great
pride many times.
Walt was warm, but also gruff and no-nonsense. He had work to do and if
you could help you were very welcome. If not, his time was too valuable
to waste.
He led a convoy of aid trucks into Northern Afghanistan, immediately after
the country was freed. He worked in such places as Rwanda, Haiti, Ecuador,
Arunachal Pradesh in northeast India, and Basilan and Mindanao in the
southern Philippines. As a confirmed travel addict, I used to joke with
him that I would be happy to carry his bags if I could accompany him on
his trips. He helped a huge number of people, and in the dangerous places
that most humanitarians avoid. It is an extraordinary legacy. Would that
it could have continued. He will be missed.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Burma: Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on "Unity in Diversity"
Unity in diversity has to be the principle of those who genuinely wish to build our country into a strong nation that allows for a variety of races, languages, beliefs and cultures to flourish in peaceful and happy coexistence. Only a government that tolerates opinions and attitudes different from its own will be abel to create an environment where peoples of diverse traditions and aspirations can breathe freely in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and trust.
(Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's Elected Legitimate Leader)
Unity in diversity has to be the principle of those who genuinely wish to build our country into a strong nation that allows for a variety of races, languages, beliefs and cultures to flourish in peaceful and happy coexistence. Only a government that tolerates opinions and attitudes different from its own will be abel to create an environment where peoples of diverse traditions and aspirations can breathe freely in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and trust.
(Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's Elected Legitimate Leader)
Burma Constitutional Conference (Discussion 4)
The International Community and UN : Lack of Focus on SPDC's 2008 Constitution. From the aspect of the Rule of Law, major flaws of the SPDC's 2008 Constitution are found, inter alias, as follows: (1) The Constitution does not guarantee equality. The military, as a privileged class, assumes state powers, in terms of the legislature, executive and judiciary, which is contrary to the major concept of the rule of law, that is, every person is equal before the law.....
Internet cafes ordered to keep tabs on users
Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – In a renewed attempt at putting internet users on the leash, internet cafe owners in Pegu have been ordered by the Chairman of Pegu Township Peace and Development Council (TPDC) in Burma to keep a record of personal profiles of internet users.
The TPDC Chairman Aung Swe Myint summoned internet cafe owners to his office on February 5 and told them to maintain a record of internet users including their names and addresses. The orders, he said, percolated from the higher authorities.
"He called us to a meeting at 10 a.m. today and told us to keep a record of names and addresses of users. We had to sign on a paper acknowledging the order. He mentioned it was for security reasons," an internet cafe owner in Pegu told Mizzima.
Earlier, cafe owners had to note down names of users only. Now they have to record their addresses keeping users on tenterhooks. Most are youths, another internet cafe owner said.
"However, one is not sure if the addresses given are true. Anyway we have to note down whatever our customers tell us. The new regulation is another blow to internet freedom," he said.
There are over 20 internet cafes spread over Pegu. Most cafes use generators as they receive electricity on a rotational basis. And they charge users Kyat 400 per hour.
Most internet users in Pegu are young students, internet cafe owners in Pegu said.
"Our acquaintances know well what we do on the net. We don't use the internet for business purposes but for acquiring knowledge," an internet user told Mizzima.
The Thai based Burma Media Association (BMA) Vice-Chairman Zin Lin said that the new internet regulation violated Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which stipulates freedom in seeking and dissemination of knowledge.
The TPDC Chairman Aung Swe Myint summoned internet cafe owners to his office on February 5 and told them to maintain a record of internet users including their names and addresses. The orders, he said, percolated from the higher authorities.
"He called us to a meeting at 10 a.m. today and told us to keep a record of names and addresses of users. We had to sign on a paper acknowledging the order. He mentioned it was for security reasons," an internet cafe owner in Pegu told Mizzima.
Earlier, cafe owners had to note down names of users only. Now they have to record their addresses keeping users on tenterhooks. Most are youths, another internet cafe owner said.
"However, one is not sure if the addresses given are true. Anyway we have to note down whatever our customers tell us. The new regulation is another blow to internet freedom," he said.
There are over 20 internet cafes spread over Pegu. Most cafes use generators as they receive electricity on a rotational basis. And they charge users Kyat 400 per hour.
Most internet users in Pegu are young students, internet cafe owners in Pegu said.
"Our acquaintances know well what we do on the net. We don't use the internet for business purposes but for acquiring knowledge," an internet user told Mizzima.
The Thai based Burma Media Association (BMA) Vice-Chairman Zin Lin said that the new internet regulation violated Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which stipulates freedom in seeking and dissemination of knowledge.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Illegitimate Rule =Illegitimate Election ! The Military Junta has created Burma as a Country with out Law and order and by doing so they control the courts to be used as tools of abuse to control the Burmese People . They arrest innocent persons on false charges to maintain the grip on power and be unaccountable for their crimes against Humanity . As the for those who challenge the system (case in point) Democratic activist are routinely arrested for no other reason than not being submissive and to challenge the Junta in a free and fair election. The Junta uses groups they created the USDA and Arr Ar Swan (Masters of Force) as a first measure to instill fear thru violence such as beatings with wooden clubs which often result in death , if one cannot be found or has fled the country the thugs also subject all family members to the same abuses as an attempt to silence any Political Rivals in exile or hiding . The Regime Illegitimate Rule has went uncheck for decades now it is up to UN and world Leaders to take a stand on the side of Justice for concern for Humanity and end the Crisis in Burma once and forever .
MILITARY contacts with the Rangoon junta including joint naval exercises involving Australian and Burmese warships did not compromise the government's strong diplomatic stand against Burma's thuggish military regime, Senate Estimates was told yesterday.
The Navy's participation in an Indian military exercise in which a Burmese warship was also invited has been condemned by human rights groups, academics and the federal Opposition as a blatant violation of the government's ban on military links with Rangoon.
The Armidale class patrol boat, HMAS Glenelg, took part in Exercise Milan which ended on Tuesday.
The Navy's participation in an Indian military exercise in which a Burmese warship was also invited has been condemned by human rights groups, academics and the federal Opposition as a blatant violation of the government's ban on military links with Rangoon.
The Armidale class patrol boat, HMAS Glenelg, took part in Exercise Milan which ended on Tuesday.
War games with Burma row
MILITARY contacts with the Rangoon junta including joint naval exercises involving Australian and Burmese warships did not compromise the government's strong diplomatic stand against Burma's thuggish military regime, Senate Estimates was told yesterday.
The Navy's participation in an Indian military exercise in which a Burmese warship was also invited has been condemned by human rights groups, academics and the federal Opposition as a blatant violation of the government's ban on military links with Rangoon.
The Armidale class patrol boat, HMAS Glenelg, took part in Exercise Milan which ended on Tuesday.
Its presence among an international flotilla which included a Burmese warship has drawn strong criticism. At Estimates, Defence Minister John Faulkner denied the war games and people to people contacts involving a defence attache undermined international diplomatic action against Burma. "The ADF does not hold bilateral exercises with the Burmese armed forces. Occasionally, we participate in multi-lateral activities to which Burma has been invited," Mr Faulkner said.
RELATED COVERAGE
US passport is no protection from Rangoon goons
The Australian, 29 Dec 2009
Threat of attack raises border tension
The Australian, 2 Sep 2009
Rudd seeks to provoke Burmese junta
The Australian, 11 Aug 2009
Burma's deadly course
The Australian, 5 Aug 2009
Smith alert on Burma nuke claim
The Australian, 2 Aug 2009
But Canberra's policy appears at odds with that adopted by the US military whose government has been a staunch critic of Rangoon and its supporters.
A senior commander with the US 7th Fleet told The Australian yesterday it was highly unlikely any US warships would get involved in naval exercises in which Burmese military vessels were also taking part.
Across the Tasman, a spokesman for New Zealand's Foreign Minister Murray McCully said UN sanctions against Burma were taken seriously by Wellington and contact with Burmese junta officials was minimal.
Federal Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop said the Navy's decision to send the patrol boat undermined the Government's credibility on Burma and its sanctions regime.
"The Labor Party have in the past condemned Burma as one of the most repressive regimes in the world -- they've deemed it a rogue state," Ms Bishop said.
"Are they suggesting we now undertake military exercises with North Korea or other rogue states like Iran."
"It does have the potential to seriously undermine the international position that we have taken publicly for some time," Ms Bishop said.
University of Canberra's Burma expert, Professor Monique Skidmore, said the Rudd government could not have it both ways.
"It's one thing to say you are going to deliver humanitarian aid.
"So what possible benefit could there be to Australia participating in joint exercises with the Burmese military. We give them (junta) legitimacy every time we allow this to happen," she said.
The Navy's participation in an Indian military exercise in which a Burmese warship was also invited has been condemned by human rights groups, academics and the federal Opposition as a blatant violation of the government's ban on military links with Rangoon.
The Armidale class patrol boat, HMAS Glenelg, took part in Exercise Milan which ended on Tuesday.
