Strategic Outlook of 2010 and the Role of Moderates in Burma Conflict
by Min Zaw Oo
Thursday, 29 January 2009 11:29
Key Points
1. The west-driven support to Burma's pro-democracy movement has reached its limit.
2. The regime has maintained its intuitional apparatus to crackdown domestic oppositions after the monk-led protest and the Cyclone Nargis.
3. The military is facing dilemma to proceed to the transition in 2010 because of the distrust of the oppositions and the lack of civilian partnership.
4. Factional mobilizations can lead to instabilities after 2010.
5. Conflict prevention based on reconciliation and nation-building should be priority after the coming election.
6. The emergence of moderate political forces is critical to promote reconciliation after 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Burmese regime has claimed to hold a new election in 2010 to facilitate a formation of a civil-military government in accordance with the military-orchestrated constitution which was approved in a widely slated referendum held last year. The prospect of the new election is a moral and strategic dilemma to the oppositions, especially the National League for Democracy (NLD) and its supporters who are entrenched in their upholding of the NLD's victory in the eighteen-year-old election.
Any proponent of the new election will undoubtedly find it hard to make a moral advocacy without risking an inadvertent endorsement of the reprobated constitution. However, the participation of moderate pro-democracy forces in the 2010 election is strategically sound and practically necessary to avoid instability and foster much-needed reconciliation for Burma's political and ethnic crises. This essay addresses why the 2010 election is important, and how the moderates can nurture reconciliation after 2010.
The State of the Opposition Movement
Before we think of the future, we should honestly assess our pro-democracy opposition movement, especially its west-driven support.
The attack on Aung San Suu Kyi's motorcade in Depayin and the crackdown on the NLD in 2003 marked a turning point in the conflict. The Depayin incident was also an enlightening moment for some opposition members to re-evaluate their strategies in Burma's protracted conflict.
The Depayin clampdown invigorated ferocity and anguish among the Burmese opposition communities. The emotional instinct called for escalation of the conflict to punish the military's onslaught on the NLD. Furious responses from the international community, including the abrasive condemnations coming from the US senior official, appeared to convince Burmese oppositions that their supporters in the west were ready to boost up Burma's opposition movement beyond rhetoric and miniscule financial supports.
Nevertheless, Burma's pro-democracy movement was merely a moral case for the west. Moral concern is usually inferior to strategic needs in international relations.
Even the Bill Clinton's administration approved about $ 100 million to support the Iraqi oppositions in 1998.1 Compared to this amount, less than $10 million of US funding, including the money to assist refugees and humanitarian programs, was a drop in an ocean of need to boost up an opposition movement.
The Depayin crackdown revealed the reality of the international support to the pro-democracy movement. A few exiles had reached a conclusion on the international front—the west-driven support to Burma's pro-democracy movement has exhausted its capacity in the international system.
On the political front, the NLD explicitly called for the intervention of the United Nations Security Council. The actual reason behind the NLD's SOS signal was its leadership's realization that the government had effectively clamped down the party's capacity to mobilize inside the country. While Aung San Suu Kyi and her able colleagues were under detention, the junta's restrictions had potently demolished the party's grassroots foundation.
The Burmese oppositions and their supporters in exile well heeded the NLD's distress call. Some activist lawyers in Washington prepared a lengthy and controversial appeal, commissioned by Former Czech President Vacláv Havel and noble laureate Desmond M. Tutu. The document argued that Burma under the military junta was a threat to regional stability although all neighboring countries refused to endorse this claim. Burma's threat to peace allegation came neither from the Pentagon nor the US intelligence community. It was a pure agenda from the activists using it as leverage to elevate pressure over the regime.
Despite the understanding in advance that such appeal at the UNSC would not survive, the US Congress and the Bush administration rode the flow of the activists' agenda. In contrast, the Clinton administration chose not to pursue the similar agenda at the UNSC after US ambassador to UN Madeleine Albright met Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in 1995 because of the same reason of an eventual failure. The result is the history.
Both the free Burma movement and the free Tibet campaign share the same fate. Both movements have been remarkably successful in awareness campaigns. However, awareness is only the first step to mobilize international support in transnational causes. The actual policy making depends on the willingness and capability of the international powers. Both free Burma and Tibet movements grind to a halt when their fates fall into the hands of the international system.
In the domestic front, the junta faced two major crises almost simultaneously within 8 months. The monk-led uprising brought thousands of people to the streets for the first time in eighteen years. Cyclone Nargis virtually destroyed the rice bowl of Burma in the delta region and killed over 130,000 people, marking it the worst natural disaster in Burma history. Nevertheless, the regime survived both crises.
The military proved its institutional capacity to shoot, arrest and torture even monks who are regarded one of the three most revered in Burmese society. The Cyclone deepened poverty and forced people to prioritize their economic survival over political dissatisfaction. The regime has successfully preserved its capacity to quash political challenges after two major crises.
The Limitations of the Military Junta
The major difference between Gen. Ne Win's military coup in 1962 and the current junta is the former's ability to consolidate its power by institutionalizing a one-party state 12 years after the military takeover. The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) successively claimed it was a coup d'état government. The nature of the current junta is transitional. Unlike Ne Win's coup, the current junta is not capable of institutionalizing its rule into a formal political system.
In addition, the regime is under constant pressures domestically and internationally although the junta is capable of withstanding them from pushing it to collapse or concede the oppositions' demands. The Depayin incident accelerated the regime's eventual end game, 7-step Road Map to a political transition.
The transition plan is based on the regime's orchestrated constitution which the junta forced through in a rigged referendum amidst the cyclone crisis in May 2008. According to the Road Map, the regime will hold a new election in 2010 and form a new government. The military will have 25 percent of seats in the Parliament, and the military's interests will be protected.
However, the interpretation of the constitution in practice will depend on the degree of participation by civilian politicians in the election and the authority of the elected representatives in the government. The constitution itself does allow elected members to hold substantial power in the new government. The legitimacy of the 2010 election depends on the participation of pro-democracy civilians and their roles in the new government.
The regime is also facing a dilemma based on three major concerns. First, the military is reluctant to open up political space for the civilian politicians to mobilize to contest in the election because the regime learned a hard lesson after it had released former student leaders and allowed them to organize their supporters. Their mobilization paved a way to the monk-led protest in 2007. The regime is very careful this time not to repeat the previous mistake.
Second, the regime is concerned with the repetition of the NLD's another victory in the 2010 election. The dominance of anti-military oppositions in the civilian portion of elected representatives will encourage the oppositions to challenge the military after the election. In other words, the military wants more 'moderate' opposition to contest in the election than the hard-liners. The release of student leaders in 2004 partially aimed at creating a so-called 'third force' between the NLD and the regime. However, the student leaders chose to take hard-line stance.
The regime's strategy appears to minimize the influence of hard liners, including the NLD, in the opposition movement. The recent arrests and severe jail-terms imposed on the activists are a part of the plan to steer clear hard-line elements before the election comes. On the other hand, an alternative third-force in the opposition movement is not in an organized form. Because of the nature of polarization in Burma's conflict, many moderate individuals are reluctant to engineer a third-force platform which is a politically derogative term for the Burmese oppositions.
Third, the regime is worried that the emerging civilian-led government would undermine the military's institutional interests. The military wants to avoid creating a Frankenstein monster by its own Road Map. The military therefore embedded protective clauses in the constitution to guarantee its own interests because of its distrust on civilian politicians.
Overall, the SPDC does not have viable civilian partnership in the new government after 2010. Lack of confidence on civilian politicians and amicable partnership has fostered siege mentality among the military leaders who cling onto the constitution and use suppression to safeguard their interests.
Civilian Forces in the 2010 Election
Depending on their roles and stance towards the coming election, there are four types of civilian politicians, in addition to the pro-military elements to contest the election. The majority of the oppositions strongly condemned the regime's road map. They will continue to reject the 2010 election and refuse to participate. These hardliners among the opposition movement are mostly in exile. Most hardcore activists inside the country have been placed under detention since the crackdown of the monk protests. The hardliners' voice will make little impact on the holding of the election.
The second type of oppositions sees the election as a step towards a confrontation with the military. Despite its call to recognize the result of the 1990 general election, the NLD is likely to participate in the 2010 election because it is the only option for Daw Suu's party to reclaim its legitimacy and remobilize its supporters after 2010. For many hardliners, including the Burmese Communist Party, the coming election is a tactical battleground for further escalation of the conflict.
The third political group views the coming election as an enticing opportunity to pursue their interests. Many ceasefire groups fall into this account. They will seek to strengthen their legitimacy through the existing electoral process regardless of the degree of fairness and freedom of the election. Some ceasefire groups are also inclined to transform into the fourth category, the third force.
Most individuals in the so-called third force inside Burma are non-NLD pro-democracy activists who disagree with the NLD's sanction-oriented policy and confrontation with the regime. They regard themselves moderates and share a view that the current NLD-led opposition movement is a failure. Many individuals in the third force include former political prisoners, elected representatives from the NLD, current leaders in NGOs, and environmental activists. Although they have not emerged as an institutionalized political force, they are likely to establish their political platform to contest the 2010 election.
Potential Instability after the 2010 Election
Under the current constitution, the likely polity in Burma is inclined towards illiberal democracy after 2010. Illiberal democracy is the most potent ingredient for instability when poor economic performance and factional mobilization characterize a new transition, according to the study of world-wide instabilities since 1955.2
Any new government, regardless of the forms of transition, will not be able to revive the country from current economic pauperization in a short term. Poverty will continue and quality of life remains poor after 2010. Economic destitutions are usually channeled towards political discontent. Under poverty, Burmese people will remain dissatisfied with the government as long as the military is a part of the ruling institution.
Illiberal democracy also expands political space for formerly suppressed oppositions who were deprived of political mobilization under the previous system. Economically dissatisfied public is vulnerable to political instigation stirring up unrests. The hardline oppositions will utilize newly emerging political space to mobilize poverty-stricken angry publics to pressure the new government. Their objective will aim to scrap the existing constitution and boot the military out of politics.
On the other hand, the military is likely to be politically defensive after the 2010 election while taking shelter under its brainchild constitution. The military's 25 percent of representatives in the parliament and its supporters will continue to preserve the military's institutional interests threatened by the oppositions' mobilization. Alternatively, the military may disenfranchise potential hardliners in the 2010 election and continue to deny their political freedom even after 2010. In both scenarios, the confrontation between the military and hardcore oppositions is likely to escalate after the election.
Another challenge for the post-2010 government is disarrangement and demobilization of ceasefire groups. Twenty-year old ceasefire has not addressed political settlement of fifteen major ceasefire groups whose strength reaches over 40,000 armed troops, approximately four-time larger than the size of Taliban in Afghanistan. Any misstep in the 2010 transition can trigger the revival of major armed conflicts in the country. The outbreak of wars will inevitably promote the role of military in Burma's politics.
Realistic Reconciliation after 2010
The only way to avoid potential instabilities, destructive confrontation and the revival of suppression is to purse realistic reconciliation after 2010. Reconciliation needs political space, common ground and readiness of both parties. The opposition's call for reconciliation in the past has failed because of the lack of all major premises.
The transition in post-2010 may not foster willingness to reconcile but will create political space to expand shared common ground where confidence can be restored among major parties in the conflict. In the past up to this point, both sides use 'reconciliation' merely as a political lexicon to take advantage over another while neglecting common grounds to cooperate on shared interests of the nation.
It will be the first time in 22 years both civilian politicians and the military representatives will be sitting under the same roof in the Parliament. It will also be the venue for both the military and civilians to interact in policy making and mutually envisioning the future. Against all odds, the transition in 2010 offers an opportunity to jumpstart confidence building to seek much need reconciliation for the country.
Realistically, the regime's Road Map is inevitable. The military will not drop its Road Map and seek an alternative political settlement with the opposition. Any political outcomes have to go through the military-led transitional process. In the past, the military is asked to sit down at a table set up by the opposition. It is now inexorable for the oppositions to proceed to the table prepared by the military.
The reconciliation after 2010 may not be an immediate tripartite dialogue among the military, pro-democracy oppositions, and ethnic minorities. The process will be likely initiated in phases, starting with the military and moderate political forces in the parliament and the government. The ceasefire groups in the political process can play a crucial role in steering the dialogue towards the issues of ethnic minorities.
Prevention of destructive conflicts and nation-building should be the priorities after 2010. These two critical processes are the indispensable steps towards successful democratization. Factional mobilization will be detrimental to any progress of liberalization and democratization. The grim truth about democratic transition is the fact that among 108 democratic transitions, only 12 countries have consolidated democracy since 1955.3 In many cases, instability follows transitions. Some countries fell back to some forms of autocracy. Many transitional countries are still struggling with factionalism.
Moderates Matter
Burma conflict is vastly factionalized, and the polarity between the military and the oppositions is deeply entrenched. The traditional opposition forces will likely take the path of confrontation with the military after 2010. Confidence building won't be materialized as long as both the civilian politicians and the military fail to cooperate in shared common interests, such as economic development, health care, security and public welfare. The essential approach is collaboration in common grounds instead of all-out confrontation.
As long as the junta sees no viable civilian partnership after 2010, the military will restrict the participation of civilian politicians in the coming election and their capacity to mobilize. The only civilian force willing to categorically cooperate with the military is moderate non-NLD pro-democracy activists who feel discontented with the status quo in the opposition movement. Although the military may not trust this so-called third force, it is the only viable civilian partnership the military needs to implement its Road Map.
The military and the third force share similar interests in development-related fields which can be the initial point of cooperation to foster confidence in civil-military relation. Pro-democracy orientation of the moderates can bridge the relationship between traditional oppositions and the military. The third force can function as a requisite buffer between both ends of hardliners by minimizing polarization in Burma conflict.
The major drawback of the potential third force in Burma is the lack of substantial leadership and institutionalization. The moderate force has not been able to organize its political platform and leadership structure to function as a feasible political institution. The election in 2010 will likely be a breeding ground to shape the structure of moderate force in Burmese politics. As long as the military's Road Map is the inescapable point for a change in Burma, the emergence of competent third force is strategically important to jumpstart reconciliation after 2010.
(Min Zaw Oo is a security analyst focusing on South and Southeast Asia region. He is also a PhD candidate at George Mason University, writing his dissertation on the analysis of 108 democratic transitions. Oo holds a MA in Security Studies, Georgetown University, and a MS in Conflict Analysis and Resolutions, George Mason University.)
Monday, 7 September 2009
U.S. Needs 'New Formula' for S.E. Asia
U.S. Needs 'New Formula' for S.E. Asia, Sen. Webb Says Following Myanmar Visit
Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb talks about his unusual mission to reclusive Myanmar to secure the release of an American prisoner, and the other stops on his Asia tour.
MARGARET WARNER: For more than 10 years, the southeast nation of Myanmar, formerly Burma, has shut its doors to top American officials and foreign journalists. Most Americans' clearest images of Myanmar are stealthily filmed pictures of the government's repression of dissent. This was its violent crackdown two years ago on Buddhist monks who protested against the regime.
The U.S. and European Union have maintained economic sanctions on Myanmar for more than a decade, but China is investing heavily there. The country has been so closed off to the West that, after last year's devastating cyclone, which killed more than 80,000, it took immense international pressure to get any foreign aid into the country.
Yet the Burmese junta, which has been ruling for more than 50 years, did welcome Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia 10 days ago.
In quick succession, Webb met with the regime's reclusive leader, General Than Shwe, and then with Nobel Peace Prize-winner and leading democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi. Just days earlier, Suu Kyi had been convicted once again and her house arrest extended, triggering new street protests. The government imposed its latest punishment on her after an American, John Yettaw, swam across a lagoon and entered her house.
Yettaw, a Vietnam veteran suffering from epilepsy, had been sentenced to seven years' hard labor, but Webb gained his release. This week, Senator Webb authored an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, "We Can't Afford to Ignore Myanmar."
The senator's trip also took him to Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. I spoke with Senator Webb yesterday asked him why he thought the reclusive Burmese leader met with him, released the American prisoner, and let him talk with Suu Kyi.
Building 'a new formula' in region
SEN. JIM WEBB, D-Va.: The communications that went back and forth in preparation for our visit, there was a lot of, I think, testing on both sides going on beforehand, and I believe, though, all those things went into their decisions.
MARGARET WARNER: So...
SEN. JIM WEBB: The most important thing, actually, right now is that we have an opportunity here to try to construct a new formula, and it's vital for the interests of the United States in Southeast Asia that we re-engage across the Southeast Asian mainland.
We are in real danger of losing our position, with the expansion of China, with this whole series of countries that I visited.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, in an op-ed in the New York Times this week, you wrote that the U.S. should lift sanctions on Burma, and you said that the ultimate objective is to encourage Myanmar to become a responsible member of the world community, and you talked about having it under an open political system. In your meeting with General Shwe, did you see any evidence that he is interested at all in that kind of vision?
SEN. JIM WEBB: Probably. I don't want to characterize that meeting. I think the best thing for someone like myself is to leave the meeting where it was.
I made a series of observations and suggestions and recommendations to see how they respond following this visit. And there are a lot of ways that we can measure that.
And, by the way, another piece of this is, I'm not saying lift sanctions immediately. I'm saying we need to proceed immediately toward a formula where we can do that. By cutting off the United States and the European Union from Myanmar, as China is so heavily investing in the country, and we're seeing Myanmar now tilt away from our national interest. There's got to be a different way to do this.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, one of the leading pro-democracy in Burma groups says the U.S. should not offer the benefits of trade and investment to Burma, to Myanmar, until it takes real steps to open up its political system, that otherwise the U.S. would be just selling democracy down the river. What do you say to that?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I say, I share their objectives of moving toward a more open system. The question is how you get there.
And one of the interesting historical examples in that case is Vietnam itself. I was very strongly opposed to lifting sanctions on Vietnam after the Communists took over and how they treated the people who were with us.
But as other countries lifted their sanctions against Vietnam, it became more logical for us to do so, and, quite frankly, looking back on it, I think that was a key moment, in terms of beginning the process of opening up Vietnam.
The dissident groups that say you should have democracy first, really, I understand their frustrations, but they need to look at it a different way. Take what you can get and move toward democracy. That's the way you can bring change in Asia.
Regime's interest in the West
MARGARET WARNER: Now, you said "probably" you saw signs that the regime there is interested. I mean, can you be any more specific? Isn't it possible that they have no intention of making any real, concrete opening up to any other political party or to Aung San Suu Kyi's party?
SEN. JIM WEBB: Let's wait and see. I mean, the political party does exist. I had meetings in Burma, quite frankly, that I never could have had in Vietnam. If there would have been an opposition political party come and sit down and talk to me in Vietnam the way that they did in Burma, they'd have gone to jail.
So we need to take what we can get and see. My view is that there are other dimensions to lifting sanctions, and that is allowing people from Western cultures to interact on a daily basis with the people of Burma and, through those sorts of interactions, raising a level of consciousness so that you can have the right sort of interest, in terms of changing a system.
MARGARET WARNER: But then that gets back to the question of whether the regime is interested in having Western interaction with the people of Burma. I mean, they didn't indicate that after the cyclone last year.
SEN. JIM WEBB: They're a very isolated regime, geographically and otherwise. Because of the way that we have lost our contact with the people of Burma, there are very few people in this regime or in Burma who have had contact with the outside world, who have studied in our country or in European countries. So it's a process of breaking down a lot of barriers.
The only way you'll know is if we listen to them and begin to move forward. Clearly, what's been happening over the last 20 years, and particularly with the sanctions over the more than 10 years, has driven the people of Burma away from our type of society and isolated them from the rest of the world.
'Three strong recommendations'
MARGARET WARNER: And how did Than Shwe react when you suggested that Aung San Suu Kyi be freed from house arrest and that her party be allowed and encouraged to take part in next year's election?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I'm not going to characterize his reaction; I don't think it's appropriate. I laid out three strong recommendations in the meetings, all the meetings that I had there.
One was that they allow me to bring Mr. Yettaw home on humanitarian grounds. The other was that I be allowed a face-to-face meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. And the third was that they allow her to be released from confinement and to participate in the progress -- political process.
Another piece of this, quite frankly, is whether her political party will participate in the process unless it is something that they believe is more even-handed.
And one point I should raise, with respect to the meetings with General Than Shwe, is that I communicated to them as clearly as I could that the rest of the world views their government through the way that they treat Aung San Suu Kyi and it was important for them to show more even-handedness there.
