Thursday, 8 July 2010
Sittwe Students Protest Bus Fare Hike
Hundreds of students from Technological University in Sittwe in western Burma protested peacefully on Monday against a 100 percent hike in school bus fares.
The university's buses previously charged 150 kyat (US $0.15) per student for the ride to the campus, which is located 12 miles from Sittwe city center. Fares were increased on Monday morning to 300 kyat ($0.30).
Speaking to The Irrawaddy on Tuesday, a student from Technological University said, “We are unhappy with the increased bus fare, and we took to the streets to voice our concerns.”
At 3 p.m. On Monday, about 300 students from Technological University refused to take the bus because of the revised fare and walked from the campus to Sittwe city center at a time when most students were returning home. The number of protesters grew to about 1,000 after students from Computer University in Sittwe joined in, said the source.
“Soldiers blocked us on the road and threatened to shoot us if we kept marching,” he said. “But, we didn't listen and kept on walking.”
The protest continued until 10 p.m. when the head of Computer University in Sittwe, Aung Kyaw Nyein, met with the students and said he would resolve the matter, the source said, adding that the number of people had by that time increased to about 3,000, including students' parents and onlookers.
The western region commander Maj-Gen Thaung Aye reportedly put pressure on teachers on Tuesday to find out who initiated the protest.
Speaking to The Irrawaddy, a history professor at Sittwe University said, “It is not good for the students if bus fares go up. But, bus drivers were only getting 150 kyat from each student. The price of gasoline has gone up. They have to put their fares up.”
In January last year, students from Technological University staged similar protests in the Arakan capital.
Hundreds of demonstrators also took to the streets of Sittwe during the Saffron Revolution of 2007, which was sparked by a protest over a hike in gasoline prices.
Source: http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=18897
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Interview with Robert Goebbels, member of the European Parliament
Mizzima (Brussels) – Robert Goebbels, a member of the European Parliament (EP) from Luxembourg, received Mizzima at his office in Brussels. The Socialist member of the EP since 1999 is vice-chairman of the delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and Asean and has been minister of economic affairs, transport and public works and energy for Luxembourg. He is a member of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats group within the EP, the second-largest bloc in the parliament.
Robert Goebbels
Since the early 1990s, the European Union (EU) has maintained a set of sanctions on Burma that, given the lack of progress on human rights and democracy in the country, has been strengthened over time. These restrictions comprise a travel ban on junta leaders, members of the judiciary and figures associated with the state-controlled economy (and in most of the cases, their close relatives); an assets freeze; and a ban on the export of regime-linked entities working in the industries of woods, metals, construction material, information technology and the media.
Do the existing EU sanctions on Burma bear any influence on the Burmese military rulers?
I am personally against any policies based on sanctions; history has shown that they never work. The imposition of restrictions only serves the EU to give itself a good conscience. First of all, restrictions rarely hit the ruling elites. Cuba, Iraq and now Iran have evidenced how in the end, this type of embargoes only disrupts ordinary people. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that sanctions could ever prove conductive to bring about change in any way.
How can the EU streamline its current range of sanctions if it is to promote human rights and democracy in Burma?
The Burmese regime does not look at the approval of the West. Besides, the junta still makes business with a number of EU companies [the EU economic sanctions on Burma do not apply to companies operating in the country prior to the ban]. On the top of this, the junta’s dealings with a number of mighty economic allies [China, Russia, India, for example] secure the establishment with much-needed foreign investment. In its endeavour to persuade the military regime to pave the way for opening up, the EU would be better advice if it engages in dialogue with the Burmese rulers.
They are certain policy discrepancies between the EP and the European Commission (EC) – the EU’s executive body – as the latter favours further dialogue with the junta. What do you make of this?
That is true. In the EP, there are a number of members who monopolise this debate, and I am afraid that these very people tend to be wrong. Some members of the EP subcommittee on human rights keep pursuing a misguided strategy on Burma – one that has largely failed in its aim to enhance the junta’s respect for its citizen’s fundamental freedoms. Consequently, I back the EC approach of generating new channels of dialogue. There are some times when we make the mistake to act in a paternalistic fashion, dictating to others what they should do.
Since last year, the EC has declined to finance aid for Burmese refugees living along the Thai-Burmese border. What could possibly be the EC’s reasons to stop such funding?
I am not informed about the details of the EC’s motives. I suspect that most of these funds go to NGOs. Despite that, the non-profit sector plays a very constructive role in the field; some NGOs also finance themselves out of the resources provided by the EU. The EC may know better than the EP committees concerned what the situation on the ground is. This would have probably prompted its decision.
Does the Burmese issue interfere with relations between the EU and Asean?
The situation in Burma is always present on EU-Asean talks. Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that the ties between both supranational entities are essentially of an economic nature. In such a framework, the economic actors do not pay much attention to the human rights situation in Burma – otherwise, there would not be so many companies operating in the country.
Are you satisfied with the Asean method of dialogue without meddling in members’ domestic affairs?
Obviously, Asean could have a larger influence on the junta’s policy-making. Yet, it should not be forgotten that various Asean member states have themselves poor records on human rights, which partially explains why the organisation is not very vigorous in challenging the junta. Nevertheless, the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights [formed last year] embodies a platform that should be better brought into play when dealing with the Burmese leadership.
Recently, the EP encouraged the governments of China, India and Russia “to stop supplying the Burmese regime with weaponry and other strategic resources”. However, China has just sold 50 jet fighters to Naypyidaw. In the end, China, Russia, India and others are reluctant to stop their arms sales and energy deals with the regime. Could the EU possibly take any initiative to warn these states of Brussels’ annoyance?
I would focus my answer on China, as I do not think that the EU has at its disposal much leverage against Beijing. One can say that China has not friends, only interests. In addition, we should not forget that many EU member states run vast investments in China; thousands of joint-ventures produce goods in China for the EU market. A number of European economies need China to expand, and the situation in Burma is unlikely to get in its way.
If it was for you to say what the Burmese military should first do to boost the credibility of the forthcoming elections, what would be your advice?
If the junta were really aiming to hold credible elections, the regime should invite foreign observers to monitor the whole process. Following the polls, I am confident that the newly established parliament will not be satisfied with its given powers. At some point, the parliament will contest its original rubber-stamp role. I am positive that the new assembly will gradually challenge the military.
source: http://www.mizzima.com/edop/interview/4084-interview-with-robert-goebbels-member-of-the-european-parliament.html
Robert Goebbels
Since the early 1990s, the European Union (EU) has maintained a set of sanctions on Burma that, given the lack of progress on human rights and democracy in the country, has been strengthened over time. These restrictions comprise a travel ban on junta leaders, members of the judiciary and figures associated with the state-controlled economy (and in most of the cases, their close relatives); an assets freeze; and a ban on the export of regime-linked entities working in the industries of woods, metals, construction material, information technology and the media.
Do the existing EU sanctions on Burma bear any influence on the Burmese military rulers?
I am personally against any policies based on sanctions; history has shown that they never work. The imposition of restrictions only serves the EU to give itself a good conscience. First of all, restrictions rarely hit the ruling elites. Cuba, Iraq and now Iran have evidenced how in the end, this type of embargoes only disrupts ordinary people. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that sanctions could ever prove conductive to bring about change in any way.
How can the EU streamline its current range of sanctions if it is to promote human rights and democracy in Burma?
The Burmese regime does not look at the approval of the West. Besides, the junta still makes business with a number of EU companies [the EU economic sanctions on Burma do not apply to companies operating in the country prior to the ban]. On the top of this, the junta’s dealings with a number of mighty economic allies [China, Russia, India, for example] secure the establishment with much-needed foreign investment. In its endeavour to persuade the military regime to pave the way for opening up, the EU would be better advice if it engages in dialogue with the Burmese rulers.
They are certain policy discrepancies between the EP and the European Commission (EC) – the EU’s executive body – as the latter favours further dialogue with the junta. What do you make of this?
That is true. In the EP, there are a number of members who monopolise this debate, and I am afraid that these very people tend to be wrong. Some members of the EP subcommittee on human rights keep pursuing a misguided strategy on Burma – one that has largely failed in its aim to enhance the junta’s respect for its citizen’s fundamental freedoms. Consequently, I back the EC approach of generating new channels of dialogue. There are some times when we make the mistake to act in a paternalistic fashion, dictating to others what they should do.
Since last year, the EC has declined to finance aid for Burmese refugees living along the Thai-Burmese border. What could possibly be the EC’s reasons to stop such funding?
I am not informed about the details of the EC’s motives. I suspect that most of these funds go to NGOs. Despite that, the non-profit sector plays a very constructive role in the field; some NGOs also finance themselves out of the resources provided by the EU. The EC may know better than the EP committees concerned what the situation on the ground is. This would have probably prompted its decision.
Does the Burmese issue interfere with relations between the EU and Asean?
The situation in Burma is always present on EU-Asean talks. Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that the ties between both supranational entities are essentially of an economic nature. In such a framework, the economic actors do not pay much attention to the human rights situation in Burma – otherwise, there would not be so many companies operating in the country.
Are you satisfied with the Asean method of dialogue without meddling in members’ domestic affairs?
Obviously, Asean could have a larger influence on the junta’s policy-making. Yet, it should not be forgotten that various Asean member states have themselves poor records on human rights, which partially explains why the organisation is not very vigorous in challenging the junta. Nevertheless, the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights [formed last year] embodies a platform that should be better brought into play when dealing with the Burmese leadership.
Recently, the EP encouraged the governments of China, India and Russia “to stop supplying the Burmese regime with weaponry and other strategic resources”. However, China has just sold 50 jet fighters to Naypyidaw. In the end, China, Russia, India and others are reluctant to stop their arms sales and energy deals with the regime. Could the EU possibly take any initiative to warn these states of Brussels’ annoyance?
I would focus my answer on China, as I do not think that the EU has at its disposal much leverage against Beijing. One can say that China has not friends, only interests. In addition, we should not forget that many EU member states run vast investments in China; thousands of joint-ventures produce goods in China for the EU market. A number of European economies need China to expand, and the situation in Burma is unlikely to get in its way.