Its presence among an international flotilla which included a Burmese warship has drawn strong criticism. At Estimates, Defence Minister John Faulkner denied the war games and people to people contacts involving a defence attache undermined international diplomatic action against Burma. "The ADF does not hold bilateral exercises with the Burmese armed forces. Occasionally, we participate in multi-lateral activities to which Burma has been invited," Mr Faulkner said.
RELATED COVERAGE
US passport is no protection from Rangoon goons
The Australian, 29 Dec 2009
Threat of attack raises border tension
The Australian, 2 Sep 2009
Rudd seeks to provoke Burmese junta
The Australian, 11 Aug 2009
Burma's deadly course
The Australian, 5 Aug 2009
Smith alert on Burma nuke claim
The Australian, 2 Aug 2009
But Canberra's policy appears at odds with that adopted by the US military whose government has been a staunch critic of Rangoon and its supporters.
A senior commander with the US 7th Fleet told The Australian yesterday it was highly unlikely any US warships would get involved in naval exercises in which Burmese military vessels were also taking part.
Across the Tasman, a spokesman for New Zealand's Foreign Minister Murray McCully said UN sanctions against Burma were taken seriously by Wellington and contact with Burmese junta officials was minimal.
Federal Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop said the Navy's decision to send the patrol boat undermined the Government's credibility on Burma and its sanctions regime.
"The Labor Party have in the past condemned Burma as one of the most repressive regimes in the world -- they've deemed it a rogue state," Ms Bishop said.
"Are they suggesting we now undertake military exercises with North Korea or other rogue states like Iran."
"It does have the potential to seriously undermine the international position that we have taken publicly for some time," Ms Bishop said.
University of Canberra's Burma expert, Professor Monique Skidmore, said the Rudd government could not have it both ways.
"It's one thing to say you are going to deliver humanitarian aid.
"So what possible benefit could there be to Australia participating in joint exercises with the Burmese military. We give them (junta) legitimacy every time we allow this to happen," she said.
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Compilation of current labour protest in Burma - 09 February 2010
cai yi က အလုပ္သမားေတြက ေန႔လည္ 12 နာရီမွာစက္႐ဳံမွျပန္ၾကပါတယ္။
ဘာမွလိုက္ေလ်ာေပးတာမရိွေသးပါဘူး။
ရဲကား (23) စီးကအဆင္သင္႔ရိွေနျပီး တိုင္းမူးလည္းအေျခအေနကိုလာျပီးေလ့လာပါတယ္။
အဲဒီစက္ရံုက အလုပ္သမေလးေတြကေတာ႔ လံုး၀မေက်နပ္ဘူး။
ဆက္လုပ္မယ္။
မနက္ျဖန္မွာအေျခအေနထူးႏိုင္တယ္လို႔ေျပာပါတယ္။မနက္ျဖန္မွာမလုပ္ခ်င္လို႔ထြက္မယ့္သူေတြကို ေလွ်ာ္ေၾကးအျပည္႔အ၀ေပးဖို႔ေတာင္းဆိုမယ္လို႔ဆိုပါတယ္။
အလုပ္သမားေတြကိုၾကည္႔ရတာ ယံုၾကည္မူ႔ျပည္႔၀ျပီးတက္ၾကြေနပါတယ္။
ဇု(3)ကပဲ oppel (အိုပယ္) အထည္ခ်ဴပ္မွာလည္း ျဖစ္ေနတာ(2)ရက္ရွိပါျပီ။
ဒီေန႔စက္ရံု နံရံေတြကို အလုပ္သမားေတြကအုတ္ခဲက်ဳိးေတြနဲ႔ ပစ္ေပါက္ခဲ့ၾကပါတယ္။
အလုပ္သမားေတြကေတာ႔ ေန႔လည္(3)နာရီမွာထြက္ခြာၾကပါတယ္။
မနက္ျဖန္ စက္ရုံသူေဌးလာမယ္ေျပာပါတယ္။
ဇံု(1)kinjo (အထည္ခ်ဳပ္) boss ( indo) မွာလည္း ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။
စက္မွႈဇံုတခုလံုး strike လုပ္ၾကဖို႔ ရိွၾကပါတယ္။
ဇုံ(၃)ထိပ္မွစပိတ္ထားျပီး ရဲေတြက ၀င္တဲ႔သူကို႐ိုက္မယ္ဆိုျပီးေျပာဆို ေနခဲ႔ပါတယ္။
အေႏွးယာဥ္သမားေတြ၊ေစ်းေရာင္းသူေတြကိုလည္းအတင္းအၾကပ္အျပင္ထြက္ခိုင္းခဲ႔လို႔မေက်မေနပ္ေတြလည္းျဖစ္ေနၾကပါတယ္။
caiyi စက္ရံု ဟာ အရင္တခါလိုက္ေလွ်ာေပးခဲ႔ရတဲ႔ စက္ရံုရဲ ႔မ်က္ေစာင္းထိုးမွာတည္ရိွပါတယ္။
ေပးပို႔သူ။ ။ကိုမင္းရန္ႏိုင္
Binder 1
Compilation of current labour protest in Burma,source from http://www.nandar.jp.pn/
ဆႏၵျပအလုပ္သား ၁၄၀၀ ခန႔္သည္ ေန႔လည္ ထမင္းစားၿပီးခ်ိန္မွွ စ၍ လုပ္ခလစာ တိုးျမႇင့္ေပးရန္ ေတာင္းဆိုေနျခင္း ျဖစ္ၿပီး စက္႐ုံမွာ ကိုရီးယားႏိုင္ငံသားက ရင္းႏွီးျမဳပ္ႏွံထားျခင္း ျဖစ္သည္ဟု သူက ေျပာသည္။
အလုပ္သမားမ်ား၏ ေတာင္းဆိုခ်က္မ်ားကို စက္ရုံမွ တာဝန္ရွိသူမ်ားႏွင့္ ယခုခ်ိန္ထိ ညွိႏိႈင္း၍ မရေသးေၾကာင္း သိရသည္။
လိႈင္သာယာ စက္မႈဇုန္မ်ားတြင္ ဇန္နဝါရီလအတြင္း အလုပ္သမားမ်ား လုပ္ခလစာႏွင့္ ခံစားခြင့္ ဆုိင္ရာ ဆႏၵျပပြဲ ၂ ရပ္ ျဖစ္ပြားခဲ့သည္။
လႈိင္သာယာ စက္မႈဇုန္ ၂ ရွိ ပုစြန္ အေအးခန္း စက္႐ံုတခုတြင္ အလုပ္သမား ၁၀၀ ခန္႔က ဇန္နဝါရီလ ၇ ရက္ေန႔တြင္ ဆႏၵျပခဲ့သလို၊ စက္မႈဇုန္ ၃ ရွိ Weng Hong Hung အထည္ခ်ဳပ္ စက္႐ုံတြင္ ဇန္နဝါရီလ ၁၇ ရက္ေန႔တြင္ အလုပ္သမားမ်ား လုပ္အားခ တိုးျမႇင့္ေတာင္းဆိုမႈ ျဖစ္ပြားခဲ့သည္။
http://www.mizzimaburmese.com/news/breaking-newsbrief/4755-2010-02-08-12-59-38.html
Monday, 8 February 2010
Ministerial Statement on Burma-
http://ping.fm/pMe6S
http://ping.fm/pMe6S
Source: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); Government of Australia
Date: 08 Feb 2010
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
STEPHEN SMITH
Mr Deputy Speaker.
I wish to update the House on developments in Burma.
On 4 January, Burma's Independence Day, Burmese Senior General Than Shwe announced that plans were under way to conduct elections in Burma this year.
Elections have long been foreshadowed under the Burmese military's so-called 'Roadmap to Democracy'.
If elections do take place, they will be the first in Burma in 20 years.
This year will, therefore, be an important one for Burma, and an important one for the international community's engagement with Burma.
Australia has long been appalled both by the Burmese military's suppression of the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people and by its disrespect for their human rights.
It is worthwhile recalling some important events in this longstanding suppression.
A military regime, in some form, has ruled Burma since 1962, nearly 50 years.
We recall the bloody put down of pro-democracy protests in 1988, just over 20 years ago.
Since 1988 Australia has had in place visa restrictions against senior members of the Burmese regime and their associates and supporters.
Following the failure to implement the outcome of the 1990 elections, in 1991 Australia introduced a ban on defence exports to Burma.
This is a ban on the export to Burma of controlled goods as listed on the Defence and Strategic Goods List.
In October 2007, financial sanctions were introduced in response to the violent crackdown on democracy protesters.
These various sanctions - travel sanctions, defence sanctions and financial sanctions - have the common purpose of exerting pressure on Burma's military regime.
At the same time, Australia has recognised that engaging the Burmese authorities serves important national, regional and international interests.
We live in the same region. Through regional forums like the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Human Trafficking and Transnational Crime, Australia has had the opportunity to engage Burma on challenges like counter-narcotics, trafficking in people, disaster relief and pandemic disease.
As well, Australia has for many years sought to help the Burmese people through a program of humanitarian assistance targeting the most vulnerable.