MARGARET WARNER: You are one of the few Americans who's been able to even get into Myanmar in recent years. What were your visual impressions? What did it look like?
SEN. JIM WEBB: It's a beautiful country. I've been there eight years before. Even eight years ago, you could see that it was starting to show wear and tear from its isolation from the rest of the world. It's much more graphic today.
But I really don't want to be one of those members of Congress who can drop into a country for two days and come out and give you some, you know, grand assessment. I had a lot more time in Burma eight years ago as a private citizen than I would have now.
MARGARET WARNER: Let me finally, before we end this, ask about Afghanistan. You're a Vietnam veteran. You opposed both the Iraq -- the first Gulf War and the Iraq war. Five months into President Obama's heightened commitment in Afghanistan, how do you think it's going?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I have a lot of concerns about the way we've articulated our national goals in Afghanistan. I've commuted them directly -- communicated them directly to General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates in different hearings. And I think that it is extremely important for us to be able to articulate the end point of our strategy, just as it was in Iraq, and the same thing I was saying in Iraq.
MARGARET WARNER: Many Democrats -- a growing number of Democrats are beginning to see and draw parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. Do you see those parallels? Do they concern you?
SEN. JIM WEBB: It's a totally different situation, totally different situation. The challenge in both is to clearly articulate your strategy so that you will have an end point that you are working toward. And, quite frankly, I see that as less visible in Afghanistan than I saw it during the Vietnam War.
MARGARET WARNER: Senator Webb, thank you.
SEN. JIM WEBB: Thank you.
Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb talks about his unusual mission to reclusive Myanmar to secure the release of an American prisoner, and the other stops on his Asia tour.
MARGARET WARNER: For more than 10 years, the southeast nation of Myanmar, formerly Burma, has shut its doors to top American officials and foreign journalists. Most Americans' clearest images of Myanmar are stealthily filmed pictures of the government's repression of dissent. This was its violent crackdown two years ago on Buddhist monks who protested against the regime.
The U.S. and European Union have maintained economic sanctions on Myanmar for more than a decade, but China is investing heavily there. The country has been so closed off to the West that, after last year's devastating cyclone, which killed more than 80,000, it took immense international pressure to get any foreign aid into the country.
Yet the Burmese junta, which has been ruling for more than 50 years, did welcome Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia 10 days ago.
In quick succession, Webb met with the regime's reclusive leader, General Than Shwe, and then with Nobel Peace Prize-winner and leading democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi. Just days earlier, Suu Kyi had been convicted once again and her house arrest extended, triggering new street protests. The government imposed its latest punishment on her after an American, John Yettaw, swam across a lagoon and entered her house.
Yettaw, a Vietnam veteran suffering from epilepsy, had been sentenced to seven years' hard labor, but Webb gained his release. This week, Senator Webb authored an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, "We Can't Afford to Ignore Myanmar."
The senator's trip also took him to Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. I spoke with Senator Webb yesterday asked him why he thought the reclusive Burmese leader met with him, released the American prisoner, and let him talk with Suu Kyi.
Building 'a new formula' in region
SEN. JIM WEBB, D-Va.: The communications that went back and forth in preparation for our visit, there was a lot of, I think, testing on both sides going on beforehand, and I believe, though, all those things went into their decisions.
MARGARET WARNER: So...
SEN. JIM WEBB: The most important thing, actually, right now is that we have an opportunity here to try to construct a new formula, and it's vital for the interests of the United States in Southeast Asia that we re-engage across the Southeast Asian mainland.
We are in real danger of losing our position, with the expansion of China, with this whole series of countries that I visited.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, in an op-ed in the New York Times this week, you wrote that the U.S. should lift sanctions on Burma, and you said that the ultimate objective is to encourage Myanmar to become a responsible member of the world community, and you talked about having it under an open political system. In your meeting with General Shwe, did you see any evidence that he is interested at all in that kind of vision?
SEN. JIM WEBB: Probably. I don't want to characterize that meeting. I think the best thing for someone like myself is to leave the meeting where it was.
I made a series of observations and suggestions and recommendations to see how they respond following this visit. And there are a lot of ways that we can measure that.
And, by the way, another piece of this is, I'm not saying lift sanctions immediately. I'm saying we need to proceed immediately toward a formula where we can do that. By cutting off the United States and the European Union from Myanmar, as China is so heavily investing in the country, and we're seeing Myanmar now tilt away from our national interest. There's got to be a different way to do this.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, one of the leading pro-democracy in Burma groups says the U.S. should not offer the benefits of trade and investment to Burma, to Myanmar, until it takes real steps to open up its political system, that otherwise the U.S. would be just selling democracy down the river. What do you say to that?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I say, I share their objectives of moving toward a more open system. The question is how you get there.
And one of the interesting historical examples in that case is Vietnam itself. I was very strongly opposed to lifting sanctions on Vietnam after the Communists took over and how they treated the people who were with us.
But as other countries lifted their sanctions against Vietnam, it became more logical for us to do so, and, quite frankly, looking back on it, I think that was a key moment, in terms of beginning the process of opening up Vietnam.
The dissident groups that say you should have democracy first, really, I understand their frustrations, but they need to look at it a different way. Take what you can get and move toward democracy. That's the way you can bring change in Asia.
Regime's interest in the West
MARGARET WARNER: Now, you said "probably" you saw signs that the regime there is interested. I mean, can you be any more specific? Isn't it possible that they have no intention of making any real, concrete opening up to any other political party or to Aung San Suu Kyi's party?
SEN. JIM WEBB: Let's wait and see. I mean, the political party does exist. I had meetings in Burma, quite frankly, that I never could have had in Vietnam. If there would have been an opposition political party come and sit down and talk to me in Vietnam the way that they did in Burma, they'd have gone to jail.
So we need to take what we can get and see. My view is that there are other dimensions to lifting sanctions, and that is allowing people from Western cultures to interact on a daily basis with the people of Burma and, through those sorts of interactions, raising a level of consciousness so that you can have the right sort of interest, in terms of changing a system.
MARGARET WARNER: But then that gets back to the question of whether the regime is interested in having Western interaction with the people of Burma. I mean, they didn't indicate that after the cyclone last year.
SEN. JIM WEBB: They're a very isolated regime, geographically and otherwise. Because of the way that we have lost our contact with the people of Burma, there are very few people in this regime or in Burma who have had contact with the outside world, who have studied in our country or in European countries. So it's a process of breaking down a lot of barriers.
The only way you'll know is if we listen to them and begin to move forward. Clearly, what's been happening over the last 20 years, and particularly with the sanctions over the more than 10 years, has driven the people of Burma away from our type of society and isolated them from the rest of the world.
'Three strong recommendations'
MARGARET WARNER: And how did Than Shwe react when you suggested that Aung San Suu Kyi be freed from house arrest and that her party be allowed and encouraged to take part in next year's election?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I'm not going to characterize his reaction; I don't think it's appropriate. I laid out three strong recommendations in the meetings, all the meetings that I had there.
One was that they allow me to bring Mr. Yettaw home on humanitarian grounds. The other was that I be allowed a face-to-face meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. And the third was that they allow her to be released from confinement and to participate in the progress -- political process.
Another piece of this, quite frankly, is whether her political party will participate in the process unless it is something that they believe is more even-handed.
And one point I should raise, with respect to the meetings with General Than Shwe, is that I communicated to them as clearly as I could that the rest of the world views their government through the way that they treat Aung San Suu Kyi and it was important for them to show more even-handedness there.
MARGARET WARNER: You are one of the few Americans who's been able to even get into Myanmar in recent years. What were your visual impressions? What did it look like?
SEN. JIM WEBB: It's a beautiful country. I've been there eight years before. Even eight years ago, you could see that it was starting to show wear and tear from its isolation from the rest of the world. It's much more graphic today.
But I really don't want to be one of those members of Congress who can drop into a country for two days and come out and give you some, you know, grand assessment. I had a lot more time in Burma eight years ago as a private citizen than I would have now.
MARGARET WARNER: Let me finally, before we end this, ask about Afghanistan. You're a Vietnam veteran. You opposed both the Iraq -- the first Gulf War and the Iraq war. Five months into President Obama's heightened commitment in Afghanistan, how do you think it's going?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I have a lot of concerns about the way we've articulated our national goals in Afghanistan. I've commuted them directly -- communicated them directly to General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates in different hearings. And I think that it is extremely important for us to be able to articulate the end point of our strategy, just as it was in Iraq, and the same thing I was saying in Iraq.
MARGARET WARNER: Many Democrats -- a growing number of Democrats are beginning to see and draw parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. Do you see those parallels? Do they concern you?
SEN. JIM WEBB: It's a totally different situation, totally different situation. The challenge in both is to clearly articulate your strategy so that you will have an end point that you are working toward. And, quite frankly, I see that as less visible in Afghanistan than I saw it during the Vietnam War.
MARGARET WARNER: Senator Webb, thank you.
SEN. JIM WEBB: Thank you.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Friday, 4 September 2009
ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME
Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-110-2009
3 September 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BURMA: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself
ISSUES: Rule of law; military government; judicial system; illegal detention; torture
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has obtained detailed information about the case of a monk in Burma who is being tried without evidence for insulting religion. The monk, U Sandadhika, went like other onlookers to the outside of the court where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her co-defendants were being tried in August. Afterwards a group of unidentified men picked him up and took him into custody where they accused him of planning to immolate himself in protest. They have no evidence to back the charge and the only witnesses in the case, which is continuing, are police. The detainee has been forcibly disrobed and assaulted in custody, resulting in a hernia.
CASE DETAILS:
U Sandadhika went to nearby the central prison on 11 August 2009 to meet with people who had gathered to await the verdict in the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and three others. The 36-year-old told relatives that as he was leaving the area a white car pulled up alongside him with three unidentified men inside. One of them told him that they had an offering of a drink to give him, but he replied that he had already taken his meal for the day and that it was unnecessary. Then they said that they had some things to ask him and told him to get in the car.
The men took Sandadhika to the Rangoon North District police premises where at least two police assaulted him with a bamboo rod, causing him to have a hernia and suffer other injuries. (Full details of the alleged perpetrators are included in the sample letter, below, as usual.) Thereafter they took him to be forcibly disrobed.
The police opened a criminal case against Sandadhika for allegedly insulting religion because, they claim, he had intended to burn himself in protest at the conviction of Aung San Suu Kyi. But under cross-examination in court they admitted that they have no evidence at all to support the claim: they did not find any kerosene or other materials on the defendant or elsewhere to suggest that there is any truth to it. They do not even have any independent witnesses: all of those deposing against the accused are police.
The trial is continuing on September 3.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The AHRC has been documenting numerous cases speaking to what it has described as Burma's "injustice system" and provided a range of links on these in its most recent prior urgent appeal, on the case of Aung Aung Oo and his fellow defendants: AHRC-UA-107-2009. In the aftermath of the September 2007 monk-led protests it also followed the cases of monks and nuns tried and imprisoned over those events, including U Gambira (AHRC-UA-248-2008). At the time of the protests it set up a website that has a variety of relevant resources and topics: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/burmaprotests/
Two special reports have also been issued in the article 2 periodical, "Saffron Revolution imprisoned, law denied" (vol. 7, no. 3, September 2008) and "Burma, political psychosis and legal dementia" (vol. 6, no. 5-6, December 2007). There are also a number of related sites, including the AHRC Burmese-language blog, Pyithu Hittaing, and the 2008 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter onBurma.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the persons listed below to call for the case against U Sandadhika to be dropped. Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma, and Yangon rather than Rangoon.
Please be informed that the AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar and torture, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia calling for interventions into this case.
SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear ___________,
MYANMAR: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself
Details of accused: U Sandadhika, a.k.a. Nyi Nyi Lwin/ Nyi Nyi San, 36, monk of the Daysunpar Temple, Laygyunmandaing Monastery, Bago, Myanmar
Police officers involved:
1. Inspector Zaw Pone Win, Serial No. La/167400, Yangon Division Police Headquarters (prosecuting officer)
2. Deputy Inspector Kyi Khaing Kyaw, Serial No. La/176001, Yangon Division Police HQ (witness & alleged torturer)
3. Deputy Inspector Hla Kyaw Oo, Serial No. La/168797, Yangon North District Police HQ (witness)
4. Deputy Inspector Aung Myint Thein, Serial No. La/148152, Insein Township Police Station (witness)
5. Inspector Kyaw Sein, Yangon North District Police Headquarters (alleged torturer)
Charges & trial: Penal Code section 295A, insulting religion; Felony No. 507/09, Bahan Township Court, Judge Daw Toe Toe Yein (Serial No. Ta/2270, Assistant Township Judge 1, Special Power) presiding
I am very sorry to hear of yet another evidence-free case against someone in Myanmar, this time against a monk who was forcibly disrobed and assaulted while in custody, causing him to have a hernia.
From the details that I have been given, U Sandadhika went to nearby where the hearings in the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and three other defendants were taking place at the Central Prison, Insein Township, on 11 August 2009. There three men in an unmarked vehicle picked him up and took him to the Yangon North District Police Headquarters, where he was assaulted with a bamboo rod, causing injuries including the hernia, which he has shown to the prison hospital.
The police accused him of having had a plan to self immolate as an act of protest, but Sandadhika has denied this and the police have since admitted in court that they have no material evidence to prove the allegation. They had him forcibly disrobed and charged in court with insulting religion. However, aside from not having material evidence to present, the police also had no independent witnesses and have listed only four police officers to appear against him.
I am deeply concerned that despite the lack of evidence and allegations of torture in this case, the accused will nonetheless be convicted on spurious and politically directed grounds. I urge that this not be the case and that the Township Law Office concerned at once review the case and drop the charges against the accused or that the responsible authorities otherwise take the necessary steps to see that the matter is laid to rest and that the accused is allowed to go free.
Finally, I take this opportunity to remind the Government of Myanmar of the need to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to places of detention, in accordance with its globally recognized mandate, including to all those monks and nuns imprisoned in the aftermath of the September 2007 protests, and to ensure that all prisoners obtain appropriate medical treatment for ailments suffered, such as those of U Sandadhika caused by the torture that he allegedly suffered.
Yours sincerely,