If it was for you to say what the Burmese military should first do to boost the credibility of the forthcoming elections, what would be your advice?
If the junta were really aiming to hold credible elections, the regime should invite foreign observers to monitor the whole process. Following the polls, I am confident that the newly established parliament will not be satisfied with its given powers. At some point, the parliament will contest its original rubber-stamp role. I am positive that the new assembly will gradually challenge the military.
source: http://www.mizzima.com/edop/interview/4084-interview-with-robert-goebbels-member-of-the-european-parliament.html
AAPP submission for the UPR of Burma
Information Release
Date: 6 July, 2010
Burma’s Human Rights Record Up For Review
The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners has submitted its report to the UN Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review of Burma. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a new mechanism of the Human Rights Council (HRC) aimed at improving the human rights record of all 192 UN Member States.
Burma is up for its first review in the 10th session of HRC, in January 2011.
“For countries, like Burma, with a poor human rights record and a low ratification rate of international human rights treaties, the UPR provides a unique opportunity to put them in the hot seat and have their rights record publically scrutinized” says Bo Kyi, Joint Secretary of AAPP.
“Through the UPR, the Human Rights Council has examined country situations that are rarely raised at the international level and would otherwise fall off the radar, such as North Korea. It also draws attention to the human rights concerns in states, with a generally good human rights performance, showing us that no state is perfect”, says Bo Kyi.
AAPP’s UPR submission shows that the human rights situation for the more than 2,170 political prisoners in Burma remains dire: incommunicado detention, torture, and the denial of adequate medical care are common place. This treatment is meted out to all prisoners, without distinction to age, health and the special needs of women, children and those with disabilities. Evidence collected by AAPP suggests that torture is a cultural norm, amongst the military, police and security officials. AAPP has documented hundreds of cases of torture experienced by political prisoners, dating back to 1988 and as recent as 2010.
AAPP, along with a number of other independent non-governmental organizations working inside Burma and in exile, joined together and worked hard to produce credible reports for the UPR.
“Will the SPDC take the UPR process just as seriously, asks Bo Kyi?
North Korea's approach illustrates the limitations of UPR. They mocked the process by refusing to accept any of the recommendations offered by a wide range of member states, as every other country has done at the UPR sessions. Instead, they would only state which recommendations they rejected.
“Ultimately, the effectiveness of UPR can be measured by the extent to which it inspires a country to alter its actual human rights practices, as there is no enforcement mechanism” says Bo Kyi.
When the SPDC are confronted with the reality of their human rights record at the HRC in January, will they respond with defensive rhetoric, fabrications and denial as they have done in past, or engage in a meaningful debate to improve the situation for the people of Burma?
Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma)
For further information, please contact:
Tate Naing, Secretary +66 (0) 81-287-8751
Bo Kyi, Joint-Secretary +66 (0) 81-962-8713
Date: 6 July, 2010
Burma’s Human Rights Record Up For Review
The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners has submitted its report to the UN Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review of Burma. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a new mechanism of the Human Rights Council (HRC) aimed at improving the human rights record of all 192 UN Member States.
Burma is up for its first review in the 10th session of HRC, in January 2011.
“For countries, like Burma, with a poor human rights record and a low ratification rate of international human rights treaties, the UPR provides a unique opportunity to put them in the hot seat and have their rights record publically scrutinized” says Bo Kyi, Joint Secretary of AAPP.
“Through the UPR, the Human Rights Council has examined country situations that are rarely raised at the international level and would otherwise fall off the radar, such as North Korea. It also draws attention to the human rights concerns in states, with a generally good human rights performance, showing us that no state is perfect”, says Bo Kyi.
AAPP’s UPR submission shows that the human rights situation for the more than 2,170 political prisoners in Burma remains dire: incommunicado detention, torture, and the denial of adequate medical care are common place. This treatment is meted out to all prisoners, without distinction to age, health and the special needs of women, children and those with disabilities. Evidence collected by AAPP suggests that torture is a cultural norm, amongst the military, police and security officials. AAPP has documented hundreds of cases of torture experienced by political prisoners, dating back to 1988 and as recent as 2010.
AAPP, along with a number of other independent non-governmental organizations working inside Burma and in exile, joined together and worked hard to produce credible reports for the UPR.
“Will the SPDC take the UPR process just as seriously, asks Bo Kyi?
North Korea's approach illustrates the limitations of UPR. They mocked the process by refusing to accept any of the recommendations offered by a wide range of member states, as every other country has done at the UPR sessions. Instead, they would only state which recommendations they rejected.
“Ultimately, the effectiveness of UPR can be measured by the extent to which it inspires a country to alter its actual human rights practices, as there is no enforcement mechanism” says Bo Kyi.
When the SPDC are confronted with the reality of their human rights record at the HRC in January, will they respond with defensive rhetoric, fabrications and denial as they have done in past, or engage in a meaningful debate to improve the situation for the people of Burma?
Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma)
For further information, please contact:
Tate Naing, Secretary +66 (0) 81-287-8751
Bo Kyi, Joint-Secretary +66 (0) 81-962-8713
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Burma: Let's Take Decisive Action -- Let's Save Ourselves
"In such circumstances, we had no alternative but to turn our weapons against them as true patriots of our land and as lovers of Justice". (Bogyoke Aung San)
"I would especially like to see our younger people stride confidently into the future, their richness of spirit soaring to meet all challenges. I would like to be able to say: "This is a nation worthy of all those who loved it and lived and died for it--that we might be proud of our heritage." (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi)
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) is the global campaigning and lobbying organisation to restore democracy, human rights and rule of law in Burma where everyone can enjoy the freedom of speech, press, beliefs, assembly and rule of law that emphasizes the protection of individual rights. Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) have the firm determination, dedication and devotion to keep on working until the democracy restore in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) is equipped with participants who had political background and in depth knowledge of Burma issues.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) is empowering new generation leaders to engage in current activities and to be ready for the future nation building.
Please see the messages of the democracy activists' heart-felt pledges to restore justice, liberty, democracy and human rights in Burma.
"We need to believe in what we are doing. Yes we can. Yes we can. We can do it. Wherever you are whoever you are. You can do it". (Myo Thein)
"New generation leaders--please come forward. Our leader, Bogyoke (Aung San) once said that removing the small stumbling block on the road is also politics". (Kyaw Bo Bo San)
"I am destined to work and will work for democratisation of Burma. I will try my best to provide messages of what we, Burmese in exile working for democratisation of Burma, are doing by all means through various ways". (Zin Zin Myo Thant)
"People of Burma please do not be despair since you are not alone. Even though we are in exile, we are doing what we can for democratisation of Burma. Once we get signal from inside Burma we are ready to go back inside Burma together with our friends of Burma". (July Myat Tun)
"I would like to request fighting together (to topple junta). As for me I will fight until the regime is out of power." (Ye Wut Mar)
"Please start working from where you are. I will start working from where I am". (Pyei Phyo Minn)
"I will try my best to topple military junta in order to establish democratic Burma." (Khin Yamon Po Kun)
"I am ready to go back inside Burma to fight together with people of Burma to topple brutal junta" (Naing Win)
Thank you very much for your unwavering support.
For more information please visit Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) at
http://www.bdcburma.org/Index.asphttp://bdc-burma.blogspot.com/http://bdcburma.wordpress.com/http://www.youtube.com/user/bdcburmahttp://twitter.com/bdcburmahttp://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/g...
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Burma Democracy Activists Around the World: Message from U Khin Maung Kyi -- Former Burmese Diplomat
Dear all activists
Myanmar Association ( UK ) in London is being sponsored by the Burmese Ambassador Maj-Gen.Nay Win long ago. This MAUK is pro-SPDC and a military related association. Please see the link at http://www.myanmarnet.co.uk/
This is unlawful association in London. Maj-Gen.Nay Win, who is the Ambassador of the Embassy of the Union of Burma is in charge of the sale of tickets for Myanmar Association ( UK ), Myanmar Anyeint & Music Concert hold on 31st July 2010 at Cophland Community College,Cecil Avenue , Wembley. HA9 7DU, London, during office hours in Embassy premises.
According to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, article 55-Sec 2, the consular premises shall not be used in any manner incompatible with the exercise of consular functions. Also in article 57-Sec 1 , it is clearly stated the career consular officers shall not carry out any professional or commercial activity in the receiving state.
Our view to this matter is also that this group falls into the third category ( personnel benefiting from the SPDC ) and should be banned from entering the European Community countries.
To avoid the ban of European Community visa to those benefiting from SPDC, the Burmese Ambassador of UK have used Burmese doctors residing in UK to sponsor the Burmese singers and dancers to acquire vistor visas to enter UK. Also the Burmese singers and dancers have no right to perform without UK work permit and they no right to sell tickets without VAT and Commercial taxes.
Sincerely yours
U Khin Maung Kyi
Former Burmese Diplomat and on behalf Burmese Community ( UK )
Myanmar Association ( UK ) in London is being sponsored by the Burmese Ambassador Maj-Gen.Nay Win long ago. This MAUK is pro-SPDC and a military related association. Please see the link at http://www.myanmarnet.co.uk/
Myanmar Association ( UK ) in London is being sponsored by the Burmese Ambassador Maj-Gen.Nay Win long ago. This MAUK is pro-SPDC and a military related association. Please see the link at http://www.myanmarnet.co.uk/
This is unlawful association in London. Maj-Gen.Nay Win, who is the Ambassador of the Embassy of the Union of Burma is in charge of the sale of tickets for Myanmar Association ( UK ), Myanmar Anyeint & Music Concert hold on 31st July 2010 at Cophland Community College,Cecil Avenue , Wembley. HA9 7DU, London, during office hours in Embassy premises.
According to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, article 55-Sec 2, the consular premises shall not be used in any manner incompatible with the exercise of consular functions. Also in article 57-Sec 1 , it is clearly stated the career consular officers shall not carry out any professional or commercial activity in the receiving state.
Our view to this matter is also that this group falls into the third category ( personnel benefiting from the SPDC ) and should be banned from entering the European Community countries.