This program, now worth nearly $30 million in 2009-10, assists with fighting infectious diseases such as avian influenza, HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis; provides food aid and agricultural expertise to alleviate rural poverty; protects displaced people; and supports children to attend and remain in primary school.
ASEAN, through its humanitarian work in Burma after Cyclone Nargis, has been vital in facilitating assistance from Australia and members of the international community to the Burmese people.
Common membership of regional organisations also allows us at Ministerial level to directly advocate democratic reform and national reconciliation - as I did when I met my counterpart Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win during the ASEAN-related meetings in Thailand in July 2009.
Mr Deputy Speaker.
On 12 August 2009 I addressed the House on Burma after Aung San Suu Kyi's conviction on spurious charges, leading to her ongoing house arrest.
I set out then that Aung San Suu Kyi's sentence effectively removed the prospect of her participation in any proposed 2010 elections and would detract from the credibility of those elections.
Since that time, there have been a number of important developments both within Burma and in the international community's approach to Burma.
On 17 September 2009 the Burmese authorities released 128 political prisoners in an amnesty. This was a welcome, tentative step in the right direction.
Repression however continues.
On 31 December, 15 activists were sentenced to up to 71 years imprisonment each. There regrettably remain close to 2000 political prisoners in Burma, including Aung San Suu Kyi.
Australia again calls on Burma's authorities to release them and allow them to participate fully and freely in the upcoming elections.
In September 2009, in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, I joined ten other Foreign Ministers and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a Ministerial-level meeting of the Secretary-General's Group of Friends of Myanmar.
The participation in this meeting was evidence both of the international community's desire to see progress in Burma and of its willingness to both work together and with the Secretary General towards this end.
At the meeting, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon identified three areas for future unity of purpose and action:
First, to urge Burma to work with the United Nations to ensure an inclusive process of dialogue and create the conditions for credible elections.
Second, to uphold the role of the United Nations in Burma.
And third, to signal the international community's willingness to help the people of Burma, but noting that Burma's military regime needed to respond to international concerns in order for this to occur.
My visit to New York for the General Assembly coincided with the announcement of the United States policy review on Burma.
The United States Administration concluded that a sanctions-only policy to isolate Burma's military has not worked and that future US policy would combine engagement, appropriate sanctions and humanitarian assistance.
US Secretary of State Clinton said that any debate that pits sanctions against engagement created a false choice, and that the international community would need to employ both of these tools.
Australia has welcomed this approach, as has the international community generally.
As to developments within Burma, on 25 September 2009 Aung San Suu Kyi wrote to Senior General Than Shwe offering to work with the Burmese authorities on the withdrawal of international sanctions, and asking to meet representatives of the European Union, the United States and Australia.
The fact that Australia was one of these three was significant and reflects the longstanding interest Australians have in Burma.
The authorities agreed to this request.
On 9 October 2009 Australia's Chargé d'Affaires, together with the UK Ambassador and the US Chargé d'Affaires, met Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon.
The meeting was the first opportunity for a substantive discussion between an Australian representative and Aung San Suu Kyi since February 2003.
Australia's Chargé conveyed a message from the Prime Minister which expressed the support of the Australian Government and the people of Australia for Aung San Suu Kyi and her struggle for democracy in Burma.
This was warmly welcomed by Aung San Suu Kyi.
Australia welcomed the subsequent visit to Burma in early November by United States Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and the meetings he held with the Burmese authorities, with Aung San Suu Kyi and with representatives of a number of ethnic minorities.
Aung San Suu Kyi wrote further to Senior General Than Shwe on 11 November 2009 requesting contact with her party's Central Executive Committee.
In response to her request, she was permitted to meet three of the Central Executive Committee's elders, including Chairman U Aung Shwe, on 16 December 2009.
Australia hopes that a meeting with the full Executive will take place soon.
This is the first substantial contact which Aung San Suu Kyi has had with the leadership of the National League for Democracy since 2007, and is warmly welcomed by the Australian Government as essential to democratic and political progress in Burma.
Australia hopes these initial engagements between Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese authorities and the international community are the beginning of a process of genuine dialogue.
Elections
Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Burmese authorities have embarked on the so-called 'Roadmap to Democracy', a strictly controlled process of potential political change.
It was a matter of great regret that they pushed ahead with a constitutional referendum, the fourth step in their Roadmap, in the midst of the disaster of Cyclone Nargis in May 2008.
That referendum was a regrettable sham.
Not surprisingly, political parties in Burma, including the National League for Democracy, and parties representing ethnic groups, are carefully considering whether to participate in the 2010 elections.
Burma's authorities have an opportunity to engage the people, to ensure the full and free participation in the elections of the Burmese opposition, nascent political parties, and ethnic groups.
For Burma's longer-term stability and security, the coming political process needs to address the concerns of the country's diverse ethnic minority groups.
While, of course, given the history of these matters, there are long standing reservations, Australia will not pre-judge the process and the outcome of these elections.
Australia urges Burma's authorities to seize this opportunity to genuinely move their country forward.
Development Assistance
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia has long provided humanitarian assistance to Burma.
In the 2009-10 Budget, the Government allocated nearly $30 million in humanitarian assistance, a significant increase in base funding over the previous year.
This will help address the pressing needs of the Burmese people.
Half of Burma's almost 50 million people live in extreme poverty.
Child mortality rates are among the highest in the world.
Decades of military rule have eroded civil society and civilian institutions.
Skills have been lost and infrastructure has deteriorated.
At some stage into the future, Burma will have a civilian Government, which will face great challenges.
At some stage into the future, the regional and international community will be asked to help in the rebuilding of Burma's economic and social structures.
Australia's view therefore is that the international community help prepare Burma for the future.
Burma's capacity cannot be allowed to completely atrophy to the ultimate disadvantage and cost of its people.
The international community needs to start the rebuilding now.
This is not a reward for Burma's military, but a recognition of the immense task faced by current and future generations of Burmese.
At around $4 per head per annum, international aid to Burma is less than a tenth of that received by Cambodia and a sixteenth of that received by Laos.
Australia will accordingly increase its assistance to Burma over the next three years to around $50 million annually, a 40 per cent increase.
Alleviating humanitarian needs will remain an important goal and focus of this expenditure.
But the Government has decided that Australia's program will also include capacity building elements, addressing the long-term challenges facing the Burmese people.
This will involve carefully targeted interaction in areas of great need like health, education and agriculture.
Our assistance will continue to be delivered in partnership with international organisations, such as UN agencies, ASEAN, other donor nations and non-government organisations.
We will expand existing initiatives in basic health care, including child and maternal health. We will work to improve the delivery of basic health services by equipping health clinics, training nurses, health care staff and administrators and providing better community health education and information.
At the village level, we will assist primary health care workers, including midwives, with critical training and medical supplies to help arrest the decline in health outcomes for vulnerable and isolated people.
We will continue to support the delivery of vital treatment, prevention and screening services for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, including through the Three Diseases Fund supported by Australia, the European Commission, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Fund aims to reduce these three diseases in Burma.
We will also address critical water, sanitation and hygiene needs through:
the construction and rehabilitation of ponds and wells;
building latrines for community schools and rural health centres; and
working to provide equitable access to clean water.
In 2008-09 Australia's assistance contributed to the basic education of over 400,000 children in Burma. We will increase our support to enable more poor and disadvantaged children to go to primary school.
Australian assistance will improve teaching and mentoring skills, both in the classroom and at home. Working closely with United Nations agencies, Non Government Organisations (NGOs) and other donors, we will support training programs for early childhood development workers, primary teachers and township education officials.
We will also continue to support vulnerable communities in the Irrawaddy Delta to restore their crop and fishing businesses, and in other areas of protracted need such as northern Rakhine State where the situation of the Rohingyas is very dire.
Australia will provide $20 million over the next four years to assist poor communities in Burma to:
improve access to credit, seeds, and tools;
provide training in small enterprise;
help farmers diversify their production and gain access to markets.
I have also asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and AusAID to explore a scholarship scheme for Burma.
Australia will liaise with partners such as the European Union, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of whom have scholarship schemes for Burma, to learn from their experience.
It is proposed that a new scholarship scheme will target Burmese with the potential to build civil society and improve service delivery, including in health, education and agriculture.
As a start, 10 postgraduate scholarships and short term professional development placements will be made available, beginning in 2010-11.
We will work with the UN to carefully identify suitable candidates.
This assistance will be in addition to Australia's significant contribution for relief and recovery efforts following Cyclone Nargis in May 2008.
Australia's post-Nargis assistance continues to be delivered through effective and trusted aid partners such as the United Nations and Australian NGOs and includes:
agricultural inputs to help farmers restore their crops and livestock;
helping fishermen by providing nets and repairing boats;
repairing over 1,200 damaged schools and providing books and materials for over 360,000 children;
reducing disease risk by constructing 50,000 latrines and providing one million mosquito nets; and
supplies and shelter for vulnerable communities.
Burma is a difficult operating environment, but the collective experience in Burma over many years shows we can deliver assistance effectively to improve the lives of ordinary Burmese without benefiting the military authorities.
Sanctions
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia urges Burma's military to respond positively to Aung San Suu Kyi's recent offer to work towards the lifting of international sanctions.