----------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +95 67 412 439
2. Lt-Gen. Thein Sein
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624
3. U Aung Toe
Chief Justice
Office of the Supreme Court
Office No. 24
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 67 404 080/ 071/ 078/ 067 or + 95 1 372 145
Fax: + 95 67 404 059
4. U Aye Maung
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office No. 25
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 404 088/ 090/ 092/ 094/ 097
Fax: +95 67 404 146/ 106
5. Brig-Gen. Khin Yi
Director General
Myanmar Police Force
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +951 549 663 / 549 208
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (ua@ahrc.asia)
-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
ေလ့လာစရာ မွတ္သားစရာ - ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္အမႈႏွင့္ ေရြးခ်ယ္စရာလမ္း
ႏိုင္ငံေရးအမႈလိုက္ ေရွ႕ေနၾကီးတဦး
ၾကာသပေတးေန႔၊ စက္တင္ဘာလ 03 ရက္ 2009 ခုႏွစ္ 13 နာရီ 41 မိနစ္
ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္တယ္ဆို႐ုံမွ်နဲ႔ အျပစ္ရွိတယ္လုိ႔ ဆုံးျဖတ္လုိ႔မရဘူး။ အဲဒီလုိ ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္လိုတဲ့ စိတ္ဆႏၵ (guilty mind) နဲ႔ က်ဴးလြန္တာ ျဖစ္ရမယ္။ ဒါကုိ man srea လုိ႔ေခၚတဲ့ လက္တင္ ဥပေဒ ဆုိး႐ုိးစကား (legal maxims, in Latin) နဲ႔ ကုိးကားၿပီး အနည္းငယ္ ရွင္းျပ ေပး ပါရေစ။
အဲဒီ ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္လုိတဲ့ စိတ္ဆႏၵ ရွိ၊ မရွိ ဆိုတာကေတာ့ ျပစ္မႈမက်ဴးလြန္ခင္၊ ျပဳဆဲ၊ ျပဳၿပီး၊ ေနာက္ သူ႔ရဲ႕ အျပဳအမူ၊ အလုပ္အကုိင္ အေျခအေနအရပ္ရပ္ကုိ ထည့္သြင္းစဥ္းစား ဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးရပါတယ္။ အဲဒီလုိ စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးတာကုိေတာ့ အတၱေနာမတိ လို႔ေခၚတဲ့ တရားသူၾကီးရဲ႕ ဆင္ျခင္တုံတရား (common sense) ကေန စဥ္းစား ဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးရမွာပါ။ အရင္က ျပ႒ာန္းထားတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္ဝင္လ်က္ ရွိ၊ မရွိ ဆုိတာကုိ စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ရာမွာလည္း အတိတ္က အျပဳအမႈ၊ ပစၥဳပၸန္အျပဳအမူနဲ႔ ေနာင္ျဖစ္လာႏုိင္မယ့္ အျပဳအမူေတြကုိ ထည့္သြင္း စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကို စြပ္စြဲအေရးယူခဲ့တဲ့ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္သည့္ ဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ (၂၂) ဆုိတာက ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ႏိုင္ငံသားတဦးဦးရဲ႕ မူလအခြင့္အေရးေတြကုိ ကန္႔သတ္တဲ့ဥပေဒ ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။ အဲဒီဥပေဒရဲ႕ ပုဒ္မ ၉ (စ) မွာ အေရးယူျခင္း ခံရသူသည္ ကန္႔သတ္ျခင္းခံရသည့္ မူလအခြင့္အေရးမ်ားမွအပ အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ အျခား မူလ အခြင့္အေရးမ်ားကုိမူ ခံစားခြင့္ရွိေစရမည္လုိ႔ အတိအလင္း ျပ႒ာန္းထားၿပီးသားပါ။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္မရွိေတာ့ရင္ အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မွီတည္ၿပီး ထုတ္ျပန္ထားတဲ့ ၁၉၇၅ ခုႏွစ္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရာယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္ေရး ဥပေဒဆုိတာလည္း အလုိလုိပယ္ဖ်က္ၿပီးသား ျဖစ္ေနတဲ့အတြက္ ခုတ္လွဲၿပီး မရွိေတာ့့တာၾကာၿပီျဖစ္တဲ့ သစ္ပင္ၾကီးဆီက အကိုင္းကုိ ထင္းမီးစုိက္ဖုိ႔ေနာက္ ၂၁ ႏွစ္ၾကာမွ သတိရတာနဲ႔ တူေနပါတယ္။
သစ္ပင္လဲရင္ အကုိင္းအခက္ေတြလည္း ေျမခရတာဟာ သဘာဝဓမၼ ဥပေဒသပါ။ အကိုင္းအခက္ေတြမွာ အသက္ရွိေသးတယ္လုိ႔ ေျပာခ်င္ရင္ေတာ့ ျပန္စုိက္ရပါမယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ သစ္ပင္ၾကီးနဲ႔တူတဲ့ ဖြ႔ဲစည္းအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒၾကီး မရွိေတာ့တဲ့အခါမွ အဲဒီ ဖြဲ႔စည္း အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံဥပေဒရဲ႕ အကုိင္းအခက္ျဖစ္တဲ့ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရာယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္တဲ့ ဥပေဒလည္း မရွိေတာ့တာမုိ႔ မရွိေတာ့တဲ့ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ တရားစြဲထားျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ လႊတ္ကို လႊတ္ေပးရမယ့္ အမႈျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ေအာက္႐ုံးခ႐ုိင္ တရားသူၾကီးေတြရဲ႕ မွားယြင္းဆံုးျဖတ္မႈ၊ အမိန္႔မလြန္ဆန္ႏုိင္မႈေတြကုိ အဆင့္ျမင့္ တရား႐ုံးေတြက ျပင္ဆင္ေပးလုိက္မယ္ ဆုိရင္ တုိင္းျပည္အတြက္လည္း သိကၡာရွိမယ္။ တရားစီရင္ေရးအတြက္လည္း ေကာင္းမြန္တဲ့ အလားအလာေကာင္းေတြ ရွိလာေစမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
အရင္အာဏာသိမ္း အစုိးရတုန္းက အျပဳအမူ၊ အခုလက္ရွိ အာဏာသိမ္းအစုိးရရဲ႕ အျပဳအမႈေတြနဲ႔ ေနာင္ျပဳလုပ္မယ္လို႔ ေၾကညာထားတဲ့ ေၾကညာခ်က္ေတြအရ အရင္ျပ႒ာန္းထားခဲ့ဖူးတဲ့ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ ဒီကေန႔ထက္တုိင္ အသက္ဝင္လ်က္မရွိဘူး ဆုိတာကုိ လက္ခံရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
၁၉၄၈ ခုႏွစ္ လြတ္လပ္ေရးရၿပီးကတည္းက ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ အေျခခံဥပေဒ ၂ ခုနဲ႔ ၾကံဳခဲ့ၿပီးေပမယ့္ ေနာက္ထပ္တခုနဲ႔ ထပ္ၾကံဳရဦးမယ့္ အေန အထားမွာ အရင္အေျခခံဥပေဒက အခုထိ အသက္ဝင္ေနပါေသးတယ္ ဆုိတဲ့ အေၾကာင္းျပခ်က္နဲ႔ ဒီကေန႔ ျမန္မာ့ႏိုင္ငံအေရးအတြက္ အေရးပါဆုံး သူတဦးျဖစ္တဲ့ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ ဒုကၡေရာက္ေနရတဲ့ အေျခအေနမွာ အရင္က အေျခခံဥပေဒေတြ ဒီကေန႔ထက္တုိင္ အသက္ရွိမရွိ ဆုိတဲ့ ဥပေဒ ျပႆနာကုိ အခုအခ်ိန္ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ အေရးတၾကီး ေဆြးေႏြးဖုိ႔ လုိအပ္ေနပါတယ္။
၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ လြတ္လပ္ေရးမရခင္ တႏွစ္အလုိမွာ လြတ္လပ္ေရး ရယူဖုိ႔အတြက္ ေရးဆြဲခဲ့ရတာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းနဲ႔ ၿဗိတိသွ်ဝန္ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္ အားရ္အက္တလီ (Prime minister Earl Attlee 1945-1951) တုိ႔ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ဇန္နဝါရီလ ၂၈ ရက္ေန႔မွာ အဂၤလန္က ပါလီမန္ အေဆာက္အအုံအတြင္းမွာ လက္မွတ္ေရးထုိးခဲ့ၾကပါတယ္။ ေအာင္ဆန္း-အက္တလီ စာခ်ဳပ္အရ ျမန္မာ ႏိုင္ငံမွာ လြတ္လပ္ေရးယူမယ္ဆုိရင္ ၿဗိတိသွ်ေတြ ယုံၾကည္ရမယ့္ အေျခခံအုတ္ျမစ္ေကာင္းေတြရွိမွ လြတ္လပ္ေရးရမယ္ဆုိတာ ရွင္းေနပါတယ္။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းဟာ ေဖေဖာ္ဝါရီလဆန္းမွာ အဂၤလန္က ျပန္လာၿပီးတာန႔ဲ တၿပိဳင္နက္ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က ဥပေဒပညာရွင္ေတြျဖစ္တဲ့ ဝတ္လုံေတာ္ရ ဦးခ်န္ထြန္း၊ ဦးဘဝင္း စတဲ့ ပုဂၢိဳလ္ေတြ ပါဝင္တဲ့ ေကာ္မတီအဖြဲ႔ဟာ အိႏၵိယကုိ ေလ့လာေရးအဖြဲ႔ ေစလႊတ္ၿပီးေနာက္ပုိင္း ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ၾသဂုတ္လအတြင္းမွာ အေျခခံဥပေဒ မူၾကမ္းကုိ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကုိ တင္ျပႏိုင္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ စက္တင္ဘာလ ၂၄ ရက္ေန႔ မွာ အတည္ျပဳႏိုင္ခဲ့တဲ့အတြက္ ၆ လအတြင္းမွာ ေရးဆြဲခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒလည္း ျဖစ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။
အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ အခ်ိန္တုိအတြင္းမွာ ဥပေဒပညာရွင္မ်ားမ်ားစားစား မပါဝင္ ဘဲေရး ဆြဲခဲ့တယ္ဆုိေပမယ့္ လက္ခံရေလာက္ေအာင္ ေစ့စပ္ေသခ်ာခဲ့လို႔ ၿဗိတိသွ်ပါလီမန္က ျငင္းမရခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒတခု ျဖစ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က ၿဗိတိသွ်ဝန္ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္ အက္တလီဟာ ေအာက္စဖုိ႔ဒ္ ေက်ာင္းဆင္းျဖစ္ၿပီး၊ အလုပ္သမားပါတီ (Labour Party) ေခါင္းေဆာင္၊ ဝတ္လုံေတာ္ရေရွ႕ေနၾကီး (Barrister) တဦး ျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ သူလက္ခံခဲ့တာကို ေလွ်ာ့တြက္လို႔ မရပါဘူး။
ဒါေပမဲ့ ကာလေဒသ အေျခအေနအရပ္ရပ္ေတြ အၿမဲေျပာင္းလဲေနတာေၾကာင့္ တခ်ဳိ႕ေနရာေတြမွာ အားနည္းခ်က္ေတြ အထုိက္အေလ်ာက္ ရွိေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီအားနည္းခ်က္ေတြကုိ ေနာက္ဆက္တြဲ ျပင္ဆင္ခ်က္ေတြအေနနဲ႔ ၁၉၄၉ ခုႏွစ္ကေန ၁၉၆၁ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ၁၁ ၾကိမ္တုိင္တုိင္ ျပင္ဆင္ခဲ့ရပါတယ္။
အဲဒီလုိ ျပင္ဆင္ရင္းနဲ႔ ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏွစ္မွာ စစ္တပ္က အာဏာသိမ္းသြားၿပီးေနာက္ပိုင္း အဲဒီ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ လုံးဝ မသုံးေတာ့ဘဲ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္မွာ ေနာက္ထပ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒတခုကုိ ထပ္မံ အတည္ျပဳခဲ့ျပန္ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီၾကားကာလမွာ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ကုိ အေကာင္အထည္ ေဖာ္မွာ ျဖစ္တဲ့အတြက္ အရင္ရွိခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ ဆက္လက္ မသုံးခဲ့ေတာ့ပါဘူး။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏွစ္ကေန ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ထိ အရင္ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ ျပင္ဆင္ျဖည့္စြက္တာမ်ဳိး လုံးဝ မလုပ္ခဲ့တာက သက္ေသ ျပေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။
ေနာက္ထပ္ အသစ္ျပ႒ာန္းလုိက္တဲ့ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မျပ႒ာန္းခင္ကာလ တေလွ်ာက္လုံးမွာ စစ္တပ္အာဏာသိမ္းခဲ့ၿပီး ၁၉၆၂ -
၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ဆိုရွယ္လစ္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ကုိ ထူေထာင္မယ္လုိ႔ ေၾကြးေၾကာ္ေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီလုိ ၁၂ ႏွစ္ေက်ာ္ၾကာ အခ်ိန္ယူေရးဆြဲခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒေတာင္မွ ၁၉၇၄-၁၉၈၈ အထိ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ ျမန္မာ့ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ လမ္းစဥ္ ပါတီ အစုိးရ (မဆလ) ဟာ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ သူ႔လက္ထက္မွာ ၄ ၾကိမ္ ျပင္ဆင္ခဲ့ရပါေသးတယ္။ သက္ေသျပေနတာကေတာ့ အသုံးျပဳေနတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒဆုိရင္ ေခတ္ကာလအေလ်ာက္ ျပဳျပင္စရာေတြ၊ မြမ္းမံစရာေတြဟာ ေပၚေပါက္လာတတ္တာ သဘာဝဆုိတာပါပဲ။
၂၁ ႏွစ္ၾကာ ျပဳျပင္ျခင္း၊ ျပင္ဆင္ျခင္း၊ မြမ္းမံျခင္း လုံးဝ မရွိခဲ့ဘဲ စကားထဲေတာင္ ထည့္မေျပာခဲ့တာေၾကာင့္ မဆလ အစုိးရက ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မ်က္ကြယ္ျပဳ ဖ်က္သိမ္းပစ္ခဲ့ၿပီးျဖစ္သလုိ လက္ရွိအာဏာသိမ္း အစုိးရကလည္း အရင္အေျခခံဥပေဒကို အလုိလုိ ဖ်က္သိမ္း ၿပီးသားျဖစ္တယ္လို႔ အထက္႐ုံးပညာရွိ တရားသူၾကီးေတြက ေကာက္ယူသုံးသပ္ျခင္းဟာ အတၱေနာမတိကုိသုံးၿပီး ဆင္ျခင္တုံတရားနဲ႔ ေကာက္ယူသုံးသပ္ၾကရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
အရင္အာဏာသိမ္းအစုိးရက ၾကားကာလတေလ်ာက္လုံး ဆုိရွယ္လစ္စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ ထူေထာင္မယ္ဆုိၿပီး ေၾကြးေၾကာ္ခဲ့သလုိ ၁၉၈၈ အာဏာသိမ္းစစ္အစုိးရရဲ႕ စီးပြားေရးဦးတည္ခ်က္ ၄ ရပ္ကလည္း ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ရဲ႕ ဆန္႔က်င္ဘက္ျဖစ္တဲ့ ေစ်းကြက္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ ပီျပင္စြာ ျဖစ္ေပၚလာေရးဆုိတာကုိ အခုခ်ိန္ထိ ေအာ္ေနဆဲျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
စစ္တပ္က အာဏာသိမ္းခဲ့တဲ့ ၁၉၈၈-၂ဝဝ၉ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ႏွစ္ ၂ဝ ေက်ာ္ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအေၾကာင္း လုံးဝ မေျပာခဲ့တဲ့အျပင္ ၂/၈၈ နဲ႔ ၃/၈၈ ဆုိၿပီး ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ ၿငိမ္ဝပ္ပိျပားမႈ တည္ေဆာက္ေရး ဥပေဒလုိ႔ ေၾကညာကာ ဥပေဒျပ႒ာန္းလုိက္တာဟာ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအပုိဒ္ ၁၉၄ (က) အရ ျပဳလုပ္ခြင့္မရိွသည္ကုိ ျပဳလုပ္ေသာ တရားမဝင္အဖြဲ႔အစည္းျဖစ္ေနသည္ဆိုတဲ့ အဓိပၸာယ္ ထြက္ပါတယ္။ (၂/၈၈ ဆုိတာ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ တရားစီရင္ေရးအာဏာကို ဖ်က္သိမ္းတဲ့ ဥပေဒျဖစ္ၿပီး၊ ၃/၈၈ ဆုိတာကေတာ့ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ ဥပေဒျပဳေရး အာဏာကုိ ဖ်က္သိမ္းတဲ့ ဥပေဒျဖစ္ပါတယ္။)
၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအပုိဒ္ ၁၉၄ (က) အရ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကသာ အခ်ဳပ္အျခာအာဏာပုိင္ ျဖစ္တယ္၊ ေနာက္ၿပီး ဥပေဒျပဳအာဏာဟာ လည္း လႊတ္ေတာ္မွာပဲ ရွိရမယ္ ဆိုတာေတြကုိ ျပင္ဆင္ခ်င္တယ္ဆုိရင္ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကုိယ္စားလွယ္ ၇၅ ရာခုိင္ႏႈန္းရဲ႕ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္အျပင္ မဲေပးခြင့္ရွိသူ ျပည္သူလူထု ထက္ဝက္ေက်ာ္ ေထာက္ခံမွသာ ျပင္ဆင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ရွိတယ္ ဆုိတာကုိ ေဖာက္ဖ်က္ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္ခဲ့တယ္ ဆိုတာ ထင္ရွားေနပါတယ္။
အသက္ဝင္ေနတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒက တားျမစ္ထားတာေတြကို ဂ႐ုမစုိက္လုပ္ခ်င္ရာလုပ္တာဟာ ႏိုင္ငံသားအားလုံးရဲ႕ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရး၊ လုံၿခံဳေရးနဲ႔ ေကာင္းျမတ္မႈေတြကုိ ၿခိမ္းေျခာက္ေနျခင္း ျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ စစ္အစိုးရဟာ အျပည္ျပည္ဆုိင္ရာ ရာဇဝတ္ခုံ႐ုံးရဲ႕ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္ေတြ၊ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ေတြကုိ ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္ေနတဲ့ အဖြဲ႔အစည္းတခုျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ခုိင္လုံတဲ့ အၿပီးသတ္ သက္ေသခံခ်က္ ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအရ ႏိုင္ငံသားအခြင့္အေရးကို ကန္႔သတ္တဲ့ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ တရားစြဲထားသူေတြကုိ လႊတ္ေပးမလား။ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္ဝင္ေနတာေၾကာင့္ အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္ေတြကုိ ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္လုိ႔ လူသားျဖစ္မႈဆန္႔က်င္တဲ့ ျပစ္မႈနဲ႔ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ ျပစ္မႈဆုိင္ရာ တရား႐ုံးက အေရးယူတာကုိ ခံမလား ေစာင့္ၾကည့္ၾကပါစုိ႔။
http://www.lovelamp88.co.cc/
Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-110-2009
3 September 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BURMA: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself
ISSUES: Rule of law; military government; judicial system; illegal detention; torture
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has obtained detailed information about the case of a monk in Burma who is being tried without evidence for insulting religion. The monk, U Sandadhika, went like other onlookers to the outside of the court where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her co-defendants were being tried in August. Afterwards a group of unidentified men picked him up and took him into custody where they accused him of planning to immolate himself in protest. They have no evidence to back the charge and the only witnesses in the case, which is continuing, are police. The detainee has been forcibly disrobed and assaulted in custody, resulting in a hernia.
CASE DETAILS:
U Sandadhika went to nearby the central prison on 11 August 2009 to meet with people who had gathered to await the verdict in the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and three others. The 36-year-old told relatives that as he was leaving the area a white car pulled up alongside him with three unidentified men inside. One of them told him that they had an offering of a drink to give him, but he replied that he had already taken his meal for the day and that it was unnecessary. Then they said that they had some things to ask him and told him to get in the car.
The men took Sandadhika to the Rangoon North District police premises where at least two police assaulted him with a bamboo rod, causing him to have a hernia and suffer other injuries. (Full details of the alleged perpetrators are included in the sample letter, below, as usual.) Thereafter they took him to be forcibly disrobed.
The police opened a criminal case against Sandadhika for allegedly insulting religion because, they claim, he had intended to burn himself in protest at the conviction of Aung San Suu Kyi. But under cross-examination in court they admitted that they have no evidence at all to support the claim: they did not find any kerosene or other materials on the defendant or elsewhere to suggest that there is any truth to it. They do not even have any independent witnesses: all of those deposing against the accused are police.
The trial is continuing on September 3.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The AHRC has been documenting numerous cases speaking to what it has described as Burma's "injustice system" and provided a range of links on these in its most recent prior urgent appeal, on the case of Aung Aung Oo and his fellow defendants: AHRC-UA-107-2009. In the aftermath of the September 2007 monk-led protests it also followed the cases of monks and nuns tried and imprisoned over those events, including U Gambira (AHRC-UA-248-2008). At the time of the protests it set up a website that has a variety of relevant resources and topics: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/burmaprotests/
Two special reports have also been issued in the article 2 periodical, "Saffron Revolution imprisoned, law denied" (vol. 7, no. 3, September 2008) and "Burma, political psychosis and legal dementia" (vol. 6, no. 5-6, December 2007). There are also a number of related sites, including the AHRC Burmese-language blog, Pyithu Hittaing, and the 2008 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter onBurma.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the persons listed below to call for the case against U Sandadhika to be dropped. Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma, and Yangon rather than Rangoon.
Please be informed that the AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar and torture, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia calling for interventions into this case.
SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear ___________,
MYANMAR: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself
Details of accused: U Sandadhika, a.k.a. Nyi Nyi Lwin/ Nyi Nyi San, 36, monk of the Daysunpar Temple, Laygyunmandaing Monastery, Bago, Myanmar
Police officers involved:
1. Inspector Zaw Pone Win, Serial No. La/167400, Yangon Division Police Headquarters (prosecuting officer)
2. Deputy Inspector Kyi Khaing Kyaw, Serial No. La/176001, Yangon Division Police HQ (witness & alleged torturer)
3. Deputy Inspector Hla Kyaw Oo, Serial No. La/168797, Yangon North District Police HQ (witness)
4. Deputy Inspector Aung Myint Thein, Serial No. La/148152, Insein Township Police Station (witness)
5. Inspector Kyaw Sein, Yangon North District Police Headquarters (alleged torturer)
Charges & trial: Penal Code section 295A, insulting religion; Felony No. 507/09, Bahan Township Court, Judge Daw Toe Toe Yein (Serial No. Ta/2270, Assistant Township Judge 1, Special Power) presiding
I am very sorry to hear of yet another evidence-free case against someone in Myanmar, this time against a monk who was forcibly disrobed and assaulted while in custody, causing him to have a hernia.
From the details that I have been given, U Sandadhika went to nearby where the hearings in the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and three other defendants were taking place at the Central Prison, Insein Township, on 11 August 2009. There three men in an unmarked vehicle picked him up and took him to the Yangon North District Police Headquarters, where he was assaulted with a bamboo rod, causing injuries including the hernia, which he has shown to the prison hospital.
The police accused him of having had a plan to self immolate as an act of protest, but Sandadhika has denied this and the police have since admitted in court that they have no material evidence to prove the allegation. They had him forcibly disrobed and charged in court with insulting religion. However, aside from not having material evidence to present, the police also had no independent witnesses and have listed only four police officers to appear against him.
I am deeply concerned that despite the lack of evidence and allegations of torture in this case, the accused will nonetheless be convicted on spurious and politically directed grounds. I urge that this not be the case and that the Township Law Office concerned at once review the case and drop the charges against the accused or that the responsible authorities otherwise take the necessary steps to see that the matter is laid to rest and that the accused is allowed to go free.
Finally, I take this opportunity to remind the Government of Myanmar of the need to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to places of detention, in accordance with its globally recognized mandate, including to all those monks and nuns imprisoned in the aftermath of the September 2007 protests, and to ensure that all prisoners obtain appropriate medical treatment for ailments suffered, such as those of U Sandadhika caused by the torture that he allegedly suffered.