To avoid the ban of European Community visa to those benefiting from SPDC, the Burmese Ambassador of UK have used Burmese doctors residing in UK to sponsor the Burmese singers and dancers to acquire vistor visas to enter UK. Also the Burmese singers and dancers have no right to perform without UK work permit and they no right to sell tickets without VAT and Commercial taxes.
Sincerely yours
U Khin Maung Kyi
Former Burmese Diplomat and on behalf Burmese Community ( UK )
Myanmar Association ( UK ) in London is being sponsored by the Burmese Ambassador Maj-Gen.Nay Win long ago. This MAUK is pro-SPDC and a military related association. Please see the link at http://www.myanmarnet.co.uk/
The Burmese Elections: Prolonging the Misery and Postponing the Inevitable
Burma (aka Myanmar) is of the world's most brutal regimes and unfortunately, it is also amongst the least well understood. In terms of trade and communications, the country is as closed as North Korea and nearly as isolated as Afghanistan under Taliban rule. Its human rights abuses are widespread and increasing. The junta has one of the worst images in the world. It has very few friends and even it's powerful regional allies (China and India) keep a safe public distance so as not to catch any of the generals' political cooties.
Although the monk-led nonviolent Saffron Revolution, which hit a peak of public activity in the fall of 2007, has failed thus far to bring an end to the repression, the movement (which was a continuation of the student-led uprising from 1988) still persists. Brave activists risk their lives every day to move information in and out of the country, hoping to give global audiences a glimpse of the horrifying truth behind the veil.
The junta is holding elections sometime later in the year (best guesstimates are for October 10- which would make the date 10/10/10, a date consistent with the paranoid generals' fixation on numerology and superstition), but Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy party, which won 81% of the seats in the 1990 parliamentary elections (before the junta declared the victory fraudulent), has been imprisoned or under house arrest for most of the past 22 years and has been banned by the junta from participating in the elections. In protest, the NLD has also withdrawn from the elections. Which means that the people will have very little means constructive means through which to channel their discontent and hope for a free and democratic Burma unless the pro-democracy movement can organize an opposition force within the next three months, a feat that would be daunting even in an open society that permitted freedom of speech, association and movement.
So the conventional wisdom is that the junta will "win" the election and that this will "reinforce their power." This is a dangerous presumption, based on a common and deeply-embedded misconception that violence equals power. The generals will probably win the election because they have beaten, killed, imprisoned and otherwise bullied their competition out of the running. And where the process is corrupted, the result can not be legitimate. So the election will not reinforce the junta's power. It will simply reinforce the lie that the junta has real power.
Political legitimacy can be understood as the situation where the regime still stands even when the threat of force is removed. If the junta in Burma allowed for a fair and competitive election, they would lose. Resoundingly. Which means that the election is nothing more than a farce, designed to placate the increasingly global community with a show of "legitimacy." Because these particular tyrants seem even more removed from reality than many of their counterparts around the world, it is likely that their margin of victory will be enormous (in a healthy democratic election, it is very unusual to get a margin of victory of more than 10 percentage points, and where the incumbent party gets more than 70% in a national election, more times than not it is an indicator of corruption or fraud.)
The purpose of a democratic election is to 1) ascertain the best social choice, and 2) bestow legitimacy on the legislative/executive authority. If the process is manipulated so that neither of these things can happen, the outcome is meaningless. Understanding this, it is disappointing to think that any legitimate media observers take this farce of an election to be anything but a pathetic demonstration to the world that the generals can still repress their own people with the worst of them.
With their brutality against Buddhist monks- the soul of Burma- the junta gave away their last bits of moral authority. And this farce election is evidence that their last shreds of political legitimacy have evaporated. The international community has an obligation, at the very least, to recognize this inevitable "victory" for what it is- the last gasp of a decaying system. Sadly, the generals have demonstrated that they do not intend to go down alone. They'll spread the misery as far and wide as possible. But each act of brutality girds the people's will to resist them, and while the junta may again stretch out their tenure, these elections should be viewed not as a beginning, but as the beginning of the end.
source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-boaz/the-burmese-elections-pro_b_628705.html
Although the monk-led nonviolent Saffron Revolution, which hit a peak of public activity in the fall of 2007, has failed thus far to bring an end to the repression, the movement (which was a continuation of the student-led uprising from 1988) still persists. Brave activists risk their lives every day to move information in and out of the country, hoping to give global audiences a glimpse of the horrifying truth behind the veil.
The junta is holding elections sometime later in the year (best guesstimates are for October 10- which would make the date 10/10/10, a date consistent with the paranoid generals' fixation on numerology and superstition), but Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy party, which won 81% of the seats in the 1990 parliamentary elections (before the junta declared the victory fraudulent), has been imprisoned or under house arrest for most of the past 22 years and has been banned by the junta from participating in the elections. In protest, the NLD has also withdrawn from the elections. Which means that the people will have very little means constructive means through which to channel their discontent and hope for a free and democratic Burma unless the pro-democracy movement can organize an opposition force within the next three months, a feat that would be daunting even in an open society that permitted freedom of speech, association and movement.
So the conventional wisdom is that the junta will "win" the election and that this will "reinforce their power." This is a dangerous presumption, based on a common and deeply-embedded misconception that violence equals power. The generals will probably win the election because they have beaten, killed, imprisoned and otherwise bullied their competition out of the running. And where the process is corrupted, the result can not be legitimate. So the election will not reinforce the junta's power. It will simply reinforce the lie that the junta has real power.
Political legitimacy can be understood as the situation where the regime still stands even when the threat of force is removed. If the junta in Burma allowed for a fair and competitive election, they would lose. Resoundingly. Which means that the election is nothing more than a farce, designed to placate the increasingly global community with a show of "legitimacy." Because these particular tyrants seem even more removed from reality than many of their counterparts around the world, it is likely that their margin of victory will be enormous (in a healthy democratic election, it is very unusual to get a margin of victory of more than 10 percentage points, and where the incumbent party gets more than 70% in a national election, more times than not it is an indicator of corruption or fraud.)
The purpose of a democratic election is to 1) ascertain the best social choice, and 2) bestow legitimacy on the legislative/executive authority. If the process is manipulated so that neither of these things can happen, the outcome is meaningless. Understanding this, it is disappointing to think that any legitimate media observers take this farce of an election to be anything but a pathetic demonstration to the world that the generals can still repress their own people with the worst of them.
With their brutality against Buddhist monks- the soul of Burma- the junta gave away their last bits of moral authority. And this farce election is evidence that their last shreds of political legitimacy have evaporated. The international community has an obligation, at the very least, to recognize this inevitable "victory" for what it is- the last gasp of a decaying system. Sadly, the generals have demonstrated that they do not intend to go down alone. They'll spread the misery as far and wide as possible. But each act of brutality girds the people's will to resist them, and while the junta may again stretch out their tenure, these elections should be viewed not as a beginning, but as the beginning of the end.
source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-boaz/the-burmese-elections-pro_b_628705.html
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Election funds generated by issuing two-wheeler licenses
For the Burmese junta in Kachin state, election funds are now being sourced by issuing new licenses to illegal two wheelers, said local sources.
In one week, over 600 million Kyats (over US$625,000 as of 1$ = 650 kyat) has been raked in from people owning unlicensed motorcycles and motorcycle rickshaws in Myitkyina, the capital of Kachin State alone, said a local reliable source close to the authorities.
Chinese motorcycle rickshaws are popular in Kachin's capital Myitkyina for local transportation. Photo: Kachin News Group.
The cheap and poor-quality Chinese two wheelers are imported illegally along the border in eastern Kachin State, bordering China’s southwestern Yunnan province.
The license fees depend on the type and make of vehicles ranging between 180,000 Kyat (US$277) and 260,000 Kyat (US$400) for a motorcycle, and between 500,000 Kyat (US$769) and 800,000 Kyat (US$1,231) for a motorcycle rickshaw, owners of unlicensed vehicles in the city said.
New car licenses are not issued in Kachin State but orders are out to seize unlicensed cars, said residents.
At the same time, over 60 Japanese cars mostly without license and its drivers have been detained in Myitkyina. The drivers face three years in prison, said sources close to the seized unlicensed car owners.
In Kachin State, the military community and officers mainly use unlicensed Japanese cars but it is never confiscated by the authorities.
Unlicensed vehicles are being detained in Manmaw, or Bhamo, the second largest city in Kachin State since last week, said Zau Awng, a local resident.
In Kachin state, people are reluctant to make licenses because the fees are very high being nearly equal to the cost of the vehicles, and it is also difficult to acquire.
The order relating to issuing new licenses for vehicles excluding cars was announced early last week in Kachin State and will be wrapped up by June 30 by the Myitkyina Tax and Custom Office. The order also warns that all unlicensed two wheelers in the city will be confiscated as the nation’s property starting from July 1.
The junta desperately needs funds for the first elections in 20 years. The order to generate funds is on instructions of Burmese military leaders in Naypyitaw, the country’s capital.
Chinese vehicles, mainly motorcycles and motorcycle rickshaws are transported largely to military-ruled Burma from the illegal border trade points in Kachin State.
Seizure of unlicensed vehicles in Kachin State is noticed when urgent funds are need in Naypyitaw.
Source: http://kachinnews.com/News/Election-funds-generated-by-issuing-two-wheeler-licenses.html
In one week, over 600 million Kyats (over US$625,000 as of 1$ = 650 kyat) has been raked in from people owning unlicensed motorcycles and motorcycle rickshaws in Myitkyina, the capital of Kachin State alone, said a local reliable source close to the authorities.
Chinese motorcycle rickshaws are popular in Kachin's capital Myitkyina for local transportation. Photo: Kachin News Group.
The cheap and poor-quality Chinese two wheelers are imported illegally along the border in eastern Kachin State, bordering China’s southwestern Yunnan province.
The license fees depend on the type and make of vehicles ranging between 180,000 Kyat (US$277) and 260,000 Kyat (US$400) for a motorcycle, and between 500,000 Kyat (US$769) and 800,000 Kyat (US$1,231) for a motorcycle rickshaw, owners of unlicensed vehicles in the city said.