Such a positive response would help make meaningful progress towards democratic reform, respect for human rights, and national dialogue and reconciliation.
Until we see significant change from Burma's authorities, the Australian Government will maintain a policy of targeted financial sanctions.
We agree with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's observation that to lift sanctions now would send the wrong signal.
However, an expansion of sanctions at this time would send a confusing signal.
In view of the nascent discussions between the authorities and Aung San Suu Kyi, I have decided that sanctions should not be expanded at this time.
As a result, the sanctions list I announced in October 2008 will remain in operation for the present.
Diplomacy
Mr Speaker.
I earlier referred to my discussions on Burma in New York in September 2009.
These discussions again revealed the region's and the international community's great frustration with the Burmese authorities' treatment of the political opposition, their self-imposed isolation, and the circumstances of the Burmese people.
My discussions also revealed that the international community is increasingly prepared to draw on a wide range of diplomatic tools, including both sanctions and engagement, to press for change in Burma.
Neither Australia nor the international community should however have any illusions that progress in Burma will be quick or easy.
Australia will continue to work closely with ASEAN and its member countries, including by continuing to support ASEAN's much-needed humanitarian efforts in Burma.
We will cooperate closely with the United States as it pursues greater engagement with Burma, and with other major donors like the United Kingdom, to ensure our combined assistance does the greatest amount of good for the Burmese people.
We will also continue to support the work of the United Nations and the Secretary General.
We endorse UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's call for the international community to support UN efforts to promote respect for human rights, inclusive political dialogue and development in Burma.
Australia strongly supported the role of Ibrahim Gambari as the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative on Burma. His term concluded at the beginning of this year, and we look forward to working closely with his successor.
Conclusion
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia and the international community stand ready to assist Burma.
But it is not a one way street.
Australia urges the Burmese authorities to respond in good faith both to international engagement and to Aung San Suu Kyi's recent approach to it on sanctions and on dialogue.
In moving towards dialogue and genuine national reconciliation, Burma's authorities can end their isolation.
Australia has always considered the Burmese people our friends.
When Cyclone Nargis struck, Australia responded generously, despite our political differences with the Burmese authorities.
That was the right decision then, and it is the right decision now, together with the international community, to do more for the long-term future of Burma's people.
Date: 08 Feb 2010
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
STEPHEN SMITH
Mr Deputy Speaker.
I wish to update the House on developments in Burma.
On 4 January, Burma's Independence Day, Burmese Senior General Than Shwe announced that plans were under way to conduct elections in Burma this year.
Elections have long been foreshadowed under the Burmese military's so-called 'Roadmap to Democracy'.
If elections do take place, they will be the first in Burma in 20 years.
This year will, therefore, be an important one for Burma, and an important one for the international community's engagement with Burma.
Australia has long been appalled both by the Burmese military's suppression of the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people and by its disrespect for their human rights.
It is worthwhile recalling some important events in this longstanding suppression.
A military regime, in some form, has ruled Burma since 1962, nearly 50 years.
We recall the bloody put down of pro-democracy protests in 1988, just over 20 years ago.
Since 1988 Australia has had in place visa restrictions against senior members of the Burmese regime and their associates and supporters.
Following the failure to implement the outcome of the 1990 elections, in 1991 Australia introduced a ban on defence exports to Burma.
This is a ban on the export to Burma of controlled goods as listed on the Defence and Strategic Goods List.
In October 2007, financial sanctions were introduced in response to the violent crackdown on democracy protesters.
These various sanctions - travel sanctions, defence sanctions and financial sanctions - have the common purpose of exerting pressure on Burma's military regime.
At the same time, Australia has recognised that engaging the Burmese authorities serves important national, regional and international interests.
We live in the same region. Through regional forums like the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Human Trafficking and Transnational Crime, Australia has had the opportunity to engage Burma on challenges like counter-narcotics, trafficking in people, disaster relief and pandemic disease.
As well, Australia has for many years sought to help the Burmese people through a program of humanitarian assistance targeting the most vulnerable.
This program, now worth nearly $30 million in 2009-10, assists with fighting infectious diseases such as avian influenza, HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis; provides food aid and agricultural expertise to alleviate rural poverty; protects displaced people; and supports children to attend and remain in primary school.
ASEAN, through its humanitarian work in Burma after Cyclone Nargis, has been vital in facilitating assistance from Australia and members of the international community to the Burmese people.
Common membership of regional organisations also allows us at Ministerial level to directly advocate democratic reform and national reconciliation - as I did when I met my counterpart Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win during the ASEAN-related meetings in Thailand in July 2009.
Mr Deputy Speaker.
On 12 August 2009 I addressed the House on Burma after Aung San Suu Kyi's conviction on spurious charges, leading to her ongoing house arrest.
I set out then that Aung San Suu Kyi's sentence effectively removed the prospect of her participation in any proposed 2010 elections and would detract from the credibility of those elections.
Since that time, there have been a number of important developments both within Burma and in the international community's approach to Burma.
On 17 September 2009 the Burmese authorities released 128 political prisoners in an amnesty. This was a welcome, tentative step in the right direction.
Repression however continues.
On 31 December, 15 activists were sentenced to up to 71 years imprisonment each. There regrettably remain close to 2000 political prisoners in Burma, including Aung San Suu Kyi.
Australia again calls on Burma's authorities to release them and allow them to participate fully and freely in the upcoming elections.
In September 2009, in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, I joined ten other Foreign Ministers and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a Ministerial-level meeting of the Secretary-General's Group of Friends of Myanmar.
The participation in this meeting was evidence both of the international community's desire to see progress in Burma and of its willingness to both work together and with the Secretary General towards this end.
At the meeting, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon identified three areas for future unity of purpose and action:
First, to urge Burma to work with the United Nations to ensure an inclusive process of dialogue and create the conditions for credible elections.
Second, to uphold the role of the United Nations in Burma.
And third, to signal the international community's willingness to help the people of Burma, but noting that Burma's military regime needed to respond to international concerns in order for this to occur.
My visit to New York for the General Assembly coincided with the announcement of the United States policy review on Burma.
The United States Administration concluded that a sanctions-only policy to isolate Burma's military has not worked and that future US policy would combine engagement, appropriate sanctions and humanitarian assistance.
US Secretary of State Clinton said that any debate that pits sanctions against engagement created a false choice, and that the international community would need to employ both of these tools.
Australia has welcomed this approach, as has the international community generally.
As to developments within Burma, on 25 September 2009 Aung San Suu Kyi wrote to Senior General Than Shwe offering to work with the Burmese authorities on the withdrawal of international sanctions, and asking to meet representatives of the European Union, the United States and Australia.
The fact that Australia was one of these three was significant and reflects the longstanding interest Australians have in Burma.
The authorities agreed to this request.
On 9 October 2009 Australia's Chargé d'Affaires, together with the UK Ambassador and the US Chargé d'Affaires, met Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon.
The meeting was the first opportunity for a substantive discussion between an Australian representative and Aung San Suu Kyi since February 2003.
Australia's Chargé conveyed a message from the Prime Minister which expressed the support of the Australian Government and the people of Australia for Aung San Suu Kyi and her struggle for democracy in Burma.
This was warmly welcomed by Aung San Suu Kyi.
Australia welcomed the subsequent visit to Burma in early November by United States Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and the meetings he held with the Burmese authorities, with Aung San Suu Kyi and with representatives of a number of ethnic minorities.
Aung San Suu Kyi wrote further to Senior General Than Shwe on 11 November 2009 requesting contact with her party's Central Executive Committee.
In response to her request, she was permitted to meet three of the Central Executive Committee's elders, including Chairman U Aung Shwe, on 16 December 2009.
Australia hopes that a meeting with the full Executive will take place soon.
This is the first substantial contact which Aung San Suu Kyi has had with the leadership of the National League for Democracy since 2007, and is warmly welcomed by the Australian Government as essential to democratic and political progress in Burma.
Australia hopes these initial engagements between Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese authorities and the international community are the beginning of a process of genuine dialogue.
Elections
Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Burmese authorities have embarked on the so-called 'Roadmap to Democracy', a strictly controlled process of potential political change.
It was a matter of great regret that they pushed ahead with a constitutional referendum, the fourth step in their Roadmap, in the midst of the disaster of Cyclone Nargis in May 2008.
That referendum was a regrettable sham.
Not surprisingly, political parties in Burma, including the National League for Democracy, and parties representing ethnic groups, are carefully considering whether to participate in the 2010 elections.
Burma's authorities have an opportunity to engage the people, to ensure the full and free participation in the elections of the Burmese opposition, nascent political parties, and ethnic groups.
For Burma's longer-term stability and security, the coming political process needs to address the concerns of the country's diverse ethnic minority groups.
While, of course, given the history of these matters, there are long standing reservations, Australia will not pre-judge the process and the outcome of these elections.
Australia urges Burma's authorities to seize this opportunity to genuinely move their country forward.
Development Assistance
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia has long provided humanitarian assistance to Burma.