Yours sincerely,
----------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +95 67 412 439
2. Lt-Gen. Thein Sein
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624
3. U Aung Toe
Chief Justice
Office of the Supreme Court
Office No. 24
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 67 404 080/ 071/ 078/ 067 or + 95 1 372 145
Fax: + 95 67 404 059
4. U Aye Maung
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office No. 25
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 404 088/ 090/ 092/ 094/ 097
Fax: +95 67 404 146/ 106
5. Brig-Gen. Khin Yi
Director General
Myanmar Police Force
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +951 549 663 / 549 208
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (ua@ahrc.asia)
-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
ေလ့လာစရာ မွတ္သားစရာ - ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္အမႈႏွင့္ ေရြးခ်ယ္စရာလမ္း
ႏိုင္ငံေရးအမႈလိုက္ ေရွ႕ေနၾကီးတဦး
ၾကာသပေတးေန႔၊ စက္တင္ဘာလ 03 ရက္ 2009 ခုႏွစ္ 13 နာရီ 41 မိနစ္
ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္တယ္ဆို႐ုံမွ်နဲ႔ အျပစ္ရွိတယ္လုိ႔ ဆုံးျဖတ္လုိ႔မရဘူး။ အဲဒီလုိ ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္လိုတဲ့ စိတ္ဆႏၵ (guilty mind) နဲ႔ က်ဴးလြန္တာ ျဖစ္ရမယ္။ ဒါကုိ man srea လုိ႔ေခၚတဲ့ လက္တင္ ဥပေဒ ဆုိး႐ုိးစကား (legal maxims, in Latin) နဲ႔ ကုိးကားၿပီး အနည္းငယ္ ရွင္းျပ ေပး ပါရေစ။
အဲဒီ ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္လုိတဲ့ စိတ္ဆႏၵ ရွိ၊ မရွိ ဆိုတာကေတာ့ ျပစ္မႈမက်ဴးလြန္ခင္၊ ျပဳဆဲ၊ ျပဳၿပီး၊ ေနာက္ သူ႔ရဲ႕ အျပဳအမူ၊ အလုပ္အကုိင္ အေျခအေနအရပ္ရပ္ကုိ ထည့္သြင္းစဥ္းစား ဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးရပါတယ္။ အဲဒီလုိ စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးတာကုိေတာ့ အတၱေနာမတိ လို႔ေခၚတဲ့ တရားသူၾကီးရဲ႕ ဆင္ျခင္တုံတရား (common sense) ကေန စဥ္းစား ဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးရမွာပါ။ အရင္က ျပ႒ာန္းထားတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္ဝင္လ်က္ ရွိ၊ မရွိ ဆုိတာကုိ စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ရာမွာလည္း အတိတ္က အျပဳအမႈ၊ ပစၥဳပၸန္အျပဳအမူနဲ႔ ေနာင္ျဖစ္လာႏုိင္မယ့္ အျပဳအမူေတြကုိ ထည့္သြင္း စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကို စြပ္စြဲအေရးယူခဲ့တဲ့ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္သည့္ ဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ (၂၂) ဆုိတာက ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ႏိုင္ငံသားတဦးဦးရဲ႕ မူလအခြင့္အေရးေတြကုိ ကန္႔သတ္တဲ့ဥပေဒ ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။ အဲဒီဥပေဒရဲ႕ ပုဒ္မ ၉ (စ) မွာ အေရးယူျခင္း ခံရသူသည္ ကန္႔သတ္ျခင္းခံရသည့္ မူလအခြင့္အေရးမ်ားမွအပ အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ အျခား မူလ အခြင့္အေရးမ်ားကုိမူ ခံစားခြင့္ရွိေစရမည္လုိ႔ အတိအလင္း ျပ႒ာန္းထားၿပီးသားပါ။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္မရွိေတာ့ရင္ အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မွီတည္ၿပီး ထုတ္ျပန္ထားတဲ့ ၁၉၇၅ ခုႏွစ္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရာယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္ေရး ဥပေဒဆုိတာလည္း အလုိလုိပယ္ဖ်က္ၿပီးသား ျဖစ္ေနတဲ့အတြက္ ခုတ္လွဲၿပီး မရွိေတာ့့တာၾကာၿပီျဖစ္တဲ့ သစ္ပင္ၾကီးဆီက အကိုင္းကုိ ထင္းမီးစုိက္ဖုိ႔ေနာက္ ၂၁ ႏွစ္ၾကာမွ သတိရတာနဲ႔ တူေနပါတယ္။
သစ္ပင္လဲရင္ အကုိင္းအခက္ေတြလည္း ေျမခရတာဟာ သဘာဝဓမၼ ဥပေဒသပါ။ အကိုင္းအခက္ေတြမွာ အသက္ရွိေသးတယ္လုိ႔ ေျပာခ်င္ရင္ေတာ့ ျပန္စုိက္ရပါမယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ သစ္ပင္ၾကီးနဲ႔တူတဲ့ ဖြ႔ဲစည္းအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒၾကီး မရွိေတာ့တဲ့အခါမွ အဲဒီ ဖြဲ႔စည္း အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံဥပေဒရဲ႕ အကုိင္းအခက္ျဖစ္တဲ့ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရာယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္တဲ့ ဥပေဒလည္း မရွိေတာ့တာမုိ႔ မရွိေတာ့တဲ့ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ တရားစြဲထားျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ လႊတ္ကို လႊတ္ေပးရမယ့္ အမႈျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ေအာက္႐ုံးခ႐ုိင္ တရားသူၾကီးေတြရဲ႕ မွားယြင္းဆံုးျဖတ္မႈ၊ အမိန္႔မလြန္ဆန္ႏုိင္မႈေတြကုိ အဆင့္ျမင့္ တရား႐ုံးေတြက ျပင္ဆင္ေပးလုိက္မယ္ ဆုိရင္ တုိင္းျပည္အတြက္လည္း သိကၡာရွိမယ္။ တရားစီရင္ေရးအတြက္လည္း ေကာင္းမြန္တဲ့ အလားအလာေကာင္းေတြ ရွိလာေစမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
အရင္အာဏာသိမ္း အစုိးရတုန္းက အျပဳအမူ၊ အခုလက္ရွိ အာဏာသိမ္းအစုိးရရဲ႕ အျပဳအမႈေတြနဲ႔ ေနာင္ျပဳလုပ္မယ္လို႔ ေၾကညာထားတဲ့ ေၾကညာခ်က္ေတြအရ အရင္ျပ႒ာန္းထားခဲ့ဖူးတဲ့ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ ဒီကေန႔ထက္တုိင္ အသက္ဝင္လ်က္မရွိဘူး ဆုိတာကုိ လက္ခံရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
၁၉၄၈ ခုႏွစ္ လြတ္လပ္ေရးရၿပီးကတည္းက ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ အေျခခံဥပေဒ ၂ ခုနဲ႔ ၾကံဳခဲ့ၿပီးေပမယ့္ ေနာက္ထပ္တခုနဲ႔ ထပ္ၾကံဳရဦးမယ့္ အေန အထားမွာ အရင္အေျခခံဥပေဒက အခုထိ အသက္ဝင္ေနပါေသးတယ္ ဆုိတဲ့ အေၾကာင္းျပခ်က္နဲ႔ ဒီကေန႔ ျမန္မာ့ႏိုင္ငံအေရးအတြက္ အေရးပါဆုံး သူတဦးျဖစ္တဲ့ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ ဒုကၡေရာက္ေနရတဲ့ အေျခအေနမွာ အရင္က အေျခခံဥပေဒေတြ ဒီကေန႔ထက္တုိင္ အသက္ရွိမရွိ ဆုိတဲ့ ဥပေဒ ျပႆနာကုိ အခုအခ်ိန္ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ အေရးတၾကီး ေဆြးေႏြးဖုိ႔ လုိအပ္ေနပါတယ္။
၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ လြတ္လပ္ေရးမရခင္ တႏွစ္အလုိမွာ လြတ္လပ္ေရး ရယူဖုိ႔အတြက္ ေရးဆြဲခဲ့ရတာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းနဲ႔ ၿဗိတိသွ်ဝန္ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္ အားရ္အက္တလီ (Prime minister Earl Attlee 1945-1951) တုိ႔ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ဇန္နဝါရီလ ၂၈ ရက္ေန႔မွာ အဂၤလန္က ပါလီမန္ အေဆာက္အအုံအတြင္းမွာ လက္မွတ္ေရးထုိးခဲ့ၾကပါတယ္။ ေအာင္ဆန္း-အက္တလီ စာခ်ဳပ္အရ ျမန္မာ ႏိုင္ငံမွာ လြတ္လပ္ေရးယူမယ္ဆုိရင္ ၿဗိတိသွ်ေတြ ယုံၾကည္ရမယ့္ အေျခခံအုတ္ျမစ္ေကာင္းေတြရွိမွ လြတ္လပ္ေရးရမယ္ဆုိတာ ရွင္းေနပါတယ္။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းဟာ ေဖေဖာ္ဝါရီလဆန္းမွာ အဂၤလန္က ျပန္လာၿပီးတာန႔ဲ တၿပိဳင္နက္ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က ဥပေဒပညာရွင္ေတြျဖစ္တဲ့ ဝတ္လုံေတာ္ရ ဦးခ်န္ထြန္း၊ ဦးဘဝင္း စတဲ့ ပုဂၢိဳလ္ေတြ ပါဝင္တဲ့ ေကာ္မတီအဖြဲ႔ဟာ အိႏၵိယကုိ ေလ့လာေရးအဖြဲ႔ ေစလႊတ္ၿပီးေနာက္ပုိင္း ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ၾသဂုတ္လအတြင္းမွာ အေျခခံဥပေဒ မူၾကမ္းကုိ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကုိ တင္ျပႏိုင္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ စက္တင္ဘာလ ၂၄ ရက္ေန႔ မွာ အတည္ျပဳႏိုင္ခဲ့တဲ့အတြက္ ၆ လအတြင္းမွာ ေရးဆြဲခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒလည္း ျဖစ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။
အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ အခ်ိန္တုိအတြင္းမွာ ဥပေဒပညာရွင္မ်ားမ်ားစားစား မပါဝင္ ဘဲေရး ဆြဲခဲ့တယ္ဆုိေပမယ့္ လက္ခံရေလာက္ေအာင္ ေစ့စပ္ေသခ်ာခဲ့လို႔ ၿဗိတိသွ်ပါလီမန္က ျငင္းမရခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒတခု ျဖစ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က ၿဗိတိသွ်ဝန္ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္ အက္တလီဟာ ေအာက္စဖုိ႔ဒ္ ေက်ာင္းဆင္းျဖစ္ၿပီး၊ အလုပ္သမားပါတီ (Labour Party) ေခါင္းေဆာင္၊ ဝတ္လုံေတာ္ရေရွ႕ေနၾကီး (Barrister) တဦး ျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ သူလက္ခံခဲ့တာကို ေလွ်ာ့တြက္လို႔ မရပါဘူး။
ဒါေပမဲ့ ကာလေဒသ အေျခအေနအရပ္ရပ္ေတြ အၿမဲေျပာင္းလဲေနတာေၾကာင့္ တခ်ဳိ႕ေနရာေတြမွာ အားနည္းခ်က္ေတြ အထုိက္အေလ်ာက္ ရွိေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီအားနည္းခ်က္ေတြကုိ ေနာက္ဆက္တြဲ ျပင္ဆင္ခ်က္ေတြအေနနဲ႔ ၁၉၄၉ ခုႏွစ္ကေန ၁၉၆၁ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ၁၁ ၾကိမ္တုိင္တုိင္ ျပင္ဆင္ခဲ့ရပါတယ္။
အဲဒီလုိ ျပင္ဆင္ရင္းနဲ႔ ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏွစ္မွာ စစ္တပ္က အာဏာသိမ္းသြားၿပီးေနာက္ပိုင္း အဲဒီ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ လုံးဝ မသုံးေတာ့ဘဲ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္မွာ ေနာက္ထပ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒတခုကုိ ထပ္မံ အတည္ျပဳခဲ့ျပန္ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီၾကားကာလမွာ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ကုိ အေကာင္အထည္ ေဖာ္မွာ ျဖစ္တဲ့အတြက္ အရင္ရွိခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ ဆက္လက္ မသုံးခဲ့ေတာ့ပါဘူး။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏွစ္ကေန ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ထိ အရင္ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ ျပင္ဆင္ျဖည့္စြက္တာမ်ဳိး လုံးဝ မလုပ္ခဲ့တာက သက္ေသ ျပေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။
ေနာက္ထပ္ အသစ္ျပ႒ာန္းလုိက္တဲ့ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မျပ႒ာန္းခင္ကာလ တေလွ်ာက္လုံးမွာ စစ္တပ္အာဏာသိမ္းခဲ့ၿပီး ၁၉၆၂ -
၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ဆိုရွယ္လစ္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ကုိ ထူေထာင္မယ္လုိ႔ ေၾကြးေၾကာ္ေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီလုိ ၁၂ ႏွစ္ေက်ာ္ၾကာ အခ်ိန္ယူေရးဆြဲခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒေတာင္မွ ၁၉၇၄-၁၉၈၈ အထိ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ ျမန္မာ့ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ လမ္းစဥ္ ပါတီ အစုိးရ (မဆလ) ဟာ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ သူ႔လက္ထက္မွာ ၄ ၾကိမ္ ျပင္ဆင္ခဲ့ရပါေသးတယ္။ သက္ေသျပေနတာကေတာ့ အသုံးျပဳေနတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒဆုိရင္ ေခတ္ကာလအေလ်ာက္ ျပဳျပင္စရာေတြ၊ မြမ္းမံစရာေတြဟာ ေပၚေပါက္လာတတ္တာ သဘာဝဆုိတာပါပဲ။
၂၁ ႏွစ္ၾကာ ျပဳျပင္ျခင္း၊ ျပင္ဆင္ျခင္း၊ မြမ္းမံျခင္း လုံးဝ မရွိခဲ့ဘဲ စကားထဲေတာင္ ထည့္မေျပာခဲ့တာေၾကာင့္ မဆလ အစုိးရက ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မ်က္ကြယ္ျပဳ ဖ်က္သိမ္းပစ္ခဲ့ၿပီးျဖစ္သလုိ လက္ရွိအာဏာသိမ္း အစုိးရကလည္း အရင္အေျခခံဥပေဒကို အလုိလုိ ဖ်က္သိမ္း ၿပီးသားျဖစ္တယ္လို႔ အထက္႐ုံးပညာရွိ တရားသူၾကီးေတြက ေကာက္ယူသုံးသပ္ျခင္းဟာ အတၱေနာမတိကုိသုံးၿပီး ဆင္ျခင္တုံတရားနဲ႔ ေကာက္ယူသုံးသပ္ၾကရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
အရင္အာဏာသိမ္းအစုိးရက ၾကားကာလတေလ်ာက္လုံး ဆုိရွယ္လစ္စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ ထူေထာင္မယ္ဆုိၿပီး ေၾကြးေၾကာ္ခဲ့သလုိ ၁၉၈၈ အာဏာသိမ္းစစ္အစုိးရရဲ႕ စီးပြားေရးဦးတည္ခ်က္ ၄ ရပ္ကလည္း ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ရဲ႕ ဆန္႔က်င္ဘက္ျဖစ္တဲ့ ေစ်းကြက္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ ပီျပင္စြာ ျဖစ္ေပၚလာေရးဆုိတာကုိ အခုခ်ိန္ထိ ေအာ္ေနဆဲျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
စစ္တပ္က အာဏာသိမ္းခဲ့တဲ့ ၁၉၈၈-၂ဝဝ၉ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ႏွစ္ ၂ဝ ေက်ာ္ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအေၾကာင္း လုံးဝ မေျပာခဲ့တဲ့အျပင္ ၂/၈၈ နဲ႔ ၃/၈၈ ဆုိၿပီး ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ ၿငိမ္ဝပ္ပိျပားမႈ တည္ေဆာက္ေရး ဥပေဒလုိ႔ ေၾကညာကာ ဥပေဒျပ႒ာန္းလုိက္တာဟာ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအပုိဒ္ ၁၉၄ (က) အရ ျပဳလုပ္ခြင့္မရိွသည္ကုိ ျပဳလုပ္ေသာ တရားမဝင္အဖြဲ႔အစည္းျဖစ္ေနသည္ဆိုတဲ့ အဓိပၸာယ္ ထြက္ပါတယ္။ (၂/၈၈ ဆုိတာ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ တရားစီရင္ေရးအာဏာကို ဖ်က္သိမ္းတဲ့ ဥပေဒျဖစ္ၿပီး၊ ၃/၈၈ ဆုိတာကေတာ့ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ ဥပေဒျပဳေရး အာဏာကုိ ဖ်က္သိမ္းတဲ့ ဥပေဒျဖစ္ပါတယ္။)
၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအပုိဒ္ ၁၉၄ (က) အရ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကသာ အခ်ဳပ္အျခာအာဏာပုိင္ ျဖစ္တယ္၊ ေနာက္ၿပီး ဥပေဒျပဳအာဏာဟာ လည္း လႊတ္ေတာ္မွာပဲ ရွိရမယ္ ဆိုတာေတြကုိ ျပင္ဆင္ခ်င္တယ္ဆုိရင္ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကုိယ္စားလွယ္ ၇၅ ရာခုိင္ႏႈန္းရဲ႕ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္အျပင္ မဲေပးခြင့္ရွိသူ ျပည္သူလူထု ထက္ဝက္ေက်ာ္ ေထာက္ခံမွသာ ျပင္ဆင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ရွိတယ္ ဆုိတာကုိ ေဖာက္ဖ်က္ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္ခဲ့တယ္ ဆိုတာ ထင္ရွားေနပါတယ္။
အသက္ဝင္ေနတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒက တားျမစ္ထားတာေတြကို ဂ႐ုမစုိက္လုပ္ခ်င္ရာလုပ္တာဟာ ႏိုင္ငံသားအားလုံးရဲ႕ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရး၊ လုံၿခံဳေရးနဲ႔ ေကာင္းျမတ္မႈေတြကုိ ၿခိမ္းေျခာက္ေနျခင္း ျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ စစ္အစိုးရဟာ အျပည္ျပည္ဆုိင္ရာ ရာဇဝတ္ခုံ႐ုံးရဲ႕ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္ေတြ၊ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ေတြကုိ ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္ေနတဲ့ အဖြဲ႔အစည္းတခုျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ခုိင္လုံတဲ့ အၿပီးသတ္ သက္ေသခံခ်က္ ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအရ ႏိုင္ငံသားအခြင့္အေရးကို ကန္႔သတ္တဲ့ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ တရားစြဲထားသူေတြကုိ လႊတ္ေပးမလား။ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္ဝင္ေနတာေၾကာင့္ အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္ေတြကုိ ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္လုိ႔ လူသားျဖစ္မႈဆန္႔က်င္တဲ့ ျပစ္မႈနဲ႔ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ ျပစ္မႈဆုိင္ရာ တရား႐ုံးက အေရးယူတာကုိ ခံမလား ေစာင့္ၾကည့္ၾကပါစုိ႔။
http://www.lovelamp88.co.cc/
Thursday, 3 September 2009
For Online Users,
ကြ်န္ေတာ္တုိ.သည္ အမ်ဳိးသားစီမံခန္႕ခြဲမႈနည္းပညာေကာလိပ္ (ဗိုလ္တေထာင္)
{ယခင္ဗိုလ္တေထာင္ေကာလိပ္ (ခ) လုပ္သားေကာလိပ္} မွေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားျဖစ္ႀကပါသည္။
ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕သည္ ဒီပလိုမာအတန္းတက္သူမ်ားျဖစ္ႀကပါသည္။ ယင္းေကာလိပ္သည္
အစိုးရ၏ ပညာေရးဝန္ႀကီးဌာနမွဦးစီးကာ WINNER ပညာေရးဝန္ေဆာင္မႈအဖြဲ.အစည္း ႏွင့္
ပူးေပါင္း၍ဒီပလိုမာအတန္းမ်ားျဖစ္ေသာ DICT, DHE, DSE, DNE အတန္းမ်ားကိုဖြင့္လွစ္
သင္ႀကားလ်က္ရွိပါသည္ ။ သင္တန္းကာလမွာတစ္ႏွစ္ျဖစ္ၿပီးသင္တန္းၿပီးလွ်င္ Project တစ္ခု
တင္ျပၿပီးမွသာဒီပလိုမာကိုလက္ခံရရွိပါသည္။
ယင္းဒီပလိုမာသည္ျပည္တြင္း၌အလုပ္အကိုင္ေကာင္းမ်ားရရွိရန္အခြင့္အလမ္းမ်ားစြာရွိပါသည္ ။ ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕ေျပာႀကားလိုေသာကိစၥမွာ Project ႏွင္႔ပက္သက္၍ျဖစ္ပါသည္ ။ ယင္း Project ကိုကိုင္တြယ္ဦးစီးေသာဆရာမွာ ဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔ ျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ၎ Project လုပ္ရာတြင္ေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုလုပ္ေသာ Project ကိုပယ္ခ်ျခင္းခံရပါသည္။
အေႀကာင္းမွာ ယင္းဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔ဆိုသူသည္ ၎ႏွင္႔သိေသာသူမ်ား၊ ယင္းကိုလာဘ္လာဘထိုး၍ကန္ေတာ႔ေသာေက်ာင္းသား/ ေက်ာင္းသူမ်ား ၊ အစိုးရႏွင္႔သက္ဆိုင္ေသာသူမ်ား၏ Project ကိုအသိအမွတ္ျပဳေပးျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ ယင္းမေက်နပ္ေသာသူမ်ားဆိုပါက Project မည္သို႔ပင္ေကာင္းေစကာမူ အေႀကာင္းအမ်ိဳးမ်ိဳးျပကာ ပယ္ခ်ေလ႔ရွိသည္။ ႏွစ္စဥ္ ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႔ေကာလိပ္တြင္းဒီပလိုမာ
ရေသာသူမွာလက္ခ်ိဳး၍ေရတြက္လို႔ပင္ရရွိသည္။ အတန္းတစ္တန္းလွ်င္ေက်ာင္းသား /
ေက်ာင္းသူအေယာက္ (၄၀) တက္ပါက (၄) (၅) ေယာက္သာဒီပလိုမာရရွိသည္ ။
ထိုရရွိေသာသူမ်ားမွာအစိုးရႏွင္႔ပက္သက္ေသာသူမ်ား၊ ယင္းဆရာကိုမိ်ဳးသန္႔ကိုလာဘ္ထိုး
ေသာသူမ်ားသာျဖစ္ေလ့ရွိပါသည္။ ၎ဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔သည္သူ၏လုပ္ပိုင္ခြင့္အာဏာမွ အခြင့္
အေရးမ်ားစြာယူကာေက်ာင္းသားေက်ာင္းသူမ်ားကိုအလြန္အမင္းအႏုိင္က်င္႔လ်က္ရွိပါသည္။
ယင္းဆရာသည္ၾကံ ႔ခိုင္ေရးႏွင္႔ဖြံ ႔ၿဖိဳးေရးအသင္းဝင္တစ္ဦးျဖစ္ေႀကာင္းလည္းသိရွိရသည္။
ထိုအေႀကာင္းကိုေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုကမေက်မနပ္ျဖစ္ကာကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕ကဦးစီး၍ယခုကဲ႔
သို႔တင္ျပေပးျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုမွာအခ်ိန္ကုန္၊ လူပင္ပန္းျဖစ္ကာထိုေကာ
လိပ္မွေနာက္ဆုံးတြင္ဘာမွ်မရရွိလိုက္ပါ။ ယင္းမတရားမႈကိုမေက်နပ္ေသာေႀကာင့္ယခုလို
သတင္းေပးတိုင္ႀကားျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။
ကြ်န္ေတာ္တုိ.သည္ အမ်ဳိးသားစီမံခန္႕ခြဲမႈနည္းပညာေကာလိပ္ (ဗိုလ္တေထာင္)
{ယခင္ဗိုလ္တေထာင္ေကာလိပ္ (ခ) လုပ္သားေကာလိပ္} မွေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားျဖစ္ႀကပါသည္။
ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕သည္ ဒီပလိုမာအတန္းတက္သူမ်ားျဖစ္ႀကပါသည္။ ယင္းေကာလိပ္သည္
အစိုးရ၏ ပညာေရးဝန္ႀကီးဌာနမွဦးစီးကာ WINNER ပညာေရးဝန္ေဆာင္မႈအဖြဲ.အစည္း ႏွင့္
ပူးေပါင္း၍ဒီပလိုမာအတန္းမ်ားျဖစ္ေသာ DICT, DHE, DSE, DNE အတန္းမ်ားကိုဖြင့္လွစ္
သင္ႀကားလ်က္ရွိပါသည္ ။ သင္တန္းကာလမွာတစ္ႏွစ္ျဖစ္ၿပီးသင္တန္းၿပီးလွ်င္ Project တစ္ခု
တင္ျပၿပီးမွသာဒီပလိုမာကိုလက္ခံရရွိပါသည္။
ယင္းဒီပလိုမာသည္ျပည္တြင္း၌အလုပ္အကိုင္ေကာင္းမ်ားရရွိရန္အခြင့္အလမ္းမ်ားစြာရွိပါသည္ ။ ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕ေျပာႀကားလိုေသာကိစၥမွာ Project ႏွင္႔ပက္သက္၍ျဖစ္ပါသည္ ။ ယင္း Project ကိုကိုင္တြယ္ဦးစီးေသာဆရာမွာ ဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔ ျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ၎ Project လုပ္ရာတြင္ေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုလုပ္ေသာ Project ကိုပယ္ခ်ျခင္းခံရပါသည္။
အေႀကာင္းမွာ ယင္းဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔ဆိုသူသည္ ၎ႏွင္႔သိေသာသူမ်ား၊ ယင္းကိုလာဘ္လာဘထိုး၍ကန္ေတာ႔ေသာေက်ာင္းသား/ ေက်ာင္းသူမ်ား ၊ အစိုးရႏွင္႔သက္ဆိုင္ေသာသူမ်ား၏ Project ကိုအသိအမွတ္ျပဳေပးျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ ယင္းမေက်နပ္ေသာသူမ်ားဆိုပါက Project မည္သို႔ပင္ေကာင္းေစကာမူ အေႀကာင္းအမ်ိဳးမ်ိဳးျပကာ ပယ္ခ်ေလ႔ရွိသည္။ ႏွစ္စဥ္ ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႔ေကာလိပ္တြင္းဒီပလိုမာ
ရေသာသူမွာလက္ခ်ိဳး၍ေရတြက္လို႔ပင္ရရွိသည္။ အတန္းတစ္တန္းလွ်င္ေက်ာင္းသား /
ေက်ာင္းသူအေယာက္ (၄၀) တက္ပါက (၄) (၅) ေယာက္သာဒီပလိုမာရရွိသည္ ။
ထိုရရွိေသာသူမ်ားမွာအစိုးရႏွင္႔ပက္သက္ေသာသူမ်ား၊ ယင္းဆရာကိုမိ်ဳးသန္႔ကိုလာဘ္ထိုး
ေသာသူမ်ားသာျဖစ္ေလ့ရွိပါသည္။ ၎ဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔သည္သူ၏လုပ္ပိုင္ခြင့္အာဏာမွ အခြင့္
အေရးမ်ားစြာယူကာေက်ာင္းသားေက်ာင္းသူမ်ားကိုအလြန္အမင္းအႏုိင္က်င္႔လ်က္ရွိပါသည္။
ယင္းဆရာသည္ၾကံ ႔ခိုင္ေရးႏွင္႔ဖြံ ႔ၿဖိဳးေရးအသင္းဝင္တစ္ဦးျဖစ္ေႀကာင္းလည္းသိရွိရသည္။
ထိုအေႀကာင္းကိုေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုကမေက်မနပ္ျဖစ္ကာကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕ကဦးစီး၍ယခုကဲ႔
သို႔တင္ျပေပးျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုမွာအခ်ိန္ကုန္၊ လူပင္ပန္းျဖစ္ကာထိုေကာ
လိပ္မွေနာက္ဆုံးတြင္ဘာမွ်မရရွိလိုက္ပါ။ ယင္းမတရားမႈကိုမေက်နပ္ေသာေႀကာင့္ယခုလို
သတင္းေပးတိုင္ႀကားျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။
Looking For help!!!!!