New car licenses are not issued in Kachin State but orders are out to seize unlicensed cars, said residents.
At the same time, over 60 Japanese cars mostly without license and its drivers have been detained in Myitkyina. The drivers face three years in prison, said sources close to the seized unlicensed car owners.
In Kachin State, the military community and officers mainly use unlicensed Japanese cars but it is never confiscated by the authorities.
Unlicensed vehicles are being detained in Manmaw, or Bhamo, the second largest city in Kachin State since last week, said Zau Awng, a local resident.
In Kachin state, people are reluctant to make licenses because the fees are very high being nearly equal to the cost of the vehicles, and it is also difficult to acquire.
The order relating to issuing new licenses for vehicles excluding cars was announced early last week in Kachin State and will be wrapped up by June 30 by the Myitkyina Tax and Custom Office. The order also warns that all unlicensed two wheelers in the city will be confiscated as the nation’s property starting from July 1.
The junta desperately needs funds for the first elections in 20 years. The order to generate funds is on instructions of Burmese military leaders in Naypyitaw, the country’s capital.
Chinese vehicles, mainly motorcycles and motorcycle rickshaws are transported largely to military-ruled Burma from the illegal border trade points in Kachin State.
Seizure of unlicensed vehicles in Kachin State is noticed when urgent funds are need in Naypyitaw.
Source: http://kachinnews.com/News/Election-funds-generated-by-issuing-two-wheeler-licenses.html
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Burma: a brief history
Later this year, Burma is expected to hold its first multi-party elections for twenty years. We look back at the country's turbulent and oppressive history.
World War II
Burma was a major battleground for the British and the Japanese. Three hundred thousand refugees fled to India, but by July 1945 Britain had re-taken the country from the Japanese. The Burma National Army, formed by revolutionary and nationalist Aung San in 1937, initially supported the Japanese, but in 1943, fearful that the Japanese promises of independence were not sincere, changed sides and joined the Allies.
Post-1945
After the war, Aung San was instrumental in restoring civilian politics from the military administration established by the British. He also negotiated independence for Burma with British Prime Minister Clement Attlee.
In 1947, the first elections were held in Burma since its split from the British Raj. Aung San's Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL) won 176 of the 210 seats, but Aung San and six of his cabinet ministers were assassinated by paramilitaries loyal to colonial era Prime Minister U Saw. Several British military officers were also implicated in the plot, and were tried and imprisoned. U Saw was executed.
The Union of Burma
Following Aung San's assassination, the leadership of the AFPFL passed to U Nu, who oversaw the country's final transition to an independent Burma in January 1948. U Nu became the first prime minister of the Union of Burma.
Under the constitution of 1947, a bicameral parliament was elected. General elections were held in 1952/3, 1956 and 1960, with the AFPFL continuing to dominate both houses.
In 1961, Burmese civil servant U Thant was unanimously appointed UN Secretary-General, the first non-westerner to hold the position. Among the Burmese staff he took with him to the post was Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of Aung San. But in 1962, just two years after the republic's third general election as an independent state, the government of U Nu was overthrown in a coup d'etat lead by General Ne Win.
The 'Burmese Way to Socialism'
Ne Win ruled the country as a one-party state until 1988, under the auspices of an ideology he called the 'Burmese Way to Socialism'. This lead to economic and political isolationism, the expulsion of foreigners, and the nationalisation of industry.
Student protests at Rangoon University in 1962 resulted in 15 deaths, and similar student activism in 1975, 1976 and 1977 were also suppressed. In 1974, anti-government protests at the funeral of UN Secretary-General U Thant were quickly and violently suppressed by the military.
On the 8 August 1988, frustration at economic mismanagement and brutal oppression lead to the nation-wide protests known as the 8888 Uprising, in which students, monks, and citizens took to the streets to protest against the military junta.
Once again, the revolt was brutally put down, with many casualties. Precise numbers differ, with opposition groups claiming thousands of people were killed by the military, whilst the regime say only 350 lost their lives.
Rule by military junta
A group which was to become the still-ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), lead by General Saw Maung, seized power and declared martial law. In May 1990, the first multi-party elections were held in 30 years.
The National League for Democracy, lead by Aung San Suu Kyi, won 392 of the 498 seats, but the SPDC refused to relinquish power. In 1992, Saw Maung unexpectedly resigned for health reasons, and current dictator Than Shwe succeeded him as head of state, secretary of defence and commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, and has subsequently spent 14 of the past 20 years under house arrest.
In 2007, following the junta's decision to remove fuel subsidies, causing the price of fuel to double overnight, demonstrations took place. After an initial crackdown, marches continued under the leadership of thousands of Buddhist monks. Thousands were arrested, and 14 of the leaders were sentenced to 65 years in the infamous British-built Insein prison.
Buddhist monks have been a rallying point for opposition since the early 20th century, when riots broke out over the issue of the British colonists refusing the remove their shoes in the temples.
Beyond the 2007 uprising
Ethnic violence continues in the country, with the Karen people of southeastern Burma particularly prominent in their insurgency. There has also been protracted conflict between the junta and the Han Chinese, Va and Kachin people in the north.
The devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis in May 2008 in the Irrawaddy rice-farming region was severe, with around 200,000 people estimated to have died. However, the isolationist stance of the junta and the endemic corruption in major industries and local government prevented either domestic or foreign aid having much of an impact. United Nations planes bringing food aid and medical supplies were delayed by the junta.
In 2009, an American named John Yettaw swam across Lake Inya to reach Aung San Suu Kyi's residence for the second time (he first visited in May 2008), and was arrested and deported for breaching the terms of her house arrest. As a result, she was given a further 18 months' confinement, meaning that she can take no part in elections held in 2010.
Under the new constitution ratified by referendum amid the devastation of Cyclone Nargis in 2008, the new democratically-elected assembly will reserve a quarter of its seats for the military. Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, has said that it will boycott the elections because of laws that prevent their leader from participating.
http://www.bdcburma.org/NewsDetails.asp?id=657
World War II
Burma was a major battleground for the British and the Japanese. Three hundred thousand refugees fled to India, but by July 1945 Britain had re-taken the country from the Japanese. The Burma National Army, formed by revolutionary and nationalist Aung San in 1937, initially supported the Japanese, but in 1943, fearful that the Japanese promises of independence were not sincere, changed sides and joined the Allies.
Post-1945
After the war, Aung San was instrumental in restoring civilian politics from the military administration established by the British. He also negotiated independence for Burma with British Prime Minister Clement Attlee.
In 1947, the first elections were held in Burma since its split from the British Raj. Aung San's Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL) won 176 of the 210 seats, but Aung San and six of his cabinet ministers were assassinated by paramilitaries loyal to colonial era Prime Minister U Saw. Several British military officers were also implicated in the plot, and were tried and imprisoned. U Saw was executed.
The Union of Burma
Following Aung San's assassination, the leadership of the AFPFL passed to U Nu, who oversaw the country's final transition to an independent Burma in January 1948. U Nu became the first prime minister of the Union of Burma.
Under the constitution of 1947, a bicameral parliament was elected. General elections were held in 1952/3, 1956 and 1960, with the AFPFL continuing to dominate both houses.
In 1961, Burmese civil servant U Thant was unanimously appointed UN Secretary-General, the first non-westerner to hold the position. Among the Burmese staff he took with him to the post was Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of Aung San. But in 1962, just two years after the republic's third general election as an independent state, the government of U Nu was overthrown in a coup d'etat lead by General Ne Win.
The 'Burmese Way to Socialism'
Ne Win ruled the country as a one-party state until 1988, under the auspices of an ideology he called the 'Burmese Way to Socialism'. This lead to economic and political isolationism, the expulsion of foreigners, and the nationalisation of industry.
Student protests at Rangoon University in 1962 resulted in 15 deaths, and similar student activism in 1975, 1976 and 1977 were also suppressed. In 1974, anti-government protests at the funeral of UN Secretary-General U Thant were quickly and violently suppressed by the military.
On the 8 August 1988, frustration at economic mismanagement and brutal oppression lead to the nation-wide protests known as the 8888 Uprising, in which students, monks, and citizens took to the streets to protest against the military junta.
Once again, the revolt was brutally put down, with many casualties. Precise numbers differ, with opposition groups claiming thousands of people were killed by the military, whilst the regime say only 350 lost their lives.
Rule by military junta
A group which was to become the still-ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), lead by General Saw Maung, seized power and declared martial law. In May 1990, the first multi-party elections were held in 30 years.
The National League for Democracy, lead by Aung San Suu Kyi, won 392 of the 498 seats, but the SPDC refused to relinquish power. In 1992, Saw Maung unexpectedly resigned for health reasons, and current dictator Than Shwe succeeded him as head of state, secretary of defence and commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, and has subsequently spent 14 of the past 20 years under house arrest.
In 2007, following the junta's decision to remove fuel subsidies, causing the price of fuel to double overnight, demonstrations took place. After an initial crackdown, marches continued under the leadership of thousands of Buddhist monks. Thousands were arrested, and 14 of the leaders were sentenced to 65 years in the infamous British-built Insein prison.
Buddhist monks have been a rallying point for opposition since the early 20th century, when riots broke out over the issue of the British colonists refusing the remove their shoes in the temples.
Beyond the 2007 uprising
Ethnic violence continues in the country, with the Karen people of southeastern Burma particularly prominent in their insurgency. There has also been protracted conflict between the junta and the Han Chinese, Va and Kachin people in the north.
The devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis in May 2008 in the Irrawaddy rice-farming region was severe, with around 200,000 people estimated to have died. However, the isolationist stance of the junta and the endemic corruption in major industries and local government prevented either domestic or foreign aid having much of an impact. United Nations planes bringing food aid and medical supplies were delayed by the junta.
In 2009, an American named John Yettaw swam across Lake Inya to reach Aung San Suu Kyi's residence for the second time (he first visited in May 2008), and was arrested and deported for breaching the terms of her house arrest. As a result, she was given a further 18 months' confinement, meaning that she can take no part in elections held in 2010.