In the 2009-10 Budget, the Government allocated nearly $30 million in humanitarian assistance, a significant increase in base funding over the previous year.
This will help address the pressing needs of the Burmese people.
Half of Burma's almost 50 million people live in extreme poverty.
Child mortality rates are among the highest in the world.
Decades of military rule have eroded civil society and civilian institutions.
Skills have been lost and infrastructure has deteriorated.
At some stage into the future, Burma will have a civilian Government, which will face great challenges.
At some stage into the future, the regional and international community will be asked to help in the rebuilding of Burma's economic and social structures.
Australia's view therefore is that the international community help prepare Burma for the future.
Burma's capacity cannot be allowed to completely atrophy to the ultimate disadvantage and cost of its people.
The international community needs to start the rebuilding now.
This is not a reward for Burma's military, but a recognition of the immense task faced by current and future generations of Burmese.
At around $4 per head per annum, international aid to Burma is less than a tenth of that received by Cambodia and a sixteenth of that received by Laos.
Australia will accordingly increase its assistance to Burma over the next three years to around $50 million annually, a 40 per cent increase.
Alleviating humanitarian needs will remain an important goal and focus of this expenditure.
But the Government has decided that Australia's program will also include capacity building elements, addressing the long-term challenges facing the Burmese people.
This will involve carefully targeted interaction in areas of great need like health, education and agriculture.
Our assistance will continue to be delivered in partnership with international organisations, such as UN agencies, ASEAN, other donor nations and non-government organisations.
We will expand existing initiatives in basic health care, including child and maternal health. We will work to improve the delivery of basic health services by equipping health clinics, training nurses, health care staff and administrators and providing better community health education and information.
At the village level, we will assist primary health care workers, including midwives, with critical training and medical supplies to help arrest the decline in health outcomes for vulnerable and isolated people.
We will continue to support the delivery of vital treatment, prevention and screening services for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, including through the Three Diseases Fund supported by Australia, the European Commission, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Fund aims to reduce these three diseases in Burma.
We will also address critical water, sanitation and hygiene needs through:
the construction and rehabilitation of ponds and wells;
building latrines for community schools and rural health centres; and
working to provide equitable access to clean water.
In 2008-09 Australia's assistance contributed to the basic education of over 400,000 children in Burma. We will increase our support to enable more poor and disadvantaged children to go to primary school.
Australian assistance will improve teaching and mentoring skills, both in the classroom and at home. Working closely with United Nations agencies, Non Government Organisations (NGOs) and other donors, we will support training programs for early childhood development workers, primary teachers and township education officials.
We will also continue to support vulnerable communities in the Irrawaddy Delta to restore their crop and fishing businesses, and in other areas of protracted need such as northern Rakhine State where the situation of the Rohingyas is very dire.
Australia will provide $20 million over the next four years to assist poor communities in Burma to:
improve access to credit, seeds, and tools;
provide training in small enterprise;
help farmers diversify their production and gain access to markets.
I have also asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and AusAID to explore a scholarship scheme for Burma.
Australia will liaise with partners such as the European Union, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of whom have scholarship schemes for Burma, to learn from their experience.
It is proposed that a new scholarship scheme will target Burmese with the potential to build civil society and improve service delivery, including in health, education and agriculture.
As a start, 10 postgraduate scholarships and short term professional development placements will be made available, beginning in 2010-11.
We will work with the UN to carefully identify suitable candidates.
This assistance will be in addition to Australia's significant contribution for relief and recovery efforts following Cyclone Nargis in May 2008.
Australia's post-Nargis assistance continues to be delivered through effective and trusted aid partners such as the United Nations and Australian NGOs and includes:
agricultural inputs to help farmers restore their crops and livestock;
helping fishermen by providing nets and repairing boats;
repairing over 1,200 damaged schools and providing books and materials for over 360,000 children;
reducing disease risk by constructing 50,000 latrines and providing one million mosquito nets; and
supplies and shelter for vulnerable communities.
Burma is a difficult operating environment, but the collective experience in Burma over many years shows we can deliver assistance effectively to improve the lives of ordinary Burmese without benefiting the military authorities.
Sanctions
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia urges Burma's military to respond positively to Aung San Suu Kyi's recent offer to work towards the lifting of international sanctions.
Such a positive response would help make meaningful progress towards democratic reform, respect for human rights, and national dialogue and reconciliation.
Until we see significant change from Burma's authorities, the Australian Government will maintain a policy of targeted financial sanctions.
We agree with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's observation that to lift sanctions now would send the wrong signal.
However, an expansion of sanctions at this time would send a confusing signal.
In view of the nascent discussions between the authorities and Aung San Suu Kyi, I have decided that sanctions should not be expanded at this time.
As a result, the sanctions list I announced in October 2008 will remain in operation for the present.
Diplomacy
Mr Speaker.
I earlier referred to my discussions on Burma in New York in September 2009.
These discussions again revealed the region's and the international community's great frustration with the Burmese authorities' treatment of the political opposition, their self-imposed isolation, and the circumstances of the Burmese people.
My discussions also revealed that the international community is increasingly prepared to draw on a wide range of diplomatic tools, including both sanctions and engagement, to press for change in Burma.
Neither Australia nor the international community should however have any illusions that progress in Burma will be quick or easy.
Australia will continue to work closely with ASEAN and its member countries, including by continuing to support ASEAN's much-needed humanitarian efforts in Burma.
We will cooperate closely with the United States as it pursues greater engagement with Burma, and with other major donors like the United Kingdom, to ensure our combined assistance does the greatest amount of good for the Burmese people.
We will also continue to support the work of the United Nations and the Secretary General.
We endorse UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's call for the international community to support UN efforts to promote respect for human rights, inclusive political dialogue and development in Burma.
Australia strongly supported the role of Ibrahim Gambari as the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative on Burma. His term concluded at the beginning of this year, and we look forward to working closely with his successor.
Conclusion
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia and the international community stand ready to assist Burma.
But it is not a one way street.
Australia urges the Burmese authorities to respond in good faith both to international engagement and to Aung San Suu Kyi's recent approach to it on sanctions and on dialogue.
In moving towards dialogue and genuine national reconciliation, Burma's authorities can end their isolation.
Australia has always considered the Burmese people our friends.
When Cyclone Nargis struck, Australia responded generously, despite our political differences with the Burmese authorities.
That was the right decision then, and it is the right decision now, together with the international community, to do more for the long-term future of Burma's people.
Mock Tribunal to Highlight Crimes against Women in Burma
8 February 2010: An event planned for March 2nd in New York will be highlighting state-organized crimes against women in Burma. Deliberately planned to coincide with the meeting of United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York, the event is aimed at raising international awareness of the plight of women, as well as, the ongoing crises in Burma.
Spearheaded by the Nobel Women’s Initiative in conjunction with the Women League of Burma (WLB), the event will showcase a mock trial in which members of Burma’s ruling military regime will be made to answer for their crimes against women in Burma.
A mock trial, the “International Tribunal on Crimes against Women of Burma” will be performed by eminent judges, including the Nobel laureates, and women representatives from Burma who will provide testimonies from personal experiences of having lived through a range of human rights abuses under the military regime.
Designed to support existing calls for an indictment of Burma’s ruling military regime for War Crimes and Crime against Humanity under the auspices of the UN Security Council, the mock trial will feature expert testimonies, as well as, real time accounts of women victims on how Burma’s ruling military regime and its security apparatus systematically committed crimes against women.
The mock Tribunal will also hear witness testimonies via video from Burmese women currently sheltering in neighboring countries on a range of state-orchestrated violations, including rape, trafficking, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced labor, portering and forced relocation.
The Nobel Women’s Initiative is an organization founded by five Nobel Peace laureates in 2006 to advance the cause of women around the world. Detained Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace laureate, is an honorary member of the group.
The planned event adds momentum to existing international efforts to have the United Nations Security Council establish a special Commission of Inquiry to investigate serious breach of human rights in Burma.
An independent investigation by the Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic concluded in May last year that based on the UN own documents, there might be enough evidence to prosecute Burma’s military regime for War Crimes and Crime against Humanity under international law.
Parliamentarians from several countries have since signed petitions calling for an international investigation into state-sanctioned crimes in Burma.
Chinland Guardian
Spearheaded by the Nobel Women’s Initiative in conjunction with the Women League of Burma (WLB), the event will showcase a mock trial in which members of Burma’s ruling military regime will be made to answer for their crimes against women in Burma.
A mock trial, the “International Tribunal on Crimes against Women of Burma” will be performed by eminent judges, including the Nobel laureates, and women representatives from Burma who will provide testimonies from personal experiences of having lived through a range of human rights abuses under the military regime.
Designed to support existing calls for an indictment of Burma’s ruling military regime for War Crimes and Crime against Humanity under the auspices of the UN Security Council, the mock trial will feature expert testimonies, as well as, real time accounts of women victims on how Burma’s ruling military regime and its security apparatus systematically committed crimes against women.
The mock Tribunal will also hear witness testimonies via video from Burmese women currently sheltering in neighboring countries on a range of state-orchestrated violations, including rape, trafficking, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced labor, portering and forced relocation.