DEAR FRIENDS,
PLEASE TRY TO HELP ME BY FORWARDING AND SPREADING ABOUT THIS EMAIL.
THANKS FOR YOUR KINDNESS AND HELPS.Sent: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:06:31 +0630
Subject: Attention To: ChairMan of Kingfisher Airline Limited
Attention To:
Dr. Vijay Mallya
Chairman of The UB Group
Date: 30th August 2009
Dear Dr. Vijay Mallya,
I am Swe Naing Aung from Myanmar. I think you would remember me as Capt. Aung
Myint’s son. I am now writing this letter because it has been overstepping my
endurance. You, Kingfisher Airline (KFA) and Rishworth Aviation Limited
(RAL) made very unethically and inhumanly on my family, especially on my
mother and I.
I have asked my father’s PM Report for a long time on KFA human resource
manager, Mr. Jargdish Iyer, But until now, there is no response and did not
send PM Report. So, I am just wondering why?????
You, KFA and RAL collaborated and took my father’s left salary for over 1 year
and 8 months. My mother gave time until 22nd August 2009, but RAL did not
send my father’s left family because of your instigation. We have asked our
bank at 23rd August 2009, but RAL did not send my father’s salary. So, my
mother believe that RAL take my father’s left salary with unfairness,
unethical, inhumanity, racism, and discriminating on other nationality and
other nationality employee. So, my mother does not open her email anymore and
she will not accept any mail or contact with from KFA and RAL. Now, my mother
gives every right to do on that matter. I am the only person KFA and RAL
shall negotiate with.
First, you, KFA have send my father’s mortal remain back to Myanmar very fast
and your KFA employees promised me that KFA will settle all my family’s
entitlement. My family and I are very thanking to you, Dr. Vijay Mallya as
you are very kind and gentlemanly person. But after a month later, I have
known that you, Dr. Vijay Mallya, is just an ogre with prince mask. You
ordered your KFA employees to open my father’s room take everything without
informing my family.
RAL also took salary and coerced to sign the indemnity to release RAL after we
got salary.
You, Dr. Vijay Mallya did not want to give anything and so, you and RAL
collaborated and took my father’s left salary with unfairness. Because of KFA
and RAL took my father’s salary for long, my family lost many things. I do
not think that Southern California University will not give PHD to oppress and
do unfairly on other people, and will not teach you unethical way and
inhumanly manner. You, KFA and RAL collaborated and made mentally damage on
our family.
Because of you, KFA and RAL collaborated and made unethically and inhumanly on
my family, we have lost the following-
1. Salary
2. Taking salary until now and the salary is in US $, so, because of
inflation, even if we get now, we will lost 30%.
3. Because of taking my father’s salary, we cannot invest. So, we are still
struggling and trying to get stable life. (there should be 3 times the amount
of salary)
4. Mentally damaged (nobody can calculate how much)
5. Physically lost health (nobody can calculate how much)
6. Even Both KFA and RAL shall have life insurance for my father; both KFA and
RAL did not take any life insurance for my father. So we lost again.
If I keep writing about our lost, there may be much more. But as an unethical
and inhuman person like you, Dr. Vijay Mallya, you will not understand
whatever our lost.
Both KFA and RAL shall have responsible on all our lost. So, I now asked you
both KFA and RAL shall have to give compensation for all our lost. Before we
have negotiated with the amount of compensation, there will be no transaction
of money without my acceptance. RAL also have overdue of my mother’s dead
line date, ie. 22nd August 2009. The only acceptance of RAL that RAL did not
mean to take my father’s salary with unfairness, unethical, inhumanity,
racism, and discriminating on other nationality and other nationality
employee, RAL shall negotiate with me and give compensation of our lost. If
there is no negotiation with me, RAL is meaning to take my father’s salary
with unfairness, unethical, inhumanity, racism, and discriminating on other
nationality and other nationality employee.
The negotiation time is before GMT time 1200 of 14th September 2009.
Kinds Regards,
Swe Naing Aung
I am Daw Htwe Htwe from Union of Myanmar. My husband, Capt Aung Myint, who had made contract with Rishworth Aviation Limited (RAL) and working in India Kingfisher Airline. He,Captain Aung Myint while stationed on duty in Hydrabird, India passed away at 4th December 2007. After he passed away, RAL took his left salary until now, ie, 23rd August 2009. SO RAL took for over 1 year and 9 month. I asked again and again. I also hired lawyer and he also asked for me. But RAL give many reason again and again.
My husband, Capt Aung Myint, was the sole bread winner in our family and the loss not only affected us normally but financially also. RAL also know that we cannot afford the cost of law suit. So, RAL took the basis labor right of salary with unfairness, inhumanity and unethically.
As I am the citizen of Myanmar, I do not use to with English and I am weak in English. As we are living in peaceful normal life, we do not have much knowledge in Legal. Because of those RAL also took upper-hand on contract.
Because I am weak in English, I cannot write subject matter in specifically.
I would like to ask ILO for helping the family who lost the basis labor right.
I also hope ILO will help us because ILO has been participating much in our country affair.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Daw Htwe Htwe
PLEASE TRY TO HELP ME BY FORWARDING AND SPREADING ABOUT THIS EMAIL.
THANKS FOR YOUR KINDNESS AND HELPS.Sent: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:06:31 +0630
Subject: Attention To: ChairMan of Kingfisher Airline Limited
Attention To:
Dr. Vijay Mallya
Chairman of The UB Group
Date: 30th August 2009
Dear Dr. Vijay Mallya,
I am Swe Naing Aung from Myanmar. I think you would remember me as Capt. Aung
Myint’s son. I am now writing this letter because it has been overstepping my
endurance. You, Kingfisher Airline (KFA) and Rishworth Aviation Limited
(RAL) made very unethically and inhumanly on my family, especially on my
mother and I.
I have asked my father’s PM Report for a long time on KFA human resource
manager, Mr. Jargdish Iyer, But until now, there is no response and did not
send PM Report. So, I am just wondering why?????
You, KFA and RAL collaborated and took my father’s left salary for over 1 year
and 8 months. My mother gave time until 22nd August 2009, but RAL did not
send my father’s left family because of your instigation. We have asked our
bank at 23rd August 2009, but RAL did not send my father’s salary. So, my
mother believe that RAL take my father’s left salary with unfairness,
unethical, inhumanity, racism, and discriminating on other nationality and
other nationality employee. So, my mother does not open her email anymore and
she will not accept any mail or contact with from KFA and RAL. Now, my mother
gives every right to do on that matter. I am the only person KFA and RAL
shall negotiate with.
First, you, KFA have send my father’s mortal remain back to Myanmar very fast
and your KFA employees promised me that KFA will settle all my family’s
entitlement. My family and I are very thanking to you, Dr. Vijay Mallya as
you are very kind and gentlemanly person. But after a month later, I have
known that you, Dr. Vijay Mallya, is just an ogre with prince mask. You
ordered your KFA employees to open my father’s room take everything without
informing my family.
RAL also took salary and coerced to sign the indemnity to release RAL after we
got salary.
You, Dr. Vijay Mallya did not want to give anything and so, you and RAL
collaborated and took my father’s left salary with unfairness. Because of KFA
and RAL took my father’s salary for long, my family lost many things. I do
not think that Southern California University will not give PHD to oppress and
do unfairly on other people, and will not teach you unethical way and
inhumanly manner. You, KFA and RAL collaborated and made mentally damage on
our family.
Because of you, KFA and RAL collaborated and made unethically and inhumanly on
my family, we have lost the following-
1. Salary
2. Taking salary until now and the salary is in US $, so, because of
inflation, even if we get now, we will lost 30%.
3. Because of taking my father’s salary, we cannot invest. So, we are still
struggling and trying to get stable life. (there should be 3 times the amount
of salary)
4. Mentally damaged (nobody can calculate how much)
5. Physically lost health (nobody can calculate how much)
6. Even Both KFA and RAL shall have life insurance for my father; both KFA and
RAL did not take any life insurance for my father. So we lost again.
If I keep writing about our lost, there may be much more. But as an unethical
and inhuman person like you, Dr. Vijay Mallya, you will not understand
whatever our lost.
Both KFA and RAL shall have responsible on all our lost. So, I now asked you
both KFA and RAL shall have to give compensation for all our lost. Before we
have negotiated with the amount of compensation, there will be no transaction
of money without my acceptance. RAL also have overdue of my mother’s dead
line date, ie. 22nd August 2009. The only acceptance of RAL that RAL did not
mean to take my father’s salary with unfairness, unethical, inhumanity,
racism, and discriminating on other nationality and other nationality
employee, RAL shall negotiate with me and give compensation of our lost. If
there is no negotiation with me, RAL is meaning to take my father’s salary
with unfairness, unethical, inhumanity, racism, and discriminating on other
nationality and other nationality employee.
The negotiation time is before GMT time 1200 of 14th September 2009.
Kinds Regards,
Swe Naing Aung
I am Daw Htwe Htwe from Union of Myanmar. My husband, Capt Aung Myint, who had made contract with Rishworth Aviation Limited (RAL) and working in India Kingfisher Airline. He,Captain Aung Myint while stationed on duty in Hydrabird, India passed away at 4th December 2007. After he passed away, RAL took his left salary until now, ie, 23rd August 2009. SO RAL took for over 1 year and 9 month. I asked again and again. I also hired lawyer and he also asked for me. But RAL give many reason again and again.
My husband, Capt Aung Myint, was the sole bread winner in our family and the loss not only affected us normally but financially also. RAL also know that we cannot afford the cost of law suit. So, RAL took the basis labor right of salary with unfairness, inhumanity and unethically.
As I am the citizen of Myanmar, I do not use to with English and I am weak in English. As we are living in peaceful normal life, we do not have much knowledge in Legal. Because of those RAL also took upper-hand on contract.
Because I am weak in English, I cannot write subject matter in specifically.
I would like to ask ILO for helping the family who lost the basis labor right.
I also hope ILO will help us because ILO has been participating much in our country affair.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Daw Htwe Htwe
ျပည္သူေတြဟာ လွ်ပ္စစ္မီး ပံုမွန္ မရရွိတာမို ့ပဲခူးျမိဳ ့နယ္ထဲက ေက်းရြာေတြမွာ ကုိယ္ထူကုိယ္ထ မီးလင္းေရး ေကာ္မီေတြ ဖြဲ ့ျပီး ေဆာင္ရြက္ေနၾကရတာလို ့ဆိုပါ ညည္။
ေက်းရြာအတြင္း လွ်ပ္စစ္မီး လိုအပ္သူေတြက သိန္းခ်ီတဲ့ေငြေၾကးေတြ ထည့္၀င္ရျပီး ဒီေငြေတြကို မီးလင္းေရး ေကာ္မီတီေတြက စီမံ သံုးစြဲေနတာ ၾကာခဲ့ျပီလုိ ့လဲ ဆိုပါ ညည္။
ဒီအထဲက ပဲခူးျမိဳ ့နယ္၊ သမန္းကုန္းရြာ မီးလင္းေရး ေကာ္မီတီ ဥကဌ ဦးေက်ာ္ျမင့္နဲ ့ အဖြဲ ့ကေန ေငြက်ပ္ ၃၅ သိန္း အလြဲသံုးစားလုပ္ထားတယ္ဆိုျပီး ၾသဂုတ္လ ၂၁ ရက္ေန ့ က ေနျပည္ေတာ္အထိ စာေရးတုိင္တန္းခဲ့ေပမဲ့ အခု သတင္း ၂ ပါတ္ေက်ာ္လာတဲ့တုိင္ အေရးယူမွဳ မရွိေသးတာလဲ ျဖစ္ပါ ညည္။
အခုလို ေငြေတြ ေကာက္ခံခဲ့တာကုိ မရွင္းလင္းတဲ့အျပင္ ေနာက္ထပ္ ေသာင္းနဲ ိ့ခ်ီတဲ့ ေငြေတြ ထပ္ေတာင္းျပီး ေငြမေပးတဲ့အိမ္ေတြကို မီးျဖတ္လုိက္တာမို ့အခုခါ သမန္းကုန္းရြာက အိမ္တခ်ိဳ ့မွာ လ်ပ္စစ္မီး ျပတ္ေတာက္ေနရပါျပီ၊၊
အလားတူ ပဲခူးျမိဳ ့ေပါၚ အပါ၀င္ ျမိဳ ့နယ္အတြင္း ေက်းရြာတုိင္းက မီးလင္းေရး ေကာ္မီေတြမွာ အနည္းနဲ ့အမ်ား ေငြအလြဲသံုးစားမွဳေတြ ေပၚေပါက္ေနတယ္လုိ ့လဲ ေဒသခံေတြက ေျပာျပၾကပါ ညည္။
သမန္းကုန္း၇ြာကမီးလင္းေ၇းေကာ္မတီ၇ဲ.ေငြအလႊဲသုံးစားလုပ္မွု.