Under the new constitution ratified by referendum amid the devastation of Cyclone Nargis in 2008, the new democratically-elected assembly will reserve a quarter of its seats for the military. Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, has said that it will boycott the elections because of laws that prevent their leader from participating.
http://www.bdcburma.org/NewsDetails.asp?id=657
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC): Meaningful Birthday Wish for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
Burma’s democratically elected legitimate leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will be 65 on 19 June 2010, yet spending another birthday under house arrest.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi compassionately urged the people of free world to use your liberty to promote Burma’s freedom. She said that
“So for the sake of peace in our country, for the sake of the progress and human development of our people, and for the sake of peace and harmony in our region and in our world, we would like to urge the peoples of the free world to work harder towards bringing true democratic progress everywhere. We would like to see action, rather than words. There have been many words supporting democracy, and we are duly grateful for them, because we do not underestimate the power of words. But words need to be backed up by action -- by action that is united and that is focused on essentials. Only by such action will we be able to realize our democratic aspirations”.
Myo Thein, the Director of the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“It is easy to say-- Happy Birthday. But, if we truly wish Daw Aung San Suu Kyi happy we must work implementing how she wishes to see Burma—a nation where justice prevails. Then it will be the meaningful birthday wish for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi”.
Junta claimed that it will hand over power after 1990 elections but when Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's party, NLD, won landslide victory they ignore to transfer power. In order to nullify 1990 election result, junta planned to hold sham election in 2010 which is designed to legitimize military rule in Burma.
“If this country is to achieve genuine democracy, the result of the elections of 1990 must be recognized. It will be to the detriment of our country if after an election has been held the results are not honoured and we do not resist attempts to trivialise it”. (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi)
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi led National League for Democracy (NLD) boycott junta planned sham election in this year due to its unfair electoral laws.
Khin Maung Win, the Director of the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“I would like to echo what Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said “People got the rights not to vote at the election. Let’s practise our rights—rights not to vote, at the junta planned sham election later this year. In this way we can give the best birthday present to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi”. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is not only the icon of the Burmese people's struggle for freedom but also the symbol of non-violent movement in the world at large.
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar, the Patron of the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“I would like to remind people around the world that crisis in Burma is crisis in your own country. Even though you don’t practically see what is happening in Burma at your eye-sight but do not forget that instability could spread very easily in this day and age. Please do not forget that standing up for justice in Burma is tantamount to standing up for the justice in the world”.“Imagine that if US military generals refuse to let Obama stay in power— what US citizens will do. Imagine that if Gordon Brown refuses to resign as the PM— what UK citizens will do”, added Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should be the head of the government of Burma as the leader of the winning party according to the results of the 1990 general election but sadly military regime put her under house arrest and intensified crack down on her supporters.
Junta’s planned 2010 election is designed to legitimised military rule in Burma. In Burma, there is no rule of law and junta is always above the law. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was elected by the citizens of Burma in the 1990 General Election. Ironically that election was conducted by the same generals who suppress Burma today.
U Tint Swe Thiha, the Patron of Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“Junta is planning to hold fake election in 2010 with sham constitution which legitimise military rule in Burma. I would like to assure here that there will be no genuine democratic change coming out from 2010 election since the election results are premeditated already by junta, which will be General Than Shwe transferring power to General Than Shwe. The suffering of Burmese people will prolong so long as military regime is in power either in booted or suited”.
Burmese people want the international community to endorse Aung San Suu Kyi led democratically elected leaders according to the 1990 election as the legitimate government of Burma if the one should be formed, which is effectively by-passing the China and/or Russia at the UNSC. If the world leaders unanimously focused working on this essential—then we will be able to realise democratic aspiration in Burma and it will be the best birthday present ever for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
For more information please contact
Myo Thein [United Kingdom]
Phone: 00-44-208-493-9137, 00-44-787- 788-2386
Khin Maung Win [United States]
Phone: 001-941-961-2622
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar [United States]
Phone: 001 509 586 8309
U Tint Swe Thiha [United States]
Phone: 001-509-582-3261, 001-509-591-8459
Source: http://www.bdcburma.org/Statements.asp?Id=89
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi compassionately urged the people of free world to use your liberty to promote Burma’s freedom. She said that
“So for the sake of peace in our country, for the sake of the progress and human development of our people, and for the sake of peace and harmony in our region and in our world, we would like to urge the peoples of the free world to work harder towards bringing true democratic progress everywhere. We would like to see action, rather than words. There have been many words supporting democracy, and we are duly grateful for them, because we do not underestimate the power of words. But words need to be backed up by action -- by action that is united and that is focused on essentials. Only by such action will we be able to realize our democratic aspirations”.
Myo Thein, the Director of the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“It is easy to say-- Happy Birthday. But, if we truly wish Daw Aung San Suu Kyi happy we must work implementing how she wishes to see Burma—a nation where justice prevails. Then it will be the meaningful birthday wish for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi”.
Junta claimed that it will hand over power after 1990 elections but when Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's party, NLD, won landslide victory they ignore to transfer power. In order to nullify 1990 election result, junta planned to hold sham election in 2010 which is designed to legitimize military rule in Burma.
“If this country is to achieve genuine democracy, the result of the elections of 1990 must be recognized. It will be to the detriment of our country if after an election has been held the results are not honoured and we do not resist attempts to trivialise it”. (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi)
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi led National League for Democracy (NLD) boycott junta planned sham election in this year due to its unfair electoral laws.
Khin Maung Win, the Director of the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“I would like to echo what Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said “People got the rights not to vote at the election. Let’s practise our rights—rights not to vote, at the junta planned sham election later this year. In this way we can give the best birthday present to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi”. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is not only the icon of the Burmese people's struggle for freedom but also the symbol of non-violent movement in the world at large.
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar, the Patron of the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“I would like to remind people around the world that crisis in Burma is crisis in your own country. Even though you don’t practically see what is happening in Burma at your eye-sight but do not forget that instability could spread very easily in this day and age. Please do not forget that standing up for justice in Burma is tantamount to standing up for the justice in the world”.“Imagine that if US military generals refuse to let Obama stay in power— what US citizens will do. Imagine that if Gordon Brown refuses to resign as the PM— what UK citizens will do”, added Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should be the head of the government of Burma as the leader of the winning party according to the results of the 1990 general election but sadly military regime put her under house arrest and intensified crack down on her supporters.
Junta’s planned 2010 election is designed to legitimised military rule in Burma. In Burma, there is no rule of law and junta is always above the law. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was elected by the citizens of Burma in the 1990 General Election. Ironically that election was conducted by the same generals who suppress Burma today.
U Tint Swe Thiha, the Patron of Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“Junta is planning to hold fake election in 2010 with sham constitution which legitimise military rule in Burma. I would like to assure here that there will be no genuine democratic change coming out from 2010 election since the election results are premeditated already by junta, which will be General Than Shwe transferring power to General Than Shwe. The suffering of Burmese people will prolong so long as military regime is in power either in booted or suited”.
Burmese people want the international community to endorse Aung San Suu Kyi led democratically elected leaders according to the 1990 election as the legitimate government of Burma if the one should be formed, which is effectively by-passing the China and/or Russia at the UNSC. If the world leaders unanimously focused working on this essential—then we will be able to realise democratic aspiration in Burma and it will be the best birthday present ever for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
For more information please contact
Myo Thein [United Kingdom]
Phone: 00-44-208-493-9137, 00-44-787- 788-2386
Khin Maung Win [United States]
Phone: 001-941-961-2622
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar [United States]
Phone: 001 509 586 8309
U Tint Swe Thiha [United States]
Phone: 001-509-582-3261, 001-509-591-8459
Source: http://www.bdcburma.org/Statements.asp?Id=89
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Friday, 18 June 2010
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC): Meaningful Birthday Wish for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC): Meaningful Birthday Wish for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
18 June 2010
Burma’s democratically elected legitimate leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will be 65 on 19 June 2010, yet spending another birthday under house arrest.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi compassionately urged the people of free world to use your liberty to promote Burma’s freedom. She said that
“So for the sake of peace in our country, for the sake of the progress and human development of our people, and for the sake of peace and harmony in our region and in our world, we would like to urge the peoples of the free world to work harder towards bringing true democratic progress everywhere. We would like to see action, rather than words. There have been many words supporting democracy, and we are duly grateful for them, because we do not underestimate the power of words. But words need to be backed up by action -- by action that is united and that is focused on essentials. Only by such action will we be able to realize our democratic aspirations”
.
Myo Thein, the Director of the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“It is easy to say-- Happy Birthday. But, if we truly wish Daw Aung San Suu Kyi happy we must work implementing how she wishes to see Burma—a nation where justice prevails. Then it will be the meaningful birthday wish for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi”.
Junta claimed that it will hand over power after 1990 elections but when Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's party, NLD, won landslide victory they ignore to transfer power. In order to nullify 1990 election result, junta planned to hold sham election in 2010 which is designed to legitimize military rule in Burma.
“If this country is to achieve genuine democracy, the result of the elections of 1990 must be recognized. It will be to the detriment of our country if after an election has been held the results are not honoured and we do not resist attempts to trivialise it”. (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi)
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi led National League for Democracy (NLD) boycott junta planned sham election in this year due to its unfair electoral laws.
Khin Maung Win, the Director of the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“I would like to echo what Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said “People got the rights not to vote at the election. Let’s practise our rights—rights not to vote, at the junta planned sham election later this year. In this way we can give the best birthday present to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi”. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is not only the icon of the Burmese people's struggle for freedom but also the symbol of non-violent movement in the world at large.
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar, the Patron of the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“I would like to remind people around the world that crisis in Burma is crisis in your own country. Even though you don’t practically see what is happening in Burma at your eye-sight but do not forget that instability could spread very easily in this day and age. Please do not forget that standing up for justice in Burma is tantamount to standing up for the justice in the world”.“Imagine that if US military generals refuse to let Obama stay in power— what US citizens will do. Imagine that if Gordon Brown refuses to resign as the PM— what UK citizens will do”, added Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should be the head of the government of Burma as the leader of the winning party according to the results of the 1990 general election but sadly military regime put her under house arrest and intensified crack down on her supporters.