The Nobel Women’s Initiative is an organization founded by five Nobel Peace laureates in 2006 to advance the cause of women around the world. Detained Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace laureate, is an honorary member of the group.
The planned event adds momentum to existing international efforts to have the United Nations Security Council establish a special Commission of Inquiry to investigate serious breach of human rights in Burma.
An independent investigation by the Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic concluded in May last year that based on the UN own documents, there might be enough evidence to prosecute Burma’s military regime for War Crimes and Crime against Humanity under international law.
Parliamentarians from several countries have since signed petitions calling for an international investigation into state-sanctioned crimes in Burma.
Chinland Guardian
Democracy decline: Crying for democracy*
Democracy decline: Crying for democracy*
February 8, 2010
Given that democracy is unlikely to advance, these days, through the
military of economic preponderance of the West, its best hope lies in
winning a genuinely open debate. In other words, wavering countries, and
sceptical societies, must be convinced that political freedom works best.
So how does the case in defence of democracy stand up these days? As many a
philosopher has noted, the strongest points to be made in favor of a free
political contest are negative. Democracy may not yield perfect policies,
but it ought to guard against all manner of ills, ranging from outright
tyranny (towards which a “mild” authoritarian can always slide) to larceny
at the public expense.
Transparency International, a corruption watchdog, says that all but two of
the 30 least corrupt countries in the world are democracies (the exceptions
are Singapore and Hong Kong, and the are considered semi-democratic).
Autocracies tend to occupy higher rankings on the corruption scale and it is
easy to see why. Entrenched political elites, untroubled by free and fair
elections, can get away more easily with stuffing their pockets. And
strongmen often try to maintain their hold on power by relying on public
funds to reward their supporters and to buy off their enemies, leading to a
huge misallocation of resources.
Yet it is easy to find corrupt democracies – indeed, in a ramshackle place
like Afghanistan elections sometimes seem to make things worse. Or take the
biggest of the ex-Soviet republics. Russia is authoritarian and has a
massive problem with corruption; Ukraine is more democratic – the
forthcoming elections are a genuine contest for power, with uncertain
results – but it too has quite a big corruption problem.
What about the argument that economic development, at least in its early
stages, is best pursued under a benign despot? Lee Kuan Yew, an ex-prime
minister of Singapore, once asserted that democracy leads to “disorderly
conduct”, disrupting material progress. But there is no evidence that
autocracies, on average, grow faster than democracies.
For every economicall successful East Asian (former) autocracy like Taiwan
or South Koera, there is an Egypt or a Cameroon (or indeed a North Korea or
a Myanmar) which is both harsh and sluggish.
The link between political systems and growth is hard to establish. Yet
there is some evidence that, on average, democracies do better. A study by
Morton Halperin, Joseph Siegle and Michael Weinstein for the Council of
Foreign Relations (CFR), using World Bank data between 1960 and 2001, found
that the average annual economic growth rate was 2.3% for democracies and
1.6% for autocracies.
Believers in democracy as an engine of progress often make the point that a
climate of freedom is most needed in a knowledge-based economy, where
independent thinking and innovation are vital. It is surely no accident that
every economy in the top 25 of the Global Innovation Index is a democracy,
except semi-democratic Singapore and Hong Kong.
What about the argument that autocracy creates a modicum of stability
without which growth is impossible? In fact, it is not evident that
authoritarian countries are more stable than democracies. Quite the
contrary. Although democratic politicians spend a lot of time vacillating,
arguing and being loud and disagreeable, this can reinforce stability in the
medium term; it allows the interests and viewpoints of more people to be
heard before action is taken.
On the State Fragility Index, which is produced annually by George Mason
University and studies variables such as “political effectiveness” and
security, democracies tend to do much better than autocracies. Tito’s
Yugoslavia was stable, as was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – but once the
straitjacket that held their systems together came off, the result of a
release of pent-up pressure, and a golden opportunity for demagogues bent on
mayhem.
At the very least, a culture of compromise – coupled with greater
accountability and limits on state power – means that democracies are better
able to avoid castastrophic mistakes, or criminal cruelty. Bloody nightmares
that cost tens of millions of lives, like China’s Great Leap Forward or the
Soviet Union’s forced collectivisation programme, were made possible by the
concentration of power in a small group of people who faced no restraint.
Liberal democratic governments can make all manner of blunders, but they are
less likely to commit mass murder. Amartya Sen, a Nobel prize-winning
economist, has famously argued that no country with a free press and fair
elections has ever had a large famine. And research done by CFR scholars
found that poor autocracies were at least twice as likely as democracies to
suffer an economic disaster (defined as a decline of 10% or more in GDP in a
year).
With no noisy legislatures or robust courts to hold things up, autocracies
may be faster and bolder. The are also more accident-prone.
For all its frustrations, open and accountable government tends in the long
run to produce better policies. This is because no group of mandarins, no
matter how enlightened or well-meaning, can claim to be sure of what is best
for a complex society.
Autocracies tend to be too heavy at the top; although decisions may be more
easily taken, the ethos of autocracies – their secrecy and paranoia – makes
it harder for alternative views to emerge. Above all, elections make
transfer of power legitimate and smooth.
Tyrannies may look stable under one strongman; but they can slide into
instability, even bloody chaos, if a transitioni goes awry. Free elections
also mean that policy mistakes, even bad ones, are more quickly corrected.
Fresh ideas can be brought in and politicians thrown out before they grow
arrogant.
Source: The Economist
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/02/08/democracy-decline-crying-for-democracy/
February 8, 2010
Given that democracy is unlikely to advance, these days, through the
military of economic preponderance of the West, its best hope lies in
winning a genuinely open debate. In other words, wavering countries, and
sceptical societies, must be convinced that political freedom works best.
So how does the case in defence of democracy stand up these days? As many a
philosopher has noted, the strongest points to be made in favor of a free
political contest are negative. Democracy may not yield perfect policies,
but it ought to guard against all manner of ills, ranging from outright
tyranny (towards which a “mild” authoritarian can always slide) to larceny
at the public expense.
Transparency International, a corruption watchdog, says that all but two of
the 30 least corrupt countries in the world are democracies (the exceptions
are Singapore and Hong Kong, and the are considered semi-democratic).
Autocracies tend to occupy higher rankings on the corruption scale and it is
easy to see why. Entrenched political elites, untroubled by free and fair
elections, can get away more easily with stuffing their pockets. And
strongmen often try to maintain their hold on power by relying on public
funds to reward their supporters and to buy off their enemies, leading to a
huge misallocation of resources.
Yet it is easy to find corrupt democracies – indeed, in a ramshackle place
like Afghanistan elections sometimes seem to make things worse. Or take the
biggest of the ex-Soviet republics. Russia is authoritarian and has a
massive problem with corruption; Ukraine is more democratic – the
forthcoming elections are a genuine contest for power, with uncertain
results – but it too has quite a big corruption problem.
What about the argument that economic development, at least in its early
stages, is best pursued under a benign despot? Lee Kuan Yew, an ex-prime
minister of Singapore, once asserted that democracy leads to “disorderly
conduct”, disrupting material progress. But there is no evidence that
autocracies, on average, grow faster than democracies.
For every economicall successful East Asian (former) autocracy like Taiwan
or South Koera, there is an Egypt or a Cameroon (or indeed a North Korea or
a Myanmar) which is both harsh and sluggish.
The link between political systems and growth is hard to establish. Yet
there is some evidence that, on average, democracies do better. A study by
Morton Halperin, Joseph Siegle and Michael Weinstein for the Council of
Foreign Relations (CFR), using World Bank data between 1960 and 2001, found
that the average annual economic growth rate was 2.3% for democracies and
1.6% for autocracies.
Believers in democracy as an engine of progress often make the point that a
climate of freedom is most needed in a knowledge-based economy, where
independent thinking and innovation are vital. It is surely no accident that
every economy in the top 25 of the Global Innovation Index is a democracy,
except semi-democratic Singapore and Hong Kong.
What about the argument that autocracy creates a modicum of stability
without which growth is impossible? In fact, it is not evident that
authoritarian countries are more stable than democracies. Quite the
contrary. Although democratic politicians spend a lot of time vacillating,
arguing and being loud and disagreeable, this can reinforce stability in the
medium term; it allows the interests and viewpoints of more people to be
heard before action is taken.
On the State Fragility Index, which is produced annually by George Mason
University and studies variables such as “political effectiveness” and
security, democracies tend to do much better than autocracies. Tito’s
Yugoslavia was stable, as was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – but once the
straitjacket that held their systems together came off, the result of a
release of pent-up pressure, and a golden opportunity for demagogues bent on
mayhem.
At the very least, a culture of compromise – coupled with greater
accountability and limits on state power – means that democracies are better
able to avoid castastrophic mistakes, or criminal cruelty. Bloody nightmares
that cost tens of millions of lives, like China’s Great Leap Forward or the
Soviet Union’s forced collectivisation programme, were made possible by the
concentration of power in a small group of people who faced no restraint.