ဒီကိစၥနဲ.ပက္သက္ၿပီးေတာ.သမန္းကုန္းေက်း၇ြာမီးလင္းေ၇းေကာ္မတီဥကၠဌႏွင္.အဖြဲ.မွ၂၀၀၇ခုႏွစ္
ဒီဇင္ဘာလတြင္မီတာ၃၃လုံးအတြက္ေငြ (၆၀၀၀၀)က်ပ္ႏွင္.ဓါတ္မီးတုိင္တုိင္ကုိ
(၁၄၀၀၀၀)က်ပ္ၿဖင္.မီတာ ၃၃ လုံးအတြက္ စုစုေပါင္းကုန္က်ေငြ (၆၆) သိန္းအား
ေက်း၇ြာမီးလင္းေ၇းေကာ္မတီဥကၠဌဦးေက်ာ္ၿမင္.။အတြင္းေ၇းမွူးဦးတင္စုိး။ဘ႑ာေ၇းမွူးဦးေ၇ႊ
။အဖြဲ.၀င္ဦးတင္၀င္းတုိ.ထံ ေပးသြင္းခဲ.ပါညည္။ထုိမီတာ ၃၃ လုံးအတြက္ေငြ
(၁၉၈၀၀၀၀)ေပးသြင္းခဲ.ပါညည္။ထုိ.ေနာက္ ၂၀၀၉-ခုႏွစ္ ဧၿပီလတြင္ေနာက္ထပ္မီးတုိင္
(၂၀)အတြက္အားဆက္လက္တပ္ဆင္ခဲ.ပါညည္။တတုိင္လွ်င္( ၁၄၀၀၀၀၀)ႏွူံးၿဖစ္ညည္.အတြက္တုင္ (၂၀)အတြက္က်သင္.ေငြ(၂၈၀၀၀၀၀)ကုိလည္းမီးလင္းေ၇းေကာ္မတီမွေပးသြင္းခဲ.ပါညည္။မီးလင္းေ၇းေကာ္မတီမွအစုး၇ထံသုိ.သြင္းေငြစုစုေပါင္းမွာ(၄၇၈၀၀၀၀)က်ပ္ေငြဘဲ၇ွိပါညည္။ထုိ.ေႀကာင္.က်န္ေငြ
(၁၈၂၀၀၀၀)က်ပ္ကုိစာ၇င္း၇ွင္းေပး၇န္ေငြေပးထားေသာရြာသားမ်ားကေၿပာဆုိေသာ္လည္းစ၇င္းမရွင္းေသးဘဲ (၂.၆.၀၉)ေန.တြင္မီတာတလုံးလွ်င္ ေငြ (၂၀၀၀၀)ႏွံူးၿဖင္. စုစုေပါင္းမီတာ ၈၇ လုံးအတြက္က်သင္.ေငြ
(၁၇၄၀၀၀၀)ကုိထပ္မံေကာက္ခံခဲ.ၿပီးမီတာမ်ားၿပုၿပင္တပ္ဆင္ၿခင္းမရွိဘဲေနခဲ.ပါညည္။က်န္ရွိေသာမီတာ
(၃၅)လုံးအတြက္ေငြကုိဦးေက်ာ္ၿမင္.ႏွင္.အဖြဲ.က(၁၁.၆.၀၉)၇က္ေန.ေပးသြင္း၇န္ေၿပာဆုိခဲ.၇ာလယ္သမားမ်ားကေစာင္.ဆုိင္းေပး၇န္ေၿပာဆုိေပမယ္. (၁၂.၆.၀၉)ေန.လည္၂နာ၇ီတြင္ထုိလယ္သမားမ်ားဧ။္ေနအိမ္မွမီးႀကုိးမ်ားကုိ
မီး၇ုံးမွတာ၀န္ရွိ၀န္ထမ္းမ်ားမပါဘဲဦးေက်ာ္ၿမင္.ႏွင္.အဖြဲ.မွၿဖတ္ခ်ခဲ.ပါညည္။ထုိ.ေႀကာင္.ဦးေက်ာ္ၿမင္.ႏွင္.အဖြဲ.၀င္ (၄)ဥိးအားစုစုေပါင္းေငြ(၃၅၀၀၀၀၀)သိန္းကုိကုိယ္က်ဳိးအတြက္သုံးစြဲခဲ.သၿဖင္.သက္ဆုိင္
၇ာသုိ.တုိင္ႀကားေသာ္လည္းအခုခ်ိန္ထိအေ၇းယူေဆာင္၇ြက္ေပးၿခင္းမ၇ွိွိသည္.အတြက္ တုိင္ႀကားၿခင္းၿဖစ္ပါညည္။
သူ႔တဦးတည္းအေနနဲ႔ ၀င္၀င္ မ၀င္၀င္ ဗမာျပည္ၾကီး ဘာမွ ထူးျခားလာမွာ မဟုတ္ပါဘူး။
ထူးျခားတာက ေဌးေဇာ္ - အင္း၀ ရဲ့ ရပ္တည္ခ်က္ပါ။ ပါးစပ္ကေျပာေတာ့ အန္တီ အန္တီနဲ႔
တကယ္လက္ေတြ႔မွာေတာ့ လုပ္ေန ေျပာေန ေရးေနတာေတြက ေသာက္တလြဲေတြ။
အန္အယ္ဒီ ကိုေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ၀င္ဖို႔ ေတာေျခာက္ေပးေနတဲ့အထဲမွာ ေဌးေဇာ္ အင္း၀ ပါပါတယ္။
ေဌးေဇာ္ - အင္း၀ ေရးတ့ဲ အဆင္ေျပရင္၂ဒယ္ မွာဖတ္ၾကည့္။
ႏိုင္ငံေရးကို အေမြဆိုင္အိမ္ၾကီးလို ဥပမာေပးျပီး အန္အယ္ဒီကို ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ၀င္ရမယ္လို႔ ႏွပ္ေၾကာင္းေပး တြန္းပို႔ထားတယ္။
အန္အယ္ဒီက ေရႊဂံုတိုင္ေၾကညာစာတမ္းထုတ္ျပီး တရား၀င္ေျပာထားျပီးျပီ
၁။ အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားအပါအ၀င္ ႏုိင္ငံံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားအားလံုးျခြင္းခ်က္မရွိလႊတ္ေပးလွ်င္
၂။ ၂၀၀၈ ခုႏွစ္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုမွ ဒီမုိကေရစီစံႏွဳန္းမ်ားႏွင့္မကိုက္ညီသည့္ အခ်က္မ်ားကို ျပင္ဆင္ေပးလွ်င္
၃။ အားလံုးပါ၀င္ႏုိင္မည့္ လြပ္လပ္၍ တရားမွ်တေသာ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲအျဖစ္ ႏုိင္ငံတကာက ေစာင့္ၾကပ္ေလ့လာမွဳကို ခြင့္ျပဳလွ်င္
အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္အေနျဖင့္ ေပၚေပါက္လာမည့္ ႏုိင္ငံေရးပါတီမ်ားမွတ္ပံုတင္ျခင္းဥပေဒႏွင့္ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲဥပေဒတို႔ကို
ေလ့လာျပီး အေလးထားစဥ္းစားကာ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို ၀င္ေရာက္ယွဥ္ျပိဳင္ႏုိင္ရန္ ရည္ရြယ္သည္ ဆိုတာ
အန္အယ္ဒီ ေျပာျပီးျပီ။
က်ေနာ္တို႔ဘက္က ေျပာစရာရွိတာက
အန္အယ္ဒီ ေတာင္းဆိုထားတဲ့အခ်က္ေတြဟာ က်ဳိးေၾကာင္းဆီေလွ်ာ္မွုရွိတယ္။ အေၾကာင္းအခ်က္ျပည့္စံုခိုင္လံုတယ္။
တရားမွ်တမွဳရွိတယ္။ ဒီမိုကေရစီအသြင္ကူးေျပာင္းေရးကာလအတြက္ အဆိုျပဳခ်က္ေတြျဖစ္တယ္။
ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြဖမ္းခံထားရတဲ့ ႏုိင္ငံေရးပါတီတရပ္အေနနဲ႔ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို ဘယ္လို ၀င္မွာလဲ။
အဲဒီလို သင္းကြပ္ခံထားရတာကေရာတရားမွ်တရဲ့လား။ လႊတ္မေပးတဲ့အျပင္ ေဒၚစုကို အမွဳဆင္ျပီး
စီရင္ခ်က္ေတြခ် ေနအိမ္အက်ယ္ခ်ဳပ္ထပ္ထားလိုက္တာကေရာ။ (ဒီေနရာမွာ နအဖ သန္းေရႊတို႔ရဲ ႔လုပ္ရပ္က
စစ္သားမဆန္ဘူး။ အင္မတန္ေအာက္က်ႏုိင္က်ႏုိင္တယ္။ စစ္သား စစ္စစ္ ဒါမ်ဳိး ဘိန္းပစ္ဖမ္းတာမ်ဳိးမလုပ္ရဘူး။
ဘိန္းပစ္ဖမ္းတာ ကေလကေခ် ရပ္ကြက္ ပုလိပ္ေတြ လုပ္ေလ့လုပ္ထရွိတာ။)
စစ္သားမွ စစ္သား။ စစ္သားမွ တိုင္းျပည္ခ်စ္တာ။ စစ္သားမွ တိုင္းျပည္ကို အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ရမယ္။ စစ္သားမွ သမၼတလုပ္လို႔ရမယ္
ဆိုတဲ့ စစ္သားမွစစ္သားဆိုတဲ့စိတ္ကို ဖဲြ႕စည္းပံုထဲထည့္ထားတာကလည္း စစ္သားမဆန္ျပန္ဘူး။ စစ္သားဆိုတာ ဒျမက်င့္ ဒျမၾကံမၾကံရဘူး။
ႏုိင္ငံေရးေ၀စုကို ဒျမေတြေသနတ္ျပျပီး အက်ပ္ကိုင္ ေတာင္းေနလို႔မရဘူး။
တရားမွ်တျခင္း ရိုးသားျခင္းနဲ႔ ယွဥ္ျပိဳင္ရယူႏုိင္ရမယ္။ သတၱိရွိရွိ စစ္တပ္ကထြက္ျပီး အရပ္သားဘ၀နဲ႔ ယွဥ္ျပိဳင္ရဲရမယ္။
စစ္သားမွစစ္သားဆိုတဲ့ စိတ္ဟာ ဗိုလ္က်စိုးမိုးလိုတဲ့စိတ္ဘဲ။
စစ္သားမွစစ္သားဆိုတဲ့စိတ္ဟာ ဗမာျပည္ၾကီးမွာ ျပည္တြင္းစစ္မီး ဟုန္းဟုန္းေတာက္ေစတဲ့ စိတ္ပုတ္စိတ္ယုတ္ျဖစ္တယ္။
ေဌးေဇာ္-အင္း၀ ဒီအခ်က္ေတြမေျပာဘဲ အန္အယ္ဒီကိုဘဲ မဲျပီးေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ၀င္ခိုင္းေနတာ
ဘာရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္လဲ။
ထူးျခားတာက ေဌးေဇာ္ - အင္း၀ ရဲ့ ရပ္တည္ခ်က္ပါ။ ပါးစပ္ကေျပာေတာ့ အန္တီ အန္တီနဲ႔
တကယ္လက္ေတြ႔မွာေတာ့ လုပ္ေန ေျပာေန ေရးေနတာေတြက ေသာက္တလြဲေတြ။
အန္အယ္ဒီ ကိုေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ၀င္ဖို႔ ေတာေျခာက္ေပးေနတဲ့အထဲမွာ ေဌးေဇာ္ အင္း၀ ပါပါတယ္။
ေဌးေဇာ္ - အင္း၀ ေရးတ့ဲ အဆင္ေျပရင္၂ဒယ္ မွာဖတ္ၾကည့္။
ႏိုင္ငံေရးကို အေမြဆိုင္အိမ္ၾကီးလို ဥပမာေပးျပီး အန္အယ္ဒီကို ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ၀င္ရမယ္လို႔ ႏွပ္ေၾကာင္းေပး တြန္းပို႔ထားတယ္။
အန္အယ္ဒီက ေရႊဂံုတိုင္ေၾကညာစာတမ္းထုတ္ျပီး တရား၀င္ေျပာထားျပီးျပီ
၁။ အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားအပါအ၀င္ ႏုိင္ငံံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားအားလံုးျခြင္းခ်က္မရွိလႊတ္ေပးလွ်င္
၂။ ၂၀၀၈ ခုႏွစ္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုမွ ဒီမုိကေရစီစံႏွဳန္းမ်ားႏွင့္မကိုက္ညီသည့္ အခ်က္မ်ားကို ျပင္ဆင္ေပးလွ်င္
၃။ အားလံုးပါ၀င္ႏုိင္မည့္ လြပ္လပ္၍ တရားမွ်တေသာ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲအျဖစ္ ႏုိင္ငံတကာက ေစာင့္ၾကပ္ေလ့လာမွဳကို ခြင့္ျပဳလွ်င္
အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္အေနျဖင့္ ေပၚေပါက္လာမည့္ ႏုိင္ငံေရးပါတီမ်ားမွတ္ပံုတင္ျခင္းဥပေဒႏွင့္ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲဥပေဒတို႔ကို
ေလ့လာျပီး အေလးထားစဥ္းစားကာ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို ၀င္ေရာက္ယွဥ္ျပိဳင္ႏုိင္ရန္ ရည္ရြယ္သည္ ဆိုတာ
အန္အယ္ဒီ ေျပာျပီးျပီ။
က်ေနာ္တို႔ဘက္က ေျပာစရာရွိတာက
အန္အယ္ဒီ ေတာင္းဆိုထားတဲ့အခ်က္ေတြဟာ က်ဳိးေၾကာင္းဆီေလွ်ာ္မွုရွိတယ္။ အေၾကာင္းအခ်က္ျပည့္စံုခိုင္လံုတယ္။
တရားမွ်တမွဳရွိတယ္။ ဒီမိုကေရစီအသြင္ကူးေျပာင္းေရးကာလအတြက္ အဆိုျပဳခ်က္ေတြျဖစ္တယ္။
ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြဖမ္းခံထားရတဲ့ ႏုိင္ငံေရးပါတီတရပ္အေနနဲ႔ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို ဘယ္လို ၀င္မွာလဲ။
အဲဒီလို သင္းကြပ္ခံထားရတာကေရာတရားမွ်တရဲ့လား။ လႊတ္မေပးတဲ့အျပင္ ေဒၚစုကို အမွဳဆင္ျပီး
စီရင္ခ်က္ေတြခ် ေနအိမ္အက်ယ္ခ်ဳပ္ထပ္ထားလိုက္တာကေရာ။ (ဒီေနရာမွာ နအဖ သန္းေရႊတို႔ရဲ ႔လုပ္ရပ္က
စစ္သားမဆန္ဘူး။ အင္မတန္ေအာက္က်ႏုိင္က်ႏုိင္တယ္။ စစ္သား စစ္စစ္ ဒါမ်ဳိး ဘိန္းပစ္ဖမ္းတာမ်ဳိးမလုပ္ရဘူး။
ဘိန္းပစ္ဖမ္းတာ ကေလကေခ် ရပ္ကြက္ ပုလိပ္ေတြ လုပ္ေလ့လုပ္ထရွိတာ။)
စစ္သားမွ စစ္သား။ စစ္သားမွ တိုင္းျပည္ခ်စ္တာ။ စစ္သားမွ တိုင္းျပည္ကို အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ရမယ္။ စစ္သားမွ သမၼတလုပ္လို႔ရမယ္
ဆိုတဲ့ စစ္သားမွစစ္သားဆိုတဲ့စိတ္ကို ဖဲြ႕စည္းပံုထဲထည့္ထားတာကလည္း စစ္သားမဆန္ျပန္ဘူး။ စစ္သားဆိုတာ ဒျမက်င့္ ဒျမၾကံမၾကံရဘူး။
ႏုိင္ငံေရးေ၀စုကို ဒျမေတြေသနတ္ျပျပီး အက်ပ္ကိုင္ ေတာင္းေနလို႔မရဘူး။
တရားမွ်တျခင္း ရိုးသားျခင္းနဲ႔ ယွဥ္ျပိဳင္ရယူႏုိင္ရမယ္။ သတၱိရွိရွိ စစ္တပ္ကထြက္ျပီး အရပ္သားဘ၀နဲ႔ ယွဥ္ျပိဳင္ရဲရမယ္။
စစ္သားမွစစ္သားဆိုတဲ့ စိတ္ဟာ ဗိုလ္က်စိုးမိုးလိုတဲ့စိတ္ဘဲ။
စစ္သားမွစစ္သားဆိုတဲ့စိတ္ဟာ ဗမာျပည္ၾကီးမွာ ျပည္တြင္းစစ္မီး ဟုန္းဟုန္းေတာက္ေစတဲ့ စိတ္ပုတ္စိတ္ယုတ္ျဖစ္တယ္။
ေဌးေဇာ္-အင္း၀ ဒီအခ်က္ေတြမေျပာဘဲ အန္အယ္ဒီကိုဘဲ မဲျပီးေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ၀င္ခိုင္းေနတာ
ဘာရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္လဲ။
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
BURMA: Institutionalized denial of fundamental rights and the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar
[ALRC Statement] BURMA: Institutionalized denial of fundamental rights and the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 1, 2009
ALRC-CWS-12-03-2009
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Twelfth session – Item 4
A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status
BURMA: Institutionalized denial of fundamental rights and the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar
1. The case decided against democracy party leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and co-accused this August 2009 brought to global attention the institutionalizing of fundamental human rights abuse through what the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) has characterized as Myanmar’s “injustice system”. Although global outrage was expressed at the politically contrived manner in which the proceedings reached their inevitable conclusion, the trial was in many respects typical of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others in recent years, many of which the ALRC has studied and documented in detail. These features included the following:
a. Inapplicability of charges: Leaving aside questions over whether or not the house arrest of the accused in this case was legal at all, the charges against the defendants were inapplicable as the order against Aung San Suu Kyi did not include anything to prohibit her from communicating with someone already in her house. Many other cases heard against opponents of the government in Myanmar also rest on inapplicable and baseless charges. The police, who may receive interrogation files from military personnel and be ordered to frame charges without ever having had contact with an accused, often appear at a loss to identify an offence. For instance, in the case of Aung Aung Oo and three others (Bahan Township Court, Felony No. 442/09, under trial, Judge U Khin Maung Htay presiding), the accused were charged with an arms offence but during the preliminary trial process the charge was instead changed to intent to cause public fear or alarm: an offence used when the police can find no other. In the case of Aung Aung Oo and three, the so-called crime was having had stickers calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. The police have no evidence that they had stuck them up anywhere in public or had committed a crime as alleged, but they are being held in detention and prosecuted nonetheless.
b. Violations of basic criminal procedure: Judges from two districts heard the case against Aung San Suu Kyi and her co-accused. This is a fundamental breach of criminal procedure, which requires that a judge of a jurisdiction hear a case against an accused in the jurisdiction where the alleged offence occurred. There is no provision of law for mixing judges of different jurisdictions. The case also was heard in a closed court which only select persons were allowed to attend: again, there is no basis in law for trying someone in this manner; however, the trying of opponents to the present government in this way is the norm, not the exception. The ALRC is not aware of any such case in recent years that has been conducted in an open courtroom. In fact, in the case of Aung San Suu Kyi and her co-accused there was more openness than in many such cases. Very often family members and also lawyers are denied access to courtrooms. For instance, in the case of human rights defender U Myint Aye and two co-accused, who were sentenced to life imprisonment for an alleged bombing plot (Yangon North District Court, Felony No. 102/08, decided 28 November 2008, Judge U Thaung Nyunt presiding), the first defendant was not represented in court despite his attempts to have a lawyer. His original counsel was also charged and imprisoned in a separate case. Myint Aye and his co-accused claimed that they were tortured to extract confessions but the court ignored these claims.
c. Problems with witnesses: The court in the case of Aung San Suu Kyi initially allowed only one defence witness and thereafter on request to a higher court, a second witness. By contrast, the prosecution presented some 17 witnesses, of whom 11 were police and the others were immigration and council officials. Defendants in trials of this sort in Myanmar are routinely unable to present witnesses. It is also common to find that the only witnesses for the prosecution are police and other officials; and ordinary civilian witnesses, where present, are not genuinely independent but appear for the police as professional witnesses. For instance, in the case against U Tin Min Htut and another, who were accused of writing a letter to the United Nations Secretary General in which they criticized the government and the manner in which the international community has treated the situation in Myanmar (Yangon West District Court, Felony Nos. 138 & 140/09, decided 13 February 2009, Judge U Tin Htut presiding), a line of police testified for the prosecution but the defendants were unable to present witnesses and were not allowed access to a lawyer, even though Tin Min Htut had signed a power of attorney and his advocate had come to the court premises.
2. Together these points speak to the first of two fundamental problems with the judicial system in Myanmar with which the international community must come to terms if it is going to say or do anything useful about the human rights situation there, rather than simply decry the unfair trials of a few prominent individuals. The judiciary is in its present form an appendage of executive authority. Unless its structurally and functionally subordinate position is addressed, it will continue to act as an instrument for the violation of rights rather than their defence. Under these circumstances, calls for the courts to decide cases fairly and in accordance with international standards are completely meaningless. In such cases, the courts in Myanmar are not even capable of complying with domestic standards, and nor should they be expected to be, because they are performing an executive function, not a judicial one: i.e. their role is to imprison government opponents rather than uphold the law.