Junta’s planned 2010 election is designed to legitimised military rule in Burma. In Burma, there is no rule of law and junta is always above the law. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was elected by the citizens of Burma in the 1990 General Election. Ironically that election was conducted by the same generals who suppress Burma today.
U Tint Swe Thiha, the Patron of Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said that
“Junta is planning to hold fake election in 2010 with sham constitution which legitimise military rule in Burma. I would like to assure here that there will be no genuine democratic change coming out from 2010 election since the election results are premeditated already by junta, which will be General Than Shwe transferring power to General Than Shwe. The suffering of Burmese people will prolong so long as military regime is in power either in booted or suited”.
Burmese people want the international community to endorse Aung San Suu Kyi led democratically elected leaders according to the 1990 election as the legitimate government of Burma if the one should be formed, which is effectively by-passing the China and/or Russia at the UNSC. If the world leaders unanimously focused working on this essential—then we will be able to realise democratic aspiration in Burma and it will be the best birthday present ever for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
For more information please contact
Myo Thein [United Kingdom]
Phone: 00-44-208-493-9137, 00-44-787- 788-2386
Khin Maung Win [United States]
Phone: 001-941-961-2622
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar [United States]
Phone: 001 509 586 8309
U Tint Swe Thiha [United States]
Phone: 001-509-582-3261, 001-509-591-8459
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Opening Keynote Address at APC Conference
Opening Keynote Address at APC Conference
By Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Prize Laureate. 31 August, 1995.
read on video to the NGO Forum on Women, Beijing, 31 August 1995
It is a wonderful but daunting task that has fallen on me to say a few words by way of opening this Forum, the greatest concourse of women (joined by a few brave men !) that has ever gathered on our planet. I want to try and voice some of the common hopes which firmly unite us in all our splendid diversity.
But first I would like to explain why I cannot be with you in person today. Last month I was released from almost six years of house arrest. The regaining of my freedom has in turn imposed a duty on me to work for the freedom of other women and men in my country who have suffered far more - and who continue to suffer far more - than I have. It is this duty which prevents me from joining you today. Even sending this message to you has not been without difficulties. But the help of those who believe in international cooperation and freedom of expression has enabled me to overcome the obstacles. They made it possible for me to make a small contribution to this great celebration of the struggle of women to mould their own destiny and to influence the fate of our global village.
The opening plenary of this Forum will be presenting an overview of the global forces affecting the quality of life of the human community and the challenges they pose for the global community as a whole and for women in particular as we approach the twenty-first century. However, with true womanly understanding the Convener of this Forum suggested that among these global forces and challenges, I might wish to concentrate on those matters which occupy all my waking thoughts these days : peace, security, human rights and democracy. I would like to discuss these issues particularly in the context of the participation of women in politics and governance.
For millenia women have dedicated themselves almost exclusively to the task of nurturing, protecting and caring for the young and the old, striving for the conditions of peace that favour life as a whole. To this can be added the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, no war was ever started by women. But it is women and children who have always suffered most in situations of conflict. Now that we are gaining control of the primary historical role imposed on us of sustaining life in the context of the home and family, it is time to apply in the arena of the world the wisdom and experience thus gained in activities of peace over so many thousands or years. The education and empowerment of women throughout the world cannot fail to result in a more caring, tolerant, just and peaceful life for all.
If to these universal benefits of the growing emancipation of women can be added the "peace dividend" for human development offered by the end of the Cold War, spending less on the war toys of grown men and much more on the urgent needs of humanity as a whole, then truly the next millenia will be an age the like to which has never been seen in human history. But there still remain many obstacles to be overcome before we can achieve this goal. And not least among these obstacles are intolerance and insecurity.
This year is the International Year for Tolerance. The United Nations has recognised that "tolerance, human rights, democracy and peace are closely related. Without tolerance, the foundations for democracy and respect for human rights cannot be strenghened, and the achievements of peace will remain elusive". My own experience during the years I have been engaged in the democracy movement in Burma has convinced me of the need to emphasize the positive aspects of tolerance. It is not enough simply to "live and let live" : genuine tolerance requires an active effort to try to understand the point of view of others ; it implies broad-mindedness and vision, as well as confidence in one's own ability to meet new challenges without resorting to intransigence or violence. In societies where men are truly confident of their own worth women are not merely "tolerated", they are valued. Their opinions are listened to with respect, they are given their rightful place in shaping the society in which they live.
There is an outmoded Burmese proverb still recited by men, who wish to deny that women too can play a part in bringing necessary change and progress to their society: "The dawn rises only when the rooster crows". But Burmese people today are well aware of the scientific reason behind the rising of dawn and the falling of dusk. And the intelligent rooster surely realizes that it is because dawn comes that it crows and not the other way round. It crows to welcome the light that has come to relieve the darkness of night. It is not the prerogative of men alone to bring light to this world: women with their capacity for compassion and self-sacrifice, their courage and perseverence, have done much to dissipate the darkness of intolerance and hate, suffering and despair.
Often the other side of the coin of intolerance is insecurity. Insecure people tend to be intolerant, and their intolerance unleashes forces that threaten the security of others. And where there is no security there can be no lasting peace. In its Human Development Report for last year, the UNDP noted that human security "is not a concern with weapons - it is a concern with human life and dignity". The struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma is a struggle for life and dignity. It is a struggle that encompasses our political, social and economic aspirations. The people of my country want the two freedoms that spell security: freedom from want and freedom from war. It is want that has driven so many of our young girls across our borders to a life of sexual slavery where they are subject to constant humiliation and ill-treatment. It is fear of persecution for their political beliefs that has made so many of our people feel that even in their own homes they cannot live in dignity and security.
Traditionally the home is the domain of the woman. But there has never been a guarantee that she can live out her life there safe and unmolested. There are countless women who are subjected to severe cruelty within the heart of the family which should be their haven. And in times of crisis when their menfolk are unable to give them protection, women have to face the harsh challenges of the world outside while continuing to discharge their duties within the home.
Many of my male colleagues who have suffered imprisonment for their part in the democracy movement have spoken of the great debt of gratitude they owe their womenfolk, particularly their wives, who stood by them firmly, tender as mothers nursing their newly born, brave as lionesses defending their young. These magnificent human beings who have done so much to aid their men in the struggle for justice and peace - how much more could they not achieve if given the opportunity to work in their own right for the good of their country and of the world?
Our endeavours have also been sustained by the activities of strong and principled women all over the world who have campaigned not only for my own release but, more importantly, for our cause. I cannot let this opportunity pass without speaking of the gratitude we feel towards our sisters everywhere, from heads of governments to busy housewives. Their efforts have been a triumphant demonstration of female solidarity and of the power of an ideal to cross all frontiers.
In my country at present, women have no participation in the higher levels of government and none whatsoever in the judiciary. Even within the democratic movement only 14 out of the 485 MPs elected in 1990 were women - all from my own party, the National League for Democracy. These 14 women represent less than 3 percent of the total number of successful candidates. They, like their male colleagues, have not been permitted to take office since the outcome of those elections has been totally ignored. Yet the very high performance of women in our educational system and in the managment of commercial enterprises proves their enormous potential to contribute to the betterment of society in general. Meanwhile our women have yet to achieve those fundamental rights of free expression, association and security of life denied also to their menfolk.
The adversities that we have had to face together have taught all of us involved in the struggle to build a truly democratic political system in Burma that there are no gender barriers that cannot be overcome. The relationship between men and women should, and can be, characterized not by patronizing behavior or exploitation, but by metta (that is to say loving kindness), partnership and trust. We need mutual respect and understanding between men and women, instead of patriarchal domination and degradation, which are expressions of violence and engender counter-violence. We can learn from each other and help one another to moderate the "gender weaknesses" imposed on us by traditional or biological factors.
There is an age old prejudice the world over to the effect that women talk too much. But is this really a weakness? Could it not in fact be a strength? Recent scientific research on the human brain has revealed that women are better at verbal skills while men tend towards physical action. Psychological research has shown on the other hand that disinformation engendered by men has far more damaging effect on its victims than feminine gossip. Surely these discoveries indicate that women have a most valuable contribution to make in situations of conflict, by leading the way to solutions based on dialogue rather than on viciousness or violence?
The Buddhist paravana ceremony at the end of the rainy season retreat was instituted by the Lord Buddha, who did not want human beings to live in silence [I quote] "like dumb animals". This ceremony, during which monks ask mutual forgiveness for any offence given during the retreat, can be said to be a council of truth and reconciliation. It might also be considered a forerunner of that most democratic of institutions, the parliament, a meeting of peoples gathered together to talk over their shared problems. All the world's great religions are dedicated to the generation of happiness and harmony. This demonstrates the fact that together with the combative instincts of man there co-exists a spiritual aspiration for mutual understanding and peace.
This forum of non-governmental organizations represents the belief in the ability of intelligent human beings to resolve conflicting interests through exchange and dialogue. It also represents the conviction that governments alone cannot resolve all the problems of their countries. The watchfulness and active cooperation of organizations outside the spheres of officialdom are necessary to ensure the four essential components of the human development, paradigm as identified by the UNDP: productivity, equity, sustainability and empowerment. The last is particularly relevant: it requires that "development must be by people, not only for them. People must participate fully in the decisions and processes that shape their lives." In other words people must be allowed to play a significant role in the governance of the country. And "people" include women who make up at least half of the world's population.
The last six years afforded me much time and food for thought. I came to the conclusion that the human race is not divided into two opposing camps of good and evil. It is made up of those who are capable of learning and those who are incapable of doing so. Here I am not talking of learning in the narrow sense of acquiring an academic education, but of learning as the process of absorbing those lessons of life that enable us to increase peace and happiness in our world. Women in their roles as mothers have traditionally assumed the responsibility of teaching children values that will guide them throughout their lives. It is time we were given the full opportunity to use our natural teaching skills to contribute towards building a modern world that can withstand the tremendous challenges of the technological revolution which has in turn brought revolutionary changes in social values.