Liberal democratic governments can make all manner of blunders, but they are
less likely to commit mass murder. Amartya Sen, a Nobel prize-winning
economist, has famously argued that no country with a free press and fair
elections has ever had a large famine. And research done by CFR scholars
found that poor autocracies were at least twice as likely as democracies to
suffer an economic disaster (defined as a decline of 10% or more in GDP in a
year).
With no noisy legislatures or robust courts to hold things up, autocracies
may be faster and bolder. The are also more accident-prone.
For all its frustrations, open and accountable government tends in the long
run to produce better policies. This is because no group of mandarins, no
matter how enlightened or well-meaning, can claim to be sure of what is best
for a complex society.
Autocracies tend to be too heavy at the top; although decisions may be more
easily taken, the ethos of autocracies – their secrecy and paranoia – makes
it harder for alternative views to emerge. Above all, elections make
transfer of power legitimate and smooth.
Tyrannies may look stable under one strongman; but they can slide into
instability, even bloody chaos, if a transitioni goes awry. Free elections
also mean that policy mistakes, even bad ones, are more quickly corrected.
Fresh ideas can be brought in and politicians thrown out before they grow
arrogant.
Source: The Economist
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/02/08/democracy-decline-crying-for-democracy/
Nuke body baffled by junta move
BURMA'S secretive military rulers - suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapons program - want to join an Australian-led nuclear safety body.
The move comes amid calls for greater scrutiny of Burma's nuclear activities and its links with equally secretive and nuclear-armed North Korea.
Analysts say Burma's interest in joining the Asia/Pacific Safeguards Network, an international group chaired by Australia, could be a hint of tentative openness by the notoriously paranoid regime - or another smokescreen.
And while Australia may be sympathetic to Burma joining the network, other members of the 14-nation body remain deeply suspicious of its motives.
Burma is under international surveillance following widespread reports last year that it was secretly building a nuclear reactor as part of a North Korean-backed effort to build a nuclear bomb.
While Australia and other nations insist the reports are unconfirmed, the federal government has expressed concern that a nuclear-armed Burma would seriously threaten regional and international security.
Burma's interest in joining the safeguards network is revealed in a new report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a respected non-government group.
The network, initiated by Australia and launched last October, has yet to consider if Burma should be allowed in, the institute's report said.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade declined to say what Australia's attitude would be to the Burmese move, as it had not formally applied to join and decisions on membership were made by consensus.
''Australia will consider the question of Burma joining APSN, in consultation with other APSN members, if the matter arises,'' the spokeswoman said.
The Sunday Age understands at least one key member of the safeguards network - Japan, the target for North Korea's periodic nuclear sabre-rattling - is sceptical of Burma's intentions and could resist its entry to the group, due to hold its first formal meeting in Jakarta in April.
Members are Australia, Canada, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam and the US.
The network does not carry out inspections, but aims to promote nuclear safety by sharing information and co-operating in training and other areas.
An Australia-based Burma analyst, who asked not to be identified, said Burma's interest in joining the network added another puzzle to the mystery surrounding the regime's nuclear plans.
''It would seem curious that they're taking up this initiative to join up with a group like that, if they were in fact pursuing weapons of mass destruction,'' he said.
''It could be a smokescreen, there's always that. These guys are not beyond doing things of that nature, but it would seem a bit odd.''
David Albright, director of the Washington institute that revealed Burma's interest in joining the network, said he hoped Burma would be allowed to join.
''I would allow Burma in, so you can start meeting these people. They're not going to learn how to cheat in a group like this,'' Mr Albright told The Sunday Age.
''It makes sense to meet them, start to engage them, and start to educate them about what's needed. We need transparency, and one way is to get them to participate.''
The new ISIS report calls for greater international focus on Burma's nuclear activities.
While it says there is no concrete proof the regime is building secret reactors, there were ''sound reasons'' to suspect Burma of pursuing a strategy to make nuclear weapons.
http://ping.fm/FiooF
The move comes amid calls for greater scrutiny of Burma's nuclear activities and its links with equally secretive and nuclear-armed North Korea.
Analysts say Burma's interest in joining the Asia/Pacific Safeguards Network, an international group chaired by Australia, could be a hint of tentative openness by the notoriously paranoid regime - or another smokescreen.
And while Australia may be sympathetic to Burma joining the network, other members of the 14-nation body remain deeply suspicious of its motives.
Burma is under international surveillance following widespread reports last year that it was secretly building a nuclear reactor as part of a North Korean-backed effort to build a nuclear bomb.
While Australia and other nations insist the reports are unconfirmed, the federal government has expressed concern that a nuclear-armed Burma would seriously threaten regional and international security.
Burma's interest in joining the safeguards network is revealed in a new report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a respected non-government group.
The network, initiated by Australia and launched last October, has yet to consider if Burma should be allowed in, the institute's report said.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade declined to say what Australia's attitude would be to the Burmese move, as it had not formally applied to join and decisions on membership were made by consensus.
''Australia will consider the question of Burma joining APSN, in consultation with other APSN members, if the matter arises,'' the spokeswoman said.
The Sunday Age understands at least one key member of the safeguards network - Japan, the target for North Korea's periodic nuclear sabre-rattling - is sceptical of Burma's intentions and could resist its entry to the group, due to hold its first formal meeting in Jakarta in April.
Members are Australia, Canada, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam and the US.
The network does not carry out inspections, but aims to promote nuclear safety by sharing information and co-operating in training and other areas.
An Australia-based Burma analyst, who asked not to be identified, said Burma's interest in joining the network added another puzzle to the mystery surrounding the regime's nuclear plans.
''It would seem curious that they're taking up this initiative to join up with a group like that, if they were in fact pursuing weapons of mass destruction,'' he said.
''It could be a smokescreen, there's always that. These guys are not beyond doing things of that nature, but it would seem a bit odd.''
David Albright, director of the Washington institute that revealed Burma's interest in joining the network, said he hoped Burma would be allowed to join.
''I would allow Burma in, so you can start meeting these people. They're not going to learn how to cheat in a group like this,'' Mr Albright told The Sunday Age.
''It makes sense to meet them, start to engage them, and start to educate them about what's needed. We need transparency, and one way is to get them to participate.''
The new ISIS report calls for greater international focus on Burma's nuclear activities.
While it says there is no concrete proof the regime is building secret reactors, there were ''sound reasons'' to suspect Burma of pursuing a strategy to make nuclear weapons.
http://ping.fm/FiooF
British Government: As long as the elections are contested on the current constitution, whatever the outcome they cannot be recognised by the international community
British Government: As long as the elections are contested on the current constitution, whatever the outcome they cannot be recognised by the international community
01 February 2010
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) today welcomes the British Government stands on Burmese junta’s 2008 constitution and planned 2010 election.
Written in the Hansard, Mr. Ivan Lewis, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that “The constitution that underpins the election is deeply flawed. It is designed to perpetuate military rule in Burma. As long as the elections are contested on the current constitution, whatever the outcome they cannot be recognised by the international community.” And he went on saying that “It must be clear that without the release of political prisoners and a commitment to an inclusive process in respect of opposition and ethnic groups, the forthcoming elections in Burma will not be recognised by the international community-indeed, they will be entirely illegitimate.”
Mr. Lewis said that “We continue to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. We have made it clear that the elections cannot be credible if political prisoners are not free and able to engage in an inclusive process. We have lobbied China, India and Association of South East Nations members to recognise that only free and fair elections will lead to a stable and secure Burma. We support the UN Secretary-General's continued engagement. Tough EU sanctions will remain in place in the absence of any progress. It is equally important that the entire international community gives a united response to any election outcome. If there were any suggestion that some members of the international community attempted in any way to legitimise that outcome, that would be very dangerous in terms of strengthening the regime. What we seek to achieve is maximum unity of response on the basis that the election will be fought on a flawed constitution.”
Myo Thein, the Director at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “We are very glad to learn British Government’s clear stand on democratisation of Burma and significantly they do not playing into the junta’s illegal 2010 election. We hope that other democratic countries around the world would follow the lead of British Government listening to the genuine voices of people of Burma.”
Junta plotted the ploy and imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi which is tantamount to turning back on dialogue and ultimately national reconciliation.
With reference to United Nations’ responsibility on democratisation of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi said that “United Nations should demand the military regime to do national reconciliation first before holding the 2010 election. Otherwise the elections will be illegal, unjust and lack of credibility if it is held before facilitating to take place the national reconciliation”.
A tremendous responsibility rests upon the United Nations Organization to a far better end, and we are looking for a more positive and bolder lead of the United Nations as military regime is trying to nullify the results of the 1990 elections by planning to hold sham election in 2010 even though National League for Democracy (NLD) clearly stated their position in the “Shwe-Gone-Dine” declaration that need to place in order to have genuine national reconciliation in Burma.
Khin Maung Win, the Director at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “The vital issue here is that 1990 election results are still yet to be honoured and the planned elections will be held in accord with 2008 constitution. The essence of the 2008 Constitution is to guarantee impunity indefinitely and the 2010 election will implement it. Moreover, it is systematically designed to entrench military rule in Burma.”