3. The second point that the international community has so far failed to grasp concerning criminal injustice and its relevance to debate on human rights in Myanmar is that the patterns of bad behaviour developed through the types of cases given above have a flow-on effect into the system as a whole. In ordinary criminal cases the ALRC has observed the same sorts of incorrectly applied charges, consistently broken procedure, lack of evidence and forced confessions. These types of behaviour persist in ordinary cases in part because they are learned in the course of the sorts of politically directed cases described above. But in ordinary cases the concern is not with correct application of executive directions in lieu of law, but instead with obtaining the best price from the highest bidder. Among persons working in and familiar with the legal system in Myanmar it is known as a justice-trading system. However, some persons working for international agencies in Myanmar either misunderstand or pretend to misunderstand that the system is in some way operating in the manner of those elsewhere in the world, or even in the region, and that things can be done to improve the situation of ordinary citizens in the way that they might be in other places through the use of the courts. This is to fundamentally miscomprehend the situation of the courts and their functionaries in Myanmar.
4. These features of institutionalized abuse, and the need for more effective study and critique rather than simple condemnation of specific acts of wrongdoing are of special relevance in the current period, when the government of Myanmar has indicated that it plans to hold an election, perhaps in 2010, after which the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar will come into effect. The response of many in the international community on learning of the re-confinement of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi this August was to condemn the expected election as a farce, for reason of her non-involvement. But the problems associated with the electoral process need to be studied in terms of the institutional contradictions to which her case points rather than in terms of its personalities. The deeply flawed 2008 Constitution further entrenches arrangements for abuses of the sorts outlined above, and any serious attempts from the international community to take up issues of concern to the people of Myanmar in the lead up to and after the anticipated election must respond to the peculiar variety of unconstitutional constitutionalism that it envisages. In particular, the following aspects of the charter must be brought to the foreground and addressed before it is possible to proceed to more in-depth discussion about human rights in Myanmar under a government operating according to its parameters:
a. Un-separation of powers: The constitution in section 11(a) separates the branches of government only “to the extent possible”. This absurd clause effectively un-separates powers and makes a mockery out of claims to judicial independence. The constitution must guarantee full separation of the judiciary from other parts of state before the courts can be considered anything other than subordinates of the executive.
b. Army as constitutional defender: Section 20(f) assigns main responsibility to the Defence Services, rather than the judiciary, for defence of the constitution. This is despite the establishing under the charter of a constitutional tribunal. How the army is supposed to perform the task is not explained. This nonsense provision must be removed and responsibility for the constitution must be placed in the hands of the courts before the constitution can be described as a supreme law at all.
c. Rule of law as a function of the executive: Under Schedule One the rule of law and the police force are both placed under the Union Defence and Security Sector. In other words, both maintenance of law and policing are assigned to the armed forces. This is another blanket provision that ensures the continued militarization of the state and subordination of the judiciary to military interests.
d. Presidential power over judges: The power to appoint, promote and remove senior judges ultimately lies with an executive president who in turn, the constitution ensures, must be someone approved by the armed forces. The sections of the constitution pertaining to this power must be amended to remove this authority and instead an independent judicial services commission or equivalent must be established for this purpose.
e. Qualified rights: Apart from the arrangements in the constitution identified above that serve to negate statements of rights in the constitution, the formal statements themselves are consistently qualified and undermined. For instance, the right to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours, which already exists under ordinary criminal procedure, is defeated through a lengthy opaque clause in section 376 exempting cases concerning national security, the rule of law, peace and tranquility and the interest of the public. Other sections are similarly imprecise and repeatedly allow only for qualified, not guaranteed rights “in accordance with the law”.
5. The above observations and recommendations are made with awareness that the Government of Myanmar will anyhow override provisions of the constitution in the same way that it has consistently overridden those of the ordinary law to the extent necessary to achieve its objectives, but are made on the basis that the constitution as a normative document should provide some bases for commitments to protect human rights, against which it is possible to measure a government’s actual record of respect, protection and fulfillment. The present document provides no such bases. The international community needs to use cases and issues arising in the present day, like that of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, to probe, critique and explore the institutional features of abuse and how they will be reconfigured under the planned new arrangements for government after an election of some sort, rather than simply criticize the individual cases of prominent persons as if they are somehow isolated from the structure and functions of Myanmar’s criminal justice system and state as a whole.
# # #
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
Posted on 2009-09-01
Back to [AHRC Statements 2009]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 1, 2009
ALRC-CWS-12-03-2009
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Twelfth session – Item 4
A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status
BURMA: Institutionalized denial of fundamental rights and the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar
1. The case decided against democracy party leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and co-accused this August 2009 brought to global attention the institutionalizing of fundamental human rights abuse through what the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) has characterized as Myanmar’s “injustice system”. Although global outrage was expressed at the politically contrived manner in which the proceedings reached their inevitable conclusion, the trial was in many respects typical of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others in recent years, many of which the ALRC has studied and documented in detail. These features included the following:
a. Inapplicability of charges: Leaving aside questions over whether or not the house arrest of the accused in this case was legal at all, the charges against the defendants were inapplicable as the order against Aung San Suu Kyi did not include anything to prohibit her from communicating with someone already in her house. Many other cases heard against opponents of the government in Myanmar also rest on inapplicable and baseless charges. The police, who may receive interrogation files from military personnel and be ordered to frame charges without ever having had contact with an accused, often appear at a loss to identify an offence. For instance, in the case of Aung Aung Oo and three others (Bahan Township Court, Felony No. 442/09, under trial, Judge U Khin Maung Htay presiding), the accused were charged with an arms offence but during the preliminary trial process the charge was instead changed to intent to cause public fear or alarm: an offence used when the police can find no other. In the case of Aung Aung Oo and three, the so-called crime was having had stickers calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. The police have no evidence that they had stuck them up anywhere in public or had committed a crime as alleged, but they are being held in detention and prosecuted nonetheless.
b. Violations of basic criminal procedure: Judges from two districts heard the case against Aung San Suu Kyi and her co-accused. This is a fundamental breach of criminal procedure, which requires that a judge of a jurisdiction hear a case against an accused in the jurisdiction where the alleged offence occurred. There is no provision of law for mixing judges of different jurisdictions. The case also was heard in a closed court which only select persons were allowed to attend: again, there is no basis in law for trying someone in this manner; however, the trying of opponents to the present government in this way is the norm, not the exception. The ALRC is not aware of any such case in recent years that has been conducted in an open courtroom. In fact, in the case of Aung San Suu Kyi and her co-accused there was more openness than in many such cases. Very often family members and also lawyers are denied access to courtrooms. For instance, in the case of human rights defender U Myint Aye and two co-accused, who were sentenced to life imprisonment for an alleged bombing plot (Yangon North District Court, Felony No. 102/08, decided 28 November 2008, Judge U Thaung Nyunt presiding), the first defendant was not represented in court despite his attempts to have a lawyer. His original counsel was also charged and imprisoned in a separate case. Myint Aye and his co-accused claimed that they were tortured to extract confessions but the court ignored these claims.
c. Problems with witnesses: The court in the case of Aung San Suu Kyi initially allowed only one defence witness and thereafter on request to a higher court, a second witness. By contrast, the prosecution presented some 17 witnesses, of whom 11 were police and the others were immigration and council officials. Defendants in trials of this sort in Myanmar are routinely unable to present witnesses. It is also common to find that the only witnesses for the prosecution are police and other officials; and ordinary civilian witnesses, where present, are not genuinely independent but appear for the police as professional witnesses. For instance, in the case against U Tin Min Htut and another, who were accused of writing a letter to the United Nations Secretary General in which they criticized the government and the manner in which the international community has treated the situation in Myanmar (Yangon West District Court, Felony Nos. 138 & 140/09, decided 13 February 2009, Judge U Tin Htut presiding), a line of police testified for the prosecution but the defendants were unable to present witnesses and were not allowed access to a lawyer, even though Tin Min Htut had signed a power of attorney and his advocate had come to the court premises.
2. Together these points speak to the first of two fundamental problems with the judicial system in Myanmar with which the international community must come to terms if it is going to say or do anything useful about the human rights situation there, rather than simply decry the unfair trials of a few prominent individuals. The judiciary is in its present form an appendage of executive authority. Unless its structurally and functionally subordinate position is addressed, it will continue to act as an instrument for the violation of rights rather than their defence. Under these circumstances, calls for the courts to decide cases fairly and in accordance with international standards are completely meaningless. In such cases, the courts in Myanmar are not even capable of complying with domestic standards, and nor should they be expected to be, because they are performing an executive function, not a judicial one: i.e. their role is to imprison government opponents rather than uphold the law.
3. The second point that the international community has so far failed to grasp concerning criminal injustice and its relevance to debate on human rights in Myanmar is that the patterns of bad behaviour developed through the types of cases given above have a flow-on effect into the system as a whole. In ordinary criminal cases the ALRC has observed the same sorts of incorrectly applied charges, consistently broken procedure, lack of evidence and forced confessions. These types of behaviour persist in ordinary cases in part because they are learned in the course of the sorts of politically directed cases described above. But in ordinary cases the concern is not with correct application of executive directions in lieu of law, but instead with obtaining the best price from the highest bidder. Among persons working in and familiar with the legal system in Myanmar it is known as a justice-trading system. However, some persons working for international agencies in Myanmar either misunderstand or pretend to misunderstand that the system is in some way operating in the manner of those elsewhere in the world, or even in the region, and that things can be done to improve the situation of ordinary citizens in the way that they might be in other places through the use of the courts. This is to fundamentally miscomprehend the situation of the courts and their functionaries in Myanmar.
4. These features of institutionalized abuse, and the need for more effective study and critique rather than simple condemnation of specific acts of wrongdoing are of special relevance in the current period, when the government of Myanmar has indicated that it plans to hold an election, perhaps in 2010, after which the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar will come into effect. The response of many in the international community on learning of the re-confinement of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi this August was to condemn the expected election as a farce, for reason of her non-involvement. But the problems associated with the electoral process need to be studied in terms of the institutional contradictions to which her case points rather than in terms of its personalities. The deeply flawed 2008 Constitution further entrenches arrangements for abuses of the sorts outlined above, and any serious attempts from the international community to take up issues of concern to the people of Myanmar in the lead up to and after the anticipated election must respond to the peculiar variety of unconstitutional constitutionalism that it envisages. In particular, the following aspects of the charter must be brought to the foreground and addressed before it is possible to proceed to more in-depth discussion about human rights in Myanmar under a government operating according to its parameters:
a. Un-separation of powers: The constitution in section 11(a) separates the branches of government only “to the extent possible”. This absurd clause effectively un-separates powers and makes a mockery out of claims to judicial independence. The constitution must guarantee full separation of the judiciary from other parts of state before the courts can be considered anything other than subordinates of the executive.
b. Army as constitutional defender: Section 20(f) assigns main responsibility to the Defence Services, rather than the judiciary, for defence of the constitution. This is despite the establishing under the charter of a constitutional tribunal. How the army is supposed to perform the task is not explained. This nonsense provision must be removed and responsibility for the constitution must be placed in the hands of the courts before the constitution can be described as a supreme law at all.
c. Rule of law as a function of the executive: Under Schedule One the rule of law and the police force are both placed under the Union Defence and Security Sector. In other words, both maintenance of law and policing are assigned to the armed forces. This is another blanket provision that ensures the continued militarization of the state and subordination of the judiciary to military interests.
d. Presidential power over judges: The power to appoint, promote and remove senior judges ultimately lies with an executive president who in turn, the constitution ensures, must be someone approved by the armed forces. The sections of the constitution pertaining to this power must be amended to remove this authority and instead an independent judicial services commission or equivalent must be established for this purpose.
e. Qualified rights: Apart from the arrangements in the constitution identified above that serve to negate statements of rights in the constitution, the formal statements themselves are consistently qualified and undermined. For instance, the right to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours, which already exists under ordinary criminal procedure, is defeated through a lengthy opaque clause in section 376 exempting cases concerning national security, the rule of law, peace and tranquility and the interest of the public. Other sections are similarly imprecise and repeatedly allow only for qualified, not guaranteed rights “in accordance with the law”.
5. The above observations and recommendations are made with awareness that the Government of Myanmar will anyhow override provisions of the constitution in the same way that it has consistently overridden those of the ordinary law to the extent necessary to achieve its objectives, but are made on the basis that the constitution as a normative document should provide some bases for commitments to protect human rights, against which it is possible to measure a government’s actual record of respect, protection and fulfillment. The present document provides no such bases. The international community needs to use cases and issues arising in the present day, like that of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, to probe, critique and explore the institutional features of abuse and how they will be reconfigured under the planned new arrangements for government after an election of some sort, rather than simply criticize the individual cases of prominent persons as if they are somehow isolated from the structure and functions of Myanmar’s criminal justice system and state as a whole.
# # #
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
Posted on 2009-09-01
Back to [AHRC Statements 2009]
UN, West pressure Myanmar for change from within
UN, West pressure Myanmar for change from within
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday that elections in Myanmar must be free and fair, amid mounting concerns that they won't be.
By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS —
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday that elections in Myanmar must be free and fair, amid mounting concerns that they won't be.
"We need to work more for the democratization of Myanmar," Ban told a press conference in Oslo, Norway, with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. "This election in 2010 must be a fair and credible and inclusive one."
Ban said he was working hard to keep the pressure on General Than Shwe and other of Myanmar's leaders to live up to their commitments to hold legitimate elections in 2010. At a minimum, the U.N. wants Suu Kyi and 2,000 other political prisoners released. A transcript of Ban's remarks were made available at the U.N. in New York.
Than Shwe has resisted U.N. demands to open up democratically, ignoring four Security Council statements and direct entreaties by Ban and a top envoy. Suu Kyi has been in detention for 14 of the last 20 years since her pro-democracy party won in the polls but was denied power.
Myanmar's government has given no indication it will release her or the 200 political prisoners that Ibrahim Gambari, Ban's top envoy, told The Associated Press he expected would be freed after Ban's most recent trip.
Western and U.N. diplomats increasingly view Myanmar as intent on holding staged elections to enshrine its military dictatorship next year, with few other than the government or neighboring China able to steer an alternate course.
"It's the Burmese leadership that have to take the decision to move forward, rather than to keep their country held back in a state of lack of freedom, military regime and an environment in which there's going to be very little international investment," British Ambassador John Sawers said in an AP interview.
China and Russia, two of Myanmar's main weapons suppliers and trading partners, oppose the idea of a U.N.-backed international arms embargo, and they also blocked the council from making anything more than a tepid protest of Suu Kyi's return to house arrest on Aug. 11.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
သတင္း - မဇၩိမသတင္းဌာန
ေရးသားသူ - နန္းေဒဝီ
တနလၤာေန႔၊ ၾသဂုတ္လ 31 ရက္ 2009 ခုႏွစ္
နယူးေဒလီ (မဇိၥ်မ)။ ။ စစ္အစိုးရ၏ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲတြင္ ဝင္ေရာက္ယွဥ္ၿပိဳင္ရန္ ျပင္ဆင္သည့္အေနျဖင့္ ၁၀ ပါတီအဖြဲ႔က ၎တို႔ ရပ္တည္ခ်က္မူဝါဒမ်ားကုိ ယမန္ေန႔မွ စတင္၍ ေရးဆြဲေနၿပီျဖစ္သည္။
တတိယအင္အားစု Third Force တခုဟု ျမန္မာ့ႏိုင္ငံေရးနယ္ပယ္တြင္ ရည္ညႊန္းၾကသည့္ ‘အမ်ဳိးသားႏိုင္ငံေရး မဟာမိတ္မ်ားအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္’ သည္ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲအတြက္ မူဝါဒသေဘာထားမ်ားကို တပတ္အတြင္း အၿပီးသတ္ ေရးဆြဲသြားရန္ စိုင္းျပင္းေနၾကျခင္း ျဖစ္သည္။
“အဓိက ေပၚလစီနဲ႔ စည္းမ်ဥ္းစည္းကမ္းေတြ ဆြဲတာပါ။ အဖြဲ႔အေနနဲ႔ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံအေပၚ ဘာေတြ လုပ္ေပးႏိုင္မလဲ။ ၿပီးေတာ့ က်ေနာ္တို႔ရဲ႕ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္၊ တပ္မေတာ္အေပၚထားတဲ့ က်ေနာ္တို႔ သေဘာထား။ အလုပ္သမား၊ လယ္သမားေတြအေပၚထားတဲ့ သေဘာထား။ ယဥ္ေက်းမႈ၊ ဘာသာေရး ဘာညာေပါ့” ဟု ထိုအဖြဲ႔၏ ဗဟိုဦးစီး ေကာ္မတီဝင္ ဦးအုန္းလြင္က မဇၥ်ိမကို ေျပာသည္။
မဟာမိတ္မ်ားအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္က နအဖစစ္အစိုးရ ဦးေဆာင္ေျပာင္းလဲေသာ ႏိုင္ငံေရးျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲမႈကို လက္ခံထားၿပီး အျငင္းပြားဖြယ္ရာ ၂၀၀၈ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကို က်င့္သံုးမည့္ အေထြေထြေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို လက္ခံထားကာ၊ တျဖည္းျဖည္းခ်င္းသာ ေျပာင္းလဲ၍ ရႏိုင္မည္ဟု ယံုၾကည္ထားၾကသည္။
ဦးအုန္းလြင္က “က်ေနာ္တို႔က အေျပာင္းအလဲကို သိမ္သိမ္ေမြ႔ေမြ႔၊ ေအးေအးခ်မ္းခ်မ္းနဲ႔ စစ္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးကေန အရပ္သားအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရး ေျပာင္းဖို႔။ ေျပာင္းတဲ့အခါမွာလည္း အတိုက္အခိုက္ေတြ မပါဘဲနဲ႔ ေအးေအးခ်မ္းခ်မ္းနဲ႔ ေျပာင္းဖို႔။ က်ေနာ္တို႔လည္း အဲဒီေရြးေကာက္ပြဲမွာ ပါမယ္ဆိုတဲ့ အခြင့္အေရးကို က်ေနာ္တို႔ ထုတ္ေနတာပဲေလ” ဟု ေျပာသည္။
မဟာမိတ္မ်ားအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္တြင္ ဒီမိုကေရစီလိုလားေသာ ပင္မအတိုက္အခံပါတီ အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္မွ ခြဲထြက္ခဲ့သည့္ ဝံသာႏု အန္အယ္ဒီ အပါအဝင္ အမ်ဳိးသားႏုိင္ငံေရး အန္အယ္ဒီ လူငယ္ (မိတၳီလာ)၊ မ်ဳိးခ်စ္ အမ်ဳိးသားႏိုင္ငံေရး အစည္းအ႐ုံး (ေတာင္တြင္းၾကီး)၊ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးႏွင့္ တိုးတက္ေရးအဖြဲ႔၊ အမ်ဳိးသားႏုိင္ငံေရး ရခုိင္ျပည္နယ္၊ ဒီမို အန္အယ္ဒီ (စစ္ကိုင္းတိုင္း)၊ အမ်ဳိးသားႏုိင္ငံေရး ေစ့ေဆာ္သူမ်ား၊ G–7၊ ႏိုင္ငံေရးေဘာဂေဗဒ ေလ့လာေရး မ်ဳိးဆက္သစ္ ေက်ာင္းေတာ္သားစု၊ တသီးပုဂၢလႏွင့္ ညီလာခံကိုယ္စားလွယ္အခ်ဳိ႕ျဖင့္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းထားသည္။
ၿပီးခဲ့သည့္ ဇူလိုင္လအတြင္း မႏၲေလးတိုင္း မိတၳီလာၿမိဳ႕တြင္ ၁၀ ပါတီ ေပါင္းစပ္ဖြဲ႔စည္းခဲ့သည့္ ထိုအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္၌ ၁၉၉၉ ခုႏွစ္တြင္ အန္အယ္ဒီမွ ထုတ္ပယ္ခဲ့သည့္ အမတ္ ၇ ဦးျဖင့္ ဖဲြ႔စည္းထားသည့္ (G-7) အဖဲြ႔ ပါဝင္ေၾကာင္း ကာယကံရွင္တဦးျဖစ္သူ မဂၤလာဒံု (၁) မဲဆႏၵနယ္မွ အမတ္ဦးၾကည္ဝင္းက မဇိၥ်မကို ေျပာသည္။
အမတ္ ၇ ဦးအဖြဲ႔တြင္ ၁၉၉၀ ခုႏွစ္ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲတြင္ ေရြးခ်ယ္ခံခဲ့ရသည့္ ဦးၾကည္ဝင္း (မဂၤလာဒံု - ၁) ၊ ဦးတင္ထြန္းေမာင္ (မဂၤလာဒံု - ၂) ၊ ဦးသိန္းၾကည္ (ေတာင္တြင္းၾကီး)၊ ဦးျမလိႈင္ (တြံေတး)၊ ဦးလွစိုး (မင္းဘူး) တို႔လည္း ပါဝင္သည္။ သူတို႔ထဲမွ အမတ္တဦး ကြယ္လြန္ခဲ့ၿပီး၊ လက္ရွိတြင္ အမတ္ ဦးသန္းထြန္း (ေဒးဒရဲ) ကို စည္း႐ံုးေနဆဲျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း သိရသည္။
၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ ေကာ္မရွင္ ဥေပဒကို လာမည့္လအတြင္း ေနျပည္ေတာ္၌ က်င္းပမည့္ ၾကံ႕ခုိင္ဖံြ႔ၿဖိဳးေရး သင္းလံုးကြ်တ္ ညီလာခံအၿပီး ထုတ္ျပန္သြားဖြယ္ရွိေၾကာင္း ႏိုင္ငံေရး အကဲခတ္မ်ားက ခန္႔မွန္းမႈမ်ား ရွိေနသည္။
“လိႈင္ၿမိဳ႕နယ္ သံလမ္းမွာ က်ေနာ္တို႔အဖြဲ႔ဝင္ေတြ ျဖတ္ေလွ်ာက္လာေတာ့ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲေကာင္မရွင္ ဆိုင္းဘုတ္အေဟာင္းေတြကို ျပဳျပင္ေနတာ ေတြ႔ခဲ့တယ္” ဟု စစ္အစိုးရဘက္ယိမ္းသည့္ ၈၈ မ်ဳိးဆက္သစ္ ေက်ာင္းသားလူငယ္မ်ားအဖဲြ႔ (ျပည္ေထာင္စု ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံ) မွ ကိုေအးလြင္က ေျပာသည္။
၁၉၉၀ ခုႏွစ္ ေရြးေကာက္ပဲြအႏုိင္ရ အန္အယ္ဒီက ၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႔စည္းပံုကို ျပန္လည္္သံုးသပ္ျပင္ဆင္ရန္၊ ေတြ႔ဆံုေဆြးေႏြးေရး ျပဳလုပ္ရန္ႏွင့္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ အပါအဝင္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားမ်ား လႊတ္ေပးရန္ ၿပီးခဲ့သည့္ ေမလေႏွာင္းပိုင္းတြင္ က်င္းပသည့္ ပါတီညီလာခံအၿပီး ေရႊတိဂုံအမည္ရွိ ေၾကညာခ်က္ထုတ္ျပန္ကာ စစ္အစိုးရကို ေတာင္းဆိုခဲ့သည္။
လာမည့္ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို လက္မခံသည့္ သံဃာ၊ ေက်ာင္းသားအဖြဲ႔မ်ားအပါအဝင္ ျပတ္ျပတ္သားသား အတိုက္အခံ အင္အားစုအခ်ဳိ႕က ထိုေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို ဆန္႔က်င္သည့္ လႈပ္ရွားမႈမ်ား လုပ္ေဆာင္သြားမည္ဟု ထုတ္ေဖာ္ေျပာထားၾကသည္။
၁၉၉၀ ခုႏွစ္တြင္ စစ္အစိုးရက အေထြေထြေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ က်င္းပေပးခဲ့ရာ အန္အယ္ဒီက မဲ ၈၂ ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းေက်ာ္ အျပတ္အသတ္ အႏုိင္ရခဲ့ေသာ္လည္း စစ္အစိုးရက အာဏာလႊဲေပးရန္ ျငင္းဆိုလိုက္ၿပီး၊ စစ္တပ္ဦးေဆာင္မႈကို အာမခံမည့္ ပံုစံခ်ထားေသာ အေျခခံဥပေဒတရပ္ကို ေရးဆြဲရန္သာ လုပ္ေဆာင္ရမည္ဟု ညႊန္ၾကားခဲ့သည္။
China urges Myanmar to safeguard border stability
China urges Myanmar to safeguard border stability
Source: Xinhua News Agency
Date: 28 Aug 2009
China hoped Myanmar could properly solve its domestic issue to safeguard the regional stability of its bordering area with China, said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu Friday.