As we strive to teach others we must have the humility to acknowledge that we too still have much to learn. And we must have the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the world around us. Women who have been taught that modesty and pliancy are among the prized virtues of our gender are marvelously equipped for the learning process. But they must be given the opportunity to turn these often merely passive virtues into positive assets for the society in which they live.
These, then, are our common hopes that unite us -- that as the shackles of prejudice and intolerance fall from our own limbs we can together strive to identify and remove the impediments to human development everywhere. The mechanisms by which this great task is to be achieved provided the proper focus of this great Forum. I feel sure that women throughout the world who, like me, cannot be with you join me now in sending you all our prayers and good wishes for a joyful and productive meeting.
I thank you.
By Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Prize Laureate. 31 August, 1995.
read on video to the NGO Forum on Women, Beijing, 31 August 1995
It is a wonderful but daunting task that has fallen on me to say a few words by way of opening this Forum, the greatest concourse of women (joined by a few brave men !) that has ever gathered on our planet. I want to try and voice some of the common hopes which firmly unite us in all our splendid diversity.
But first I would like to explain why I cannot be with you in person today. Last month I was released from almost six years of house arrest. The regaining of my freedom has in turn imposed a duty on me to work for the freedom of other women and men in my country who have suffered far more - and who continue to suffer far more - than I have. It is this duty which prevents me from joining you today. Even sending this message to you has not been without difficulties. But the help of those who believe in international cooperation and freedom of expression has enabled me to overcome the obstacles. They made it possible for me to make a small contribution to this great celebration of the struggle of women to mould their own destiny and to influence the fate of our global village.
The opening plenary of this Forum will be presenting an overview of the global forces affecting the quality of life of the human community and the challenges they pose for the global community as a whole and for women in particular as we approach the twenty-first century. However, with true womanly understanding the Convener of this Forum suggested that among these global forces and challenges, I might wish to concentrate on those matters which occupy all my waking thoughts these days : peace, security, human rights and democracy. I would like to discuss these issues particularly in the context of the participation of women in politics and governance.
For millenia women have dedicated themselves almost exclusively to the task of nurturing, protecting and caring for the young and the old, striving for the conditions of peace that favour life as a whole. To this can be added the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, no war was ever started by women. But it is women and children who have always suffered most in situations of conflict. Now that we are gaining control of the primary historical role imposed on us of sustaining life in the context of the home and family, it is time to apply in the arena of the world the wisdom and experience thus gained in activities of peace over so many thousands or years. The education and empowerment of women throughout the world cannot fail to result in a more caring, tolerant, just and peaceful life for all.
If to these universal benefits of the growing emancipation of women can be added the "peace dividend" for human development offered by the end of the Cold War, spending less on the war toys of grown men and much more on the urgent needs of humanity as a whole, then truly the next millenia will be an age the like to which has never been seen in human history. But there still remain many obstacles to be overcome before we can achieve this goal. And not least among these obstacles are intolerance and insecurity.
This year is the International Year for Tolerance. The United Nations has recognised that "tolerance, human rights, democracy and peace are closely related. Without tolerance, the foundations for democracy and respect for human rights cannot be strenghened, and the achievements of peace will remain elusive". My own experience during the years I have been engaged in the democracy movement in Burma has convinced me of the need to emphasize the positive aspects of tolerance. It is not enough simply to "live and let live" : genuine tolerance requires an active effort to try to understand the point of view of others ; it implies broad-mindedness and vision, as well as confidence in one's own ability to meet new challenges without resorting to intransigence or violence. In societies where men are truly confident of their own worth women are not merely "tolerated", they are valued. Their opinions are listened to with respect, they are given their rightful place in shaping the society in which they live.
There is an outmoded Burmese proverb still recited by men, who wish to deny that women too can play a part in bringing necessary change and progress to their society: "The dawn rises only when the rooster crows". But Burmese people today are well aware of the scientific reason behind the rising of dawn and the falling of dusk. And the intelligent rooster surely realizes that it is because dawn comes that it crows and not the other way round. It crows to welcome the light that has come to relieve the darkness of night. It is not the prerogative of men alone to bring light to this world: women with their capacity for compassion and self-sacrifice, their courage and perseverence, have done much to dissipate the darkness of intolerance and hate, suffering and despair.
Often the other side of the coin of intolerance is insecurity. Insecure people tend to be intolerant, and their intolerance unleashes forces that threaten the security of others. And where there is no security there can be no lasting peace. In its Human Development Report for last year, the UNDP noted that human security "is not a concern with weapons - it is a concern with human life and dignity". The struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma is a struggle for life and dignity. It is a struggle that encompasses our political, social and economic aspirations. The people of my country want the two freedoms that spell security: freedom from want and freedom from war. It is want that has driven so many of our young girls across our borders to a life of sexual slavery where they are subject to constant humiliation and ill-treatment. It is fear of persecution for their political beliefs that has made so many of our people feel that even in their own homes they cannot live in dignity and security.
Traditionally the home is the domain of the woman. But there has never been a guarantee that she can live out her life there safe and unmolested. There are countless women who are subjected to severe cruelty within the heart of the family which should be their haven. And in times of crisis when their menfolk are unable to give them protection, women have to face the harsh challenges of the world outside while continuing to discharge their duties within the home.
Many of my male colleagues who have suffered imprisonment for their part in the democracy movement have spoken of the great debt of gratitude they owe their womenfolk, particularly their wives, who stood by them firmly, tender as mothers nursing their newly born, brave as lionesses defending their young. These magnificent human beings who have done so much to aid their men in the struggle for justice and peace - how much more could they not achieve if given the opportunity to work in their own right for the good of their country and of the world?
Our endeavours have also been sustained by the activities of strong and principled women all over the world who have campaigned not only for my own release but, more importantly, for our cause. I cannot let this opportunity pass without speaking of the gratitude we feel towards our sisters everywhere, from heads of governments to busy housewives. Their efforts have been a triumphant demonstration of female solidarity and of the power of an ideal to cross all frontiers.
In my country at present, women have no participation in the higher levels of government and none whatsoever in the judiciary. Even within the democratic movement only 14 out of the 485 MPs elected in 1990 were women - all from my own party, the National League for Democracy. These 14 women represent less than 3 percent of the total number of successful candidates. They, like their male colleagues, have not been permitted to take office since the outcome of those elections has been totally ignored. Yet the very high performance of women in our educational system and in the managment of commercial enterprises proves their enormous potential to contribute to the betterment of society in general. Meanwhile our women have yet to achieve those fundamental rights of free expression, association and security of life denied also to their menfolk.
The adversities that we have had to face together have taught all of us involved in the struggle to build a truly democratic political system in Burma that there are no gender barriers that cannot be overcome. The relationship between men and women should, and can be, characterized not by patronizing behavior or exploitation, but by metta (that is to say loving kindness), partnership and trust. We need mutual respect and understanding between men and women, instead of patriarchal domination and degradation, which are expressions of violence and engender counter-violence. We can learn from each other and help one another to moderate the "gender weaknesses" imposed on us by traditional or biological factors.
There is an age old prejudice the world over to the effect that women talk too much. But is this really a weakness? Could it not in fact be a strength? Recent scientific research on the human brain has revealed that women are better at verbal skills while men tend towards physical action. Psychological research has shown on the other hand that disinformation engendered by men has far more damaging effect on its victims than feminine gossip. Surely these discoveries indicate that women have a most valuable contribution to make in situations of conflict, by leading the way to solutions based on dialogue rather than on viciousness or violence?
The Buddhist paravana ceremony at the end of the rainy season retreat was instituted by the Lord Buddha, who did not want human beings to live in silence [I quote] "like dumb animals". This ceremony, during which monks ask mutual forgiveness for any offence given during the retreat, can be said to be a council of truth and reconciliation. It might also be considered a forerunner of that most democratic of institutions, the parliament, a meeting of peoples gathered together to talk over their shared problems. All the world's great religions are dedicated to the generation of happiness and harmony. This demonstrates the fact that together with the combative instincts of man there co-exists a spiritual aspiration for mutual understanding and peace.
This forum of non-governmental organizations represents the belief in the ability of intelligent human beings to resolve conflicting interests through exchange and dialogue. It also represents the conviction that governments alone cannot resolve all the problems of their countries. The watchfulness and active cooperation of organizations outside the spheres of officialdom are necessary to ensure the four essential components of the human development, paradigm as identified by the UNDP: productivity, equity, sustainability and empowerment. The last is particularly relevant: it requires that "development must be by people, not only for them. People must participate fully in the decisions and processes that shape their lives." In other words people must be allowed to play a significant role in the governance of the country. And "people" include women who make up at least half of the world's population.
The last six years afforded me much time and food for thought. I came to the conclusion that the human race is not divided into two opposing camps of good and evil. It is made up of those who are capable of learning and those who are incapable of doing so. Here I am not talking of learning in the narrow sense of acquiring an academic education, but of learning as the process of absorbing those lessons of life that enable us to increase peace and happiness in our world. Women in their roles as mothers have traditionally assumed the responsibility of teaching children values that will guide them throughout their lives. It is time we were given the full opportunity to use our natural teaching skills to contribute towards building a modern world that can withstand the tremendous challenges of the technological revolution which has in turn brought revolutionary changes in social values.
As we strive to teach others we must have the humility to acknowledge that we too still have much to learn. And we must have the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the world around us. Women who have been taught that modesty and pliancy are among the prized virtues of our gender are marvelously equipped for the learning process. But they must be given the opportunity to turn these often merely passive virtues into positive assets for the society in which they live.
These, then, are our common hopes that unite us -- that as the shackles of prejudice and intolerance fall from our own limbs we can together strive to identify and remove the impediments to human development everywhere. The mechanisms by which this great task is to be achieved provided the proper focus of this great Forum. I feel sure that women throughout the world who, like me, cannot be with you join me now in sending you all our prayers and good wishes for a joyful and productive meeting.
I thank you.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
WHO HAVE TO PLACE 2010-MAT TO WHOM?
WHO HAVE TO PLACE 2010-MAT TO WHOM?