U Tint Swe Thi Ha, the Patron at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “As long as military regime is in power in one form or another, Burma will not be a peaceful state and moreover it will threaten regional stability leading to destabilizing of peace in the world at large since junta has the ambition of possessing nuclear weapons.”
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar, the Patron at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “In addition, the suffering of people of Burma will be never-ending since junta will always extinguish democratic principles and ethnics’ rights with brutal force in order to hold on power. The free and democratic world has a moral responsibility to intervene on behalf of humanity. We want to build democratic Burma prevailing peace, prosperity and progress in the country where everyone can enjoy the freedom of speech, press, beliefs, assembly and rule of law that emphasizes the protection of individual rights.”
For more information please contact Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) at;
Myo Thein 00-44-787-788-2386
Khin Maung Win 00-1-941-961-2622
U Tint Swe Thi Ha 00-1-509-582-3261
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar 00-1-509-586-8309
Notes to Editor:
1. Burma Constitutional Conference was held in UK, London on 19/20 December 2009 organised by Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) and FBE-UK attended by delegates based in UK
Watch Video Here
2. Burma Constitutional Conference unanimously adopted the working strategy resolution
Burma-Constitutional-Conference-Working-Strategy-Resolution
3. Burmese delegation from NLD-LA-UK, Burma Lawyers’ Council, Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) and Women of Burma (UK) met with FCO officials on 21 December 2009 in order to explain current situation of Burma, the importance of 1990 election results, junta’s 2008 constitution, and planned 2010 election after the Burma Constitutional Conference
4. Gordon Brown has sent a letter to Aung San Suu Kyi on 30 Dec 2009 by saying that “If the scheduled elections proceed under a rigged constitution, with opposition leaders excluded and with no international oversight, the military rulers will be condemning Burma to more years of diplomatic isolation and economic stagnation”
Gordon Brown Letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
5. Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) launched “Yes We Can” Campaign on 4th January 2010 in order to speed up to implement 1990 election result in Burma, to change junta’s sham 2008 constitution and to Boycott junta’s planned sham 2010 election
Click here for Statement
6. Hansard (the Official Report) is the edited verbatim report of proceedings in both Houses. It is an edited record of what was said in the British Parliament
Hansard (the Official Report)
7. Global Action for Burma (GAB), the coalition of 141 Burmese democratic and ethnics organisations around the world based inside and outside Burma working collectively together to bring about genuine democracy, human rights and rule of law in Burma, on 26 January 2010 call for United Nations Security Council to declare junta’s 2008 constitution as NULL & VOID
Global Action For Burma Statement
8. 14th Forum of Burmese in Europe was held in Germany, Frankfurt on 16/17 January 2010 attended by Burmese delegates from around the Europe. The FBE conference adopted the Burma Constitutional Conference working strategy resolution unanimously
9. Foreign office minister Bill Rammel said on 01 May 2009 that “The regime has pressed ahead with its flawed roadmap process, which looks set to bring about elections in 2010 that entrench military rule”
Foreign office minister Bill Rammel
10. Aung San Suu Kyi said on 24 July 2009 that “United Nations should demand the military regime to do national reconciliation first before holding the 2010 election. Otherwise it will be illegal, unjust and lack of credibility if it is held before facilitating to take place the national reconciliation”
Click here for Aung San Suu Kyi's Speech on Video
01 February 2010
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) today welcomes the British Government stands on Burmese junta’s 2008 constitution and planned 2010 election.
Written in the Hansard, Mr. Ivan Lewis, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that “The constitution that underpins the election is deeply flawed. It is designed to perpetuate military rule in Burma. As long as the elections are contested on the current constitution, whatever the outcome they cannot be recognised by the international community.” And he went on saying that “It must be clear that without the release of political prisoners and a commitment to an inclusive process in respect of opposition and ethnic groups, the forthcoming elections in Burma will not be recognised by the international community-indeed, they will be entirely illegitimate.”
Mr. Lewis said that “We continue to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. We have made it clear that the elections cannot be credible if political prisoners are not free and able to engage in an inclusive process. We have lobbied China, India and Association of South East Nations members to recognise that only free and fair elections will lead to a stable and secure Burma. We support the UN Secretary-General's continued engagement. Tough EU sanctions will remain in place in the absence of any progress. It is equally important that the entire international community gives a united response to any election outcome. If there were any suggestion that some members of the international community attempted in any way to legitimise that outcome, that would be very dangerous in terms of strengthening the regime. What we seek to achieve is maximum unity of response on the basis that the election will be fought on a flawed constitution.”
Myo Thein, the Director at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “We are very glad to learn British Government’s clear stand on democratisation of Burma and significantly they do not playing into the junta’s illegal 2010 election. We hope that other democratic countries around the world would follow the lead of British Government listening to the genuine voices of people of Burma.”
Junta plotted the ploy and imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi which is tantamount to turning back on dialogue and ultimately national reconciliation.
With reference to United Nations’ responsibility on democratisation of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi said that “United Nations should demand the military regime to do national reconciliation first before holding the 2010 election. Otherwise the elections will be illegal, unjust and lack of credibility if it is held before facilitating to take place the national reconciliation”.
A tremendous responsibility rests upon the United Nations Organization to a far better end, and we are looking for a more positive and bolder lead of the United Nations as military regime is trying to nullify the results of the 1990 elections by planning to hold sham election in 2010 even though National League for Democracy (NLD) clearly stated their position in the “Shwe-Gone-Dine” declaration that need to place in order to have genuine national reconciliation in Burma.
Khin Maung Win, the Director at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “The vital issue here is that 1990 election results are still yet to be honoured and the planned elections will be held in accord with 2008 constitution. The essence of the 2008 Constitution is to guarantee impunity indefinitely and the 2010 election will implement it. Moreover, it is systematically designed to entrench military rule in Burma.”
U Tint Swe Thi Ha, the Patron at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “As long as military regime is in power in one form or another, Burma will not be a peaceful state and moreover it will threaten regional stability leading to destabilizing of peace in the world at large since junta has the ambition of possessing nuclear weapons.”
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar, the Patron at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “In addition, the suffering of people of Burma will be never-ending since junta will always extinguish democratic principles and ethnics’ rights with brutal force in order to hold on power. The free and democratic world has a moral responsibility to intervene on behalf of humanity. We want to build democratic Burma prevailing peace, prosperity and progress in the country where everyone can enjoy the freedom of speech, press, beliefs, assembly and rule of law that emphasizes the protection of individual rights.”
For more information please contact Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) at;
Myo Thein 00-44-787-788-2386
Khin Maung Win 00-1-941-961-2622
U Tint Swe Thi Ha 00-1-509-582-3261
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar 00-1-509-586-8309
Notes to Editor:
1. Burma Constitutional Conference was held in UK, London on 19/20 December 2009 organised by Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) and FBE-UK attended by delegates based in UK
Watch Video Here
2. Burma Constitutional Conference unanimously adopted the working strategy resolution
Burma-Constitutional-Conference-Working-Strategy-Resolution
3. Burmese delegation from NLD-LA-UK, Burma Lawyers’ Council, Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) and Women of Burma (UK) met with FCO officials on 21 December 2009 in order to explain current situation of Burma, the importance of 1990 election results, junta’s 2008 constitution, and planned 2010 election after the Burma Constitutional Conference
4. Gordon Brown has sent a letter to Aung San Suu Kyi on 30 Dec 2009 by saying that “If the scheduled elections proceed under a rigged constitution, with opposition leaders excluded and with no international oversight, the military rulers will be condemning Burma to more years of diplomatic isolation and economic stagnation”
Gordon Brown Letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
5. Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) launched “Yes We Can” Campaign on 4th January 2010 in order to speed up to implement 1990 election result in Burma, to change junta’s sham 2008 constitution and to Boycott junta’s planned sham 2010 election
Click here for Statement
6. Hansard (the Official Report) is the edited verbatim report of proceedings in both Houses. It is an edited record of what was said in the British Parliament
Hansard (the Official Report)
7. Global Action for Burma (GAB), the coalition of 141 Burmese democratic and ethnics organisations around the world based inside and outside Burma working collectively together to bring about genuine democracy, human rights and rule of law in Burma, on 26 January 2010 call for United Nations Security Council to declare junta’s 2008 constitution as NULL & VOID
Global Action For Burma Statement
8. 14th Forum of Burmese in Europe was held in Germany, Frankfurt on 16/17 January 2010 attended by Burmese delegates from around the Europe. The FBE conference adopted the Burma Constitutional Conference working strategy resolution unanimously
9. Foreign office minister Bill Rammel said on 01 May 2009 that “The regime has pressed ahead with its flawed roadmap process, which looks set to bring about elections in 2010 that entrench military rule”
Foreign office minister Bill Rammel
10. Aung San Suu Kyi said on 24 July 2009 that “United Nations should demand the military regime to do national reconciliation first before holding the 2010 election. Otherwise it will be illegal, unjust and lack of credibility if it is held before facilitating to take place the national reconciliation”
Click here for Aung San Suu Kyi's Speech on Video
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