Jiang made the remarks when asked to comment on media reports that the confrontation between Myanmar government forces and an ethnic army in the Kokang area of Shan state in northeastern Myanmar has triggered influx of Myanmar border inhabitants into the Chinese territory.
She said China was paying close attention to the development of this issue and had expressed its concern to Myanmar through the diplomatic channel.
"We also urge Myanmar to protect the safety and legal rights of Chinese citizens in Myanmar," Jiang said.
A large number of panic-stricken Myanmar border inhabitants have fled to neighboring Yunnan province in southwest China, according to the foreign affairs office of the Yunnan provincial government.
Yunnan is helping them settle down in seven settlements with supply of life necessities, medical care and disease control measures as humanitarian assistance.
Editor: Li Wucheng
Source: Xinhua
Source: Xinhua News Agency
Date: 28 Aug 2009
China hoped Myanmar could properly solve its domestic issue to safeguard the regional stability of its bordering area with China, said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu Friday.
Jiang made the remarks when asked to comment on media reports that the confrontation between Myanmar government forces and an ethnic army in the Kokang area of Shan state in northeastern Myanmar has triggered influx of Myanmar border inhabitants into the Chinese territory.
She said China was paying close attention to the development of this issue and had expressed its concern to Myanmar through the diplomatic channel.
"We also urge Myanmar to protect the safety and legal rights of Chinese citizens in Myanmar," Jiang said.
A large number of panic-stricken Myanmar border inhabitants have fled to neighboring Yunnan province in southwest China, according to the foreign affairs office of the Yunnan provincial government.
Yunnan is helping them settle down in seven settlements with supply of life necessities, medical care and disease control measures as humanitarian assistance.
Editor: Li Wucheng
Source: Xinhua
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NOON BRIEFING
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NOON BRIEFING
BY MARIE OKABE
DEPUTY SPOKESPERSON FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
UN HEADQUARTERS, NEW YORK
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Secretary-General also met with the Norwegian Foreign Minister this morning over breakfast; they discussed Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, the Middle East and Myanmar, as well as sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Secretary-General later met with members of Norway’s Parliament, and he discussed with them climate change, including carbon trading, UN reform, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and the situation of Iranian refugees in Iraq.
In Myanmar, he said, he met with Senior General Than Shwe, and told him bluntly that the world is watching him and his Government, and that he must release all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
BY MARIE OKABE
DEPUTY SPOKESPERSON FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
UN HEADQUARTERS, NEW YORK
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Secretary-General also met with the Norwegian Foreign Minister this morning over breakfast; they discussed Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, the Middle East and Myanmar, as well as sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Secretary-General later met with members of Norway’s Parliament, and he discussed with them climate change, including carbon trading, UN reform, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and the situation of Iranian refugees in Iraq.
In Myanmar, he said, he met with Senior General Than Shwe, and told him bluntly that the world is watching him and his Government, and that he must release all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
ဘုရားဘုရား သြားျပီ.... ျမန္မာမေလးေတြေတာ႕ သြားရွာျပီ....
ဘာေတြျဖစ္ကုန္ျပီလဲမသိဘူး....
βëšT ЯéɠĀгɖ$,
Ŷãƞ Ɲä!ňĜ ǒǑ
May all beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from
trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease. – Buddha Taught
in Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta {13}
Y0N Y0N
Thanks to the sender for sharing through Email-------------
ျမန္မာအမ်ဳိးသမီးမ်ားအား လိင္ကုန္ကူးမႈႀကီးထြားလာေၾကာင္း အစီရင္ခံစာတေစာင္ ထြက္ေပၚ
၀ီရ / ၃၁ ၾသဂုတ္ ၂၀၀၉ ေခတ္ျပိဳင္ သတင္းဌာန
ျမန္မာအမ်ဳိးသမီးမ်ား လိင္ကုန္ကူးမႈ ျပႆနာ ႀကီးထြားလာရျခင္းမွာ ျမန္မာစစ္အစုိးရ၏ စီးပြားေရးဆုိင္ရာ စီမံခန္႔ခြဲမႈ ညံ့ဖ်င္းမႈေၾကာင့္ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ယေန႔ထုတ္ေဝသည့္ ေျပးစရာ ေျမမရွိ အစီရင္ခံစာတြင္ ေဖာ္ျပထားသည္။
အမ်ဳိးသမီးႏွင့္ ကေလးအခြင့္အေရး အစီအစဥ္ (Women and Child Right Program - WCRP) က ထုတ္ေဝသည့္ ယင္းအစီရင္ခံစာတြင္ လိင္ကုန္ကူးခံရသည့္ အမ်ဳိးသမီးတုိ႔ ျဖတ္သန္းခဲ့ရသည့္ ဘဝအေတြ႔အႀကဳံ ခရီးၾကမ္းကုိ ေလ့လာတင္ျပထားၿပီး လိင္ကုန္ကူးမႈစနစ္၏ အေၾကာင္းအရင္းမ်ားကုိ သုေတသနျပဳ ထားျခင္းျဖစ္ သည္။
WCRP မွ တာဝန္ခံ မိက်႐ုိင္ႏြန္က “ထုိင္းႏုိင္ငံနဲ႔ နယ္စပ္ေဒသေတြမွာ လိင္ကုန္ကူးခံရတဲ့ အမ်ဳိးသမီးေတြအနက္ အေယာက္ (၄၀) နဲ႔ ေတြ႔ဆုံေမးျမန္းထားၿပီး လိင္ကုန္ကူးခံရတဲ့ အေၾကာင္းအရင္းခံေတြကုိ သုေတသနျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့ တာ ျဖစ္တယ္။ စီးပြားေရး စီမံခန္႔ခြဲမႈ မကြၽမ္းက်င္တဲ့ နအဖစစ္အစုိးရ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္မႈေအာက္မွာ အမ်ားျပည္သူေတြရဲ႕ စီးပြားေရး ခြၽတ္ၿခဳံက်မႈက အဓိက အေၾကာင္းအရင္းအေနနဲ႔ ေတြ႔ခဲ့တယ္” ဟု ေခတ္ၿပဳိင္သုိ႔ ေျပာသည္။
အဂၤလိပ္ဘာသာျဖင့္ ထုတ္ေဝသည့္ စာမ်က္ႏွာ (၉၀) ပါ ယင္းအစီရင္ခံစာတြင္ မူးယစ္ေဆးႏွင့္ ရာဇဝတ္မႈ ဆုိင္ရာ ကုလသမဂၢ အဖြဲ႔၏ သတ္မွတ္စံၫႊန္းျဖစ္သည့္ အျဖစ္အပ်က္၊ နည္းလမ္းႏွင့္ အေၾကာင္းအရင္းခံ ဆုိသည့္ မူ (၃) ရပ္ကုိ အေျခခံ၍ ၂၀၀၄ ခုမွ ၂၀၀၉ ခုအတြင္း လိင္ကုန္ကူးခံရသူမ်ား၏ ျဖစ္စဥ္ (၄၀) ကို ၎တုိ႔ဖမ္းဆီးခံ ရသည့္ အခ်ိန္မွ စ၍ ေရာင္းစားခံရသည့္ အခ်ိန္အထိ ေစာ္ကားခံရပုံကုိလည္း မွတ္တမ္းတင္ထားသည္ဟု မိက်႐ုိင္ႏြန္က ေျပာသည္။
ယခုအစီရင္ခံစာတြင္ မြန္၊ ကရင္၊ တနသၤာရီတုိင္း၊ ရန္ကုန္၊ မႏၲေလးတို႔မွ လိင္ကုန္ကူးခံရသည့္ အျဖစ္အပ်က္မ်ား အျပင္ ပဲခူးတုိင္းမွ အျခားအရပ္သို႔ လိင္ကုန္ကူးခံရသည့္ အျဖစ္အပ်က္မ်ား အမ်ားဆုံးပါ၀င္သည္ဟု မိက်႐ုိင္ႏြန္က ေျပာသည္။
၎က “ဥပမာေတြအေနနဲ႔ ပဲခူးတုိင္းက မိခင္တဦးက စားဝတ္ေနေရး အဆင္မေျပလုိ႔ ကုိယ့္ကေလးအရင္းကုိ ကရင္ျပည္နယ္မွာ ေရာင္းစားခဲ့တဲ့ျဖစ္ရပ္လုိမ်ဳိး၊ ထုိင္းႏုိင္ငံမွာ အိမ္ေဖာ္အလုပ္လုပ္ရင္း လိင္ပုိင္းဆုိင္ရာ ေစာ္ကား ခံရတာမ်ဳိးေတြ၊ ပြဲစားက အလုပ္ေပးမယ္၊ လမ္းစရိတ္စုိက္ေပးမယ္ဆုိၿပီးေတာ့ ရန္ကုန္ကေန ေခၚလာၿပီး နယ္စပ္ ဘုရားသုံးဆူပဲ ေရာက္ေသးတယ္။ အလုပ္ရွာလုိ႔မရဘူး၊ နင့္အတြက္ ဒီအလုပ္ပဲရွိတယ္။ လုပ္မလားဆုိၿပီး နည္းေပါင္းစုံသုံးၿပီး ျပည့္တန္ဆာဘဝကုိ အတင္းသြတ္သြင္းခံရတာမ်ဳိး၊ ၿခိမ္းေျခာက္ခံတာမ်ဳိးေတြ။ သူတုိ႔ေတြက ဒါနဲ႔ပတ္သက္ၿပီး အကူအညီေတာင္းလုိ႔ရတယ္ဆုိတာ မသိၾကဘူး။ ျမန္မာျပည္ထဲမွာ လိင္ကုန္ကူးျခင္းနဲ႔ ပတ္သက္တဲ့ ပညာေပးတာမ်ဳိးလည္း နည္းေတာ့ ေနာက္ဆုံး သူတုိ႔အတြက္ ေ႐ြးစရာလမ္း မရွိေတာ့ဘူး” ဟု ရွင္းျပသည္။
မြန္ျပည္ လူ႔အခြင့္အေရးျမႇင့္တင္ေရးအဖြဲ႔မွ ဒါ႐ုိက္တာ ႏုိင္ကေဆာ့မြန္က “လိင္ကုန္ကူးမႈ ျပႆနာ ႀကီးထြား လာတာဟာ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံမွာ တရားမွ်တဲ့ ဒီမုိကေရစီ ေပၚထြန္းလာဖုိ႔ အဟန္႔အတားျဖစ္ေနတယ္ဆုိတာ ျပေနတာပဲ။ ဒီလိင္ကုန္ကူးမႈ ျပႆနာကုိ နအဖဆီ တင္ျပထားေပမယ့္ အေျခအေန တုိးတက္မလာတဲ့အတြက္ နအဖအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္မႈေအာက္မွာ ျပ႒ာန္းထားတဲ့ ဥပေဒေတြက အမ်ဳိးသမီးေတြနဲ႔ ကေလးေတြကုိ လုံေလာက္တဲ့ အကာအကြယ္ မေပးႏုိင္ေသးတာ ေဖာ္ျပေနတယ္” ဟု အစီရင္ခံစာတြင္ ေရးသားထားသည္။
တုိင္းရင္းသားေဒသမ်ားတြင္ တုိးခ်ဲ႕ထားသည့္ နအဖစစ္တပ္မ်ားအား အျမန္ဆုံး ျပန္လည္႐ုပ္သိမ္းေပးရန္ႏွင့္ ကုလသမဂၢ လူ႔အခြင့္အေရးဆုိင္ရာ ၁၉၉၂ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္အား အျပည့္အဝလုိက္နာရန္ ျမန္မာစစ္အစုိးရအား ေတာင္းဆုိလုိက္ၿပီး စီးပြားေရး က်ပ္တည္းမႈေၾကာင့္ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံမွ စြန္႔ခြာထြက္ေျပးလာသည့္ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံသား မ်ားအား အျပည့္အဝ အကာအကြယ္ ေပးသြားရန္၊ ေရႊ႕ေျပာင္းအလုပ္သမားတုိ႔၏ ရပုိင္ခြင့္မ်ားအား တရားဝင္ သတ္မွတ္ေပးရန္ ထုိင္းအစုိးရကုိလည္း WCRP က ေတာင္းဆုိထား သည္။
Burma Refugees in China Head Home as Fighting Dies Down
Burma Refugees in China Head Home as Fighting Dies Down
By Daniel Schearf
Bangkok
31 August 2009
Refugees that fled to China to escape fighting in Burma are beginning to head home after Burmese authorities said the situation has returned to normal. But analysts say more fighting could break out as Burmese forces try to consolidate control ahead of next year's elections.
Kokang refugees walk with their belongings after returning to the China-Burma border town of Yanlonkyaing, Burma, 29 Aug 2009
Hundreds of refugees left China's Yunnan province Monday for home in Kokang, the mainly ethnic Chinese region of Burma's northeastern Shan state.
More than 30,000 people from Kokang had fled across the border to China to escape weeks of fighting between Burma's government forces and a local militia that controls the region.
Burma's state media reported more than 30 people were killed in the clashes but that the fighting in Kokang, which broke the region's 20-year ceasefire, had stopped.
Ian Holliday is dean of social sciences at the University of Hong Kong and researches Burma politics. He says Burma's military government is looking to take back control of the country's several militia-controlled areas in time for the 2010 elections.
"Ahead of that election, the junta is extremely keen to really pacify the entire territory and bring it under political control," said Holliday. "So, instead of having this rather gray area of a ceasefire deal which enables ethnic militias to control parts of the territory, the government now wants to make sure that its control extends across all of Burma. And, to do that, the government is upping the ante in its long standing struggle with these militias."
In June, Burmese forces attacked Karen rebels, who control territory on Burma's border with Thailand, forcing thousands of villagers to flee into Thailand.
Holliday says more fighting is possible in the coming weeks in other areas of Burma that are outside of government control.
But, he says the fighting in the Kokang region should stay quiet as China, one of Burma's few backers, is very concerned about stability on its western border.
"We are talking about something which goes right into Chinese security on a border which the Chinese themselves are very worried about," he said. "We have seen Tibet last year, we have seen Xinjiang this year... So, the last thing that they want is anything that might be destabilizing on a frontier like that.
Holliday says China has more leverage on Burma than any other country in the world and that it will use every means to prevent the spread of the conflict. But, he adds Beijing is facing an extremely nationalistic military government in Burma that does not like to take orders from anybody.
By Daniel Schearf
Bangkok
31 August 2009
Refugees that fled to China to escape fighting in Burma are beginning to head home after Burmese authorities said the situation has returned to normal. But analysts say more fighting could break out as Burmese forces try to consolidate control ahead of next year's elections.
Kokang refugees walk with their belongings after returning to the China-Burma border town of Yanlonkyaing, Burma, 29 Aug 2009
Hundreds of refugees left China's Yunnan province Monday for home in Kokang, the mainly ethnic Chinese region of Burma's northeastern Shan state.
More than 30,000 people from Kokang had fled across the border to China to escape weeks of fighting between Burma's government forces and a local militia that controls the region.
Burma's state media reported more than 30 people were killed in the clashes but that the fighting in Kokang, which broke the region's 20-year ceasefire, had stopped.
Ian Holliday is dean of social sciences at the University of Hong Kong and researches Burma politics. He says Burma's military government is looking to take back control of the country's several militia-controlled areas in time for the 2010 elections.
"Ahead of that election, the junta is extremely keen to really pacify the entire territory and bring it under political control," said Holliday. "So, instead of having this rather gray area of a ceasefire deal which enables ethnic militias to control parts of the territory, the government now wants to make sure that its control extends across all of Burma. And, to do that, the government is upping the ante in its long standing struggle with these militias."
In June, Burmese forces attacked Karen rebels, who control territory on Burma's border with Thailand, forcing thousands of villagers to flee into Thailand.
Holliday says more fighting is possible in the coming weeks in other areas of Burma that are outside of government control.
But, he says the fighting in the Kokang region should stay quiet as China, one of Burma's few backers, is very concerned about stability on its western border.
"We are talking about something which goes right into Chinese security on a border which the Chinese themselves are very worried about," he said. "We have seen Tibet last year, we have seen Xinjiang this year... So, the last thing that they want is anything that might be destabilizing on a frontier like that.
Holliday says China has more leverage on Burma than any other country in the world and that it will use every means to prevent the spread of the conflict. But, he adds Beijing is facing an extremely nationalistic military government in Burma that does not like to take orders from anybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