Now,we have to hear again the voices of Boycott (or) Unboycott on 2010-election and so, we researched & presented the voices of oversea Burmese,U.S.A which will be boycott 2010-election with the hole Burma's national people's disires because 2010-election will military-salave officially our all national peoples with 2008-military-salaved constitution and Myanmar Junta Regimes would like to do their 2010-election with socalled people's desires to lie Internal-external democratic forces & countries for recognizing of global democratic countries &Untied Nations.
So,they have to try to get Artificial people's desires with Artificial politicians & politics,donars & donations,Kyaintphwint's social welfares & activities and thier strategy had always salaved all national peoples with guns & Neuclear weapons on tactics of persuading & frighteen to peoples(For examples!Useless carrot & stick policy) and they have used the holding sticks,back bones & salaved delegaters with salaved awards-cell phones,cells,garbaged meals for their 2010-election's democratic face-covers.Some have to serve 2010-election for garbaged meals with their poverty broken diganity anti-real political activities and so,very sad to hear those worest news and got also political lessons on Inter become form friends to enemies & form enemies to friends, based on political stands of all national peoples.
After our political prisoners' released from Myaungmya's prisons for fourteen yrs on March,1st,2002,we saw back our commarades & friends on many kinds of fields as old friends (or) new enemies with SPDC and once upon a time,our dearest cmmarades & friends had to serve faithfully Junta Regimes doing of night class on tears of our national people's laddy,girls & boys and some Junta Regime's armies & polices have to waits for paradies night class with night-allowences and all national peoples have to tear for garbaged meals among dirty lanes behind Artificial faced buildings but the greatest banks,compannies & hotels on black money of heroin existed on the city-roads and so,let to get knowledges that the greatest rebellions liked society's elites as Junta Regimes and they could co-operate on selfish-profits oppositing of all national people's profits and they used to serve for their war lords anti-people's profits(For examples!" Enoughed foods for salaves if Salave-lord's sastification".
On 8-8-88,Some strikers talked that U Nu placed mat while demostrative alerted but U Nu told back them that I placed mat but not for me and for peoples.Now,they have to place 2010-mat but not for them & peoples and for war lords.
Every boddy have roghts to place democratic mats for all Burma's national peoples but not for Junta Regimes and so, the persons who did for Junta Regimes will be burried together with war lords by us.
thanking you in anticipation;
best regards;
(U ThiHaTintSwe)
Patron for B.D.C,Wa-99336,U.S.A.
Ph;(509)5823261.
Now,we have to hear again the voices of Boycott (or) Unboycott on 2010-election and so, we researched & presented the voices of oversea Burmese,U.S.A which will be boycott 2010-election with the hole Burma's national people's disires because 2010-election will military-salave officially our all national peoples with 2008-military-salaved constitution and Myanmar Junta Regimes would like to do their 2010-election with socalled people's desires to lie Internal-external democratic forces & countries for recognizing of global democratic countries &Untied Nations.
So,they have to try to get Artificial people's desires with Artificial politicians & politics,donars & donations,Kyaintphwint's social welfares & activities and thier strategy had always salaved all national peoples with guns & Neuclear weapons on tactics of persuading & frighteen to peoples(For examples!Useless carrot & stick policy) and they have used the holding sticks,back bones & salaved delegaters with salaved awards-cell phones,cells,garbaged meals for their 2010-election's democratic face-covers.Some have to serve 2010-election for garbaged meals with their poverty broken diganity anti-real political activities and so,very sad to hear those worest news and got also political lessons on Inter become form friends to enemies & form enemies to friends, based on political stands of all national peoples.
After our political prisoners' released from Myaungmya's prisons for fourteen yrs on March,1st,2002,we saw back our commarades & friends on many kinds of fields as old friends (or) new enemies with SPDC and once upon a time,our dearest cmmarades & friends had to serve faithfully Junta Regimes doing of night class on tears of our national people's laddy,girls & boys and some Junta Regime's armies & polices have to waits for paradies night class with night-allowences and all national peoples have to tear for garbaged meals among dirty lanes behind Artificial faced buildings but the greatest banks,compannies & hotels on black money of heroin existed on the city-roads and so,let to get knowledges that the greatest rebellions liked society's elites as Junta Regimes and they could co-operate on selfish-profits oppositing of all national people's profits and they used to serve for their war lords anti-people's profits(For examples!" Enoughed foods for salaves if Salave-lord's sastification".
On 8-8-88,Some strikers talked that U Nu placed mat while demostrative alerted but U Nu told back them that I placed mat but not for me and for peoples.Now,they have to place 2010-mat but not for them & peoples and for war lords.
Every boddy have roghts to place democratic mats for all Burma's national peoples but not for Junta Regimes and so, the persons who did for Junta Regimes will be burried together with war lords by us.
thanking you in anticipation;
best regards;
(U ThiHaTintSwe)
Patron for B.D.C,Wa-99336,U.S.A.
Ph;(509)5823261.
Burma's disappearing teak forests
I live with my family in Hsipaw, home of the heart of the Shan State, the largest in Burma; it borders Thailand, Laos and China. We have an uncomplicated existence: we grow our own food, have sporadic electricity, and our water comes from the river.
The river runs by the back of my house. In days gone by it was a source of wealth: the clean water flowed past, supplying the local population, sometimes carrying flecks of gold. Many people would spend their days panning, collecting small particles of gold until enough was gathered to trade for other goods. It was a tough life at times, but we were always sustained by the land.
The river has long since given up its mineral wealth, but it's still an important meeting place. Alongside the waters, in a quiet spot behind an ancient bodhi tree, sits an old prayer house. It's made entirely from teak – it's a beautiful structure.
Teak is our traditional building material; it's a locally sourced timber, strong and long-lasting. Of all the world's teak, 70% comes from Burma. But today, for the average man wanting to repair his house, teak is surprisingly difficult to find and harder still to afford.
Prepared teak lasts for three generations, but in the case of this prayer house that interval has passed; the beams have reached the end of their natural life. You can tell by listening. Teak has a distinctive acoustic nature, but once the life has drained from it the sound becomes flat and dull.
Hsipaw, along with areas of Burma like Mawkmai and Namlan, was once known for its teak forests. Sadly this is no longer the case. It takes 100 years for teak to mature into timber, and many of the mature forests are no more.
Burma still has teak, but in all but the most inaccessible regions much has been sold. Logging has provided valuable funds for the military forces, serving to support their regime while at the same time exploiting the foundations of the land.
Harvested sensibly there would be ample to share, but this is not happening. Deforestation and all its associated ills are beginning to have their effect on the land; nutrient depletion and subsidence are phenomena that we are not used to encountering on such a scale.
There are international embargos against the sale of Burmese teak, but once it crosses the borders it is reclassified as non-Burmese. The sanctions do little, and although smuggling a tree sounds no easy feat, our neighbouring countries do little to enforce the embargos. There are rivers across the border to Thailand and China, and one boat can carry 34 tonnes.
Despite this, Burma is not an impoverished nation. It's possible for its people to be easily sustained by the natural resources of the land. As well as teak in the north, there is oil in the south; jade, sapphires and 90% of the world's rubies also come from Burma.
So we are blessed with the same curse that befalls many developing nations – mineral wealth that creates an ulterior motive for power. Resources in the soil of Burma have provided a financial backbone to the SPDC [State Peace and Development Council, the body of 12 military generals that rules the country]. Surrounding nations turn a blind eye for the sake of regional stability and financial gain. Until the political will exists to address these issues, the land that has provided us for centuries may not be able to support us for much longer.
• U Tin Naing, whose name has been changed, was talking to Pete Browne
The river runs by the back of my house. In days gone by it was a source of wealth: the clean water flowed past, supplying the local population, sometimes carrying flecks of gold. Many people would spend their days panning, collecting small particles of gold until enough was gathered to trade for other goods. It was a tough life at times, but we were always sustained by the land.
The river has long since given up its mineral wealth, but it's still an important meeting place. Alongside the waters, in a quiet spot behind an ancient bodhi tree, sits an old prayer house. It's made entirely from teak – it's a beautiful structure.
Teak is our traditional building material; it's a locally sourced timber, strong and long-lasting. Of all the world's teak, 70% comes from Burma. But today, for the average man wanting to repair his house, teak is surprisingly difficult to find and harder still to afford.
Prepared teak lasts for three generations, but in the case of this prayer house that interval has passed; the beams have reached the end of their natural life. You can tell by listening. Teak has a distinctive acoustic nature, but once the life has drained from it the sound becomes flat and dull.
Hsipaw, along with areas of Burma like Mawkmai and Namlan, was once known for its teak forests. Sadly this is no longer the case. It takes 100 years for teak to mature into timber, and many of the mature forests are no more.
Burma still has teak, but in all but the most inaccessible regions much has been sold. Logging has provided valuable funds for the military forces, serving to support their regime while at the same time exploiting the foundations of the land.
Harvested sensibly there would be ample to share, but this is not happening. Deforestation and all its associated ills are beginning to have their effect on the land; nutrient depletion and subsidence are phenomena that we are not used to encountering on such a scale.
There are international embargos against the sale of Burmese teak, but once it crosses the borders it is reclassified as non-Burmese. The sanctions do little, and although smuggling a tree sounds no easy feat, our neighbouring countries do little to enforce the embargos. There are rivers across the border to Thailand and China, and one boat can carry 34 tonnes.
Despite this, Burma is not an impoverished nation. It's possible for its people to be easily sustained by the natural resources of the land. As well as teak in the north, there is oil in the south; jade, sapphires and 90% of the world's rubies also come from Burma.
So we are blessed with the same curse that befalls many developing nations – mineral wealth that creates an ulterior motive for power. Resources in the soil of Burma have provided a financial backbone to the SPDC [State Peace and Development Council, the body of 12 military generals that rules the country]. Surrounding nations turn a blind eye for the sake of regional stability and financial gain. Until the political will exists to address these issues, the land that has provided us for centuries may not be able to support us for much longer.
• U Tin Naing, whose name has been changed, was talking to Pete Browne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
