Wednesday, 9 September 2009
"ဥပေးခ်ိန္ခြင္လွ်ာ ဘယ္ဖက္ကို အေလးသာ"
တရားဥကေဒစိုးမိုးေရးနဲ႕ရပ္႐ြာေအးခ်မ္းသာယာေရးဆိုတာကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕သနပ္ပင္ၿမိဳ႕နယ္ကုလားေခ်ာင္းၾကီးေက်း႐ြာ အပိုင္ကိုခ်န္လွပ္ျပီးထားေလသလား။ ႐ြာရဲ႕ေသာက္ေရကန္သစ္ေဘးမွာ ၾကက္ပြဲက တခ်ိန္းခ်ိန္း ၊႐ြာအနီးလယ္ယာေတြမွာလည္း ႏြားတိုက္ပြဲက တစ္႐ုန္း႐ုန္းဒီလို ဥပေဒမဲ့ေလာင္းကစား၀ိုင္းေတြ ႐ွိမွေတာ့ခိုးမႈ ၊ လုယက္မႈ စတဲ့ ဒုစ႐ိုက္မႈေတြကလည္း ေရတြက္မဆုံးေပါ့၊ ဒီေလာင္းကစား၀ိုင္းေတြကို ေငြေၾကးေကာက္ခံျပီး ခြင့္ျပဳေပးေနတဲ့လူေတြ ကိုလည္းၾကည့္ဦး ။ေက်း႐ြာ ဥကၠ႒ ဦးထြန္းတင္၊အဖြဲ႕၀င္ ဦးတင္စိန္ ႏွင့္ ကူညီပါေရေစဆိုတဲ့ ဒုရဲအုပ္ ေက်ာ္ေက်ာ္ ႏိုင္ ၊ ဘယ္သူ႕ကိုပိုင္သလဲေတာ့ မသိဘူး ဘယ္ေနရာတိုင္တိုင္ ဂ႐ုမစိုက္ဘူးဆိုဘဲ။ ႐ြာသူ ႐ြာသားေတြကေတာ့ မိမိတို႕ရဲ႕ေက်ာင္းေနအ႐ြယ္ကေလး ေတြ ဒီေလာင္းကစား၀ိုင္းေတြေၾကာင့္ အက်င့္စာရိတၱပ်က္ျပားမွာကို စိုးရိမ္ေနၾကရျပီး ႐ြာရဲစခန္းကို တိုင္ေတာ့လည္း ဒုရဲအုပ္ ေက်ာ္ေက်ာ္ႏိုင္ ကိုယ္တိုင္က အေရးယူခ်င္တိုင္း ယူလို႕မရဘူးတယ့္။ အနိမ့္ဆုံးအာဏာပိုင္ ႏွာေစးေနေတာ့လည္း အျမင့္ဆုံး အာဏာပိုင္ျပည္ထဲေရး၀န္ၾကီး႒ာန ေနျပည္ေတာ္ကို လိပ္စာတပ္ ၿပီး (၈.၀၆.၂၀၀၉) ေန႕ရက္စြဲနဲ႕ တိုင္ၾကားစာေပးပို႕ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ တိုင္ၾကားစာမွာ ႏြားတိုက္ပြဲရဲ႕ ေန႕ရက္ ၊ တိုက္ႏြားရဲ႕ အမည္ ၊ က်င္းပသည့္ေနရာ ၊ ေလာင္းေၾကးေငြကအစ အတိအက် တိုင္ၾကားထားျပီး တိုင္ၾကားသူေတြကလည္း တိုင္ၾကားမႈမမွန္ဘူးဆိုရင္ သူတို႕ကို အေရးယူေဆာင္႐ြက္ဖို႕ သူတို႕အမည္ေတြနဲ႕လက္မွတ္ေရးထိုးတိုင္ၾကားခဲ့တာပါ။ ဒီကိစၥနဲ႕ ပါတ္သက္ၿပီး (၂၁.၀၆.၂၀၀၉ ) ရက္ေန႕မွာ တိုင္ၾကားသူေတြနဲ႕ ရယက လူၾကီးက ေ႐ြးခ်ယ္ ၿပီးလႊတ္တဲ့ ႐ြာသားတစ္ခ်ိဳ႕ကို ပဲခူးခ႐ိုင္ ဒုစ႐ိုက္ ႏွိမ္ႏွင္းေရးအဖြဲ႕ က ပဲခူးျမိဳ႕မွာ ေခၚယူေမးျမန္းစစ္ေဆးခဲ့ေပ မယ့္ ယခုအခ်ိန္ထိ တစုံတစ္ရာ မွ်အေရးယူေဆာင္႐ြက္ျခင္း မ႐ွိသည့္အျပင္ တုိင္ၾကားသူမ်ားက ပင္ျပန္လည္စိုးရိမ္စရာမ်ား ျဖစ္ေနရသည့္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ အၾကီးအကဲ လူၾကီးမင္းမ်ား အေနျဖင့္ ရပ္႐ြာေအးခ်မ္းသာယာေရး ႏွင့္ ဥပေဒ စိုးမိုးေရးကို အမွန္တကယ္ အလို႐ွိပါက ဥပေဒ ခ်ိန္ခြက္လွ်ာကို ဥပေဒ ေဖာက္ဖ်က္သူမ်ား ဖက္မွ အေလးသားမေပးၾက ပါနဲ႕ လို႕သတိေပးလုိက္ပါရေစ။
ကုလားေခ်ာင္း႐ြာသား
Than Shwe’s Ultimatum
October 2nd has become the iconic day of reckoning for General Than Shwe of Burma. According to sources within Burma Than Shwe has until 12 noon on October 2, 2009 to make a formal apology for the incarceration, beating and murder of Buddhist monks during a peaceful demonstration. If he refuses he will be excommunicated from the Buddhist faith. In essence Than Shwe will be stripped of his most powerful weapon in keeping a nation divided, religion. If he is no longer a Buddhist he can no longer purport the need to rape and murder Christians under the banner of Buddhism.
Without Buddhism to hide behind he will have to find a new excuse for his continued campaign of Burmanization and the wholesale slaughter of all ethnic minorities in Burma. It still astounds the imagination how he managed to justify torture, rape and murder then claim to be Buddhist in the first place. But with a woefully inept United Nations and the continued impotent response from the so called free world, Than Shwe continues his exercise in eugenics unabated. Many corporate controlled media groups have also turned a deaf ear on the plight of Burma for the most part as well.
The October 2nd deadline was proclaimed by the monks yet very little has been mentioned about it in the mainstream press. In the meantime the Burmese military has been beefing up its forces “just in case” of a new and more powerful uprising. Timing is everything since Than Shwe has opened up the battlement lines to the north and has declared war on ceasefire groups who refuse to be border cops. It’s ironic that Senator Jim “One World Order” Webb was making nice with Than Shwe while his goons advanced on Kokang and other ethnic groups. He should have taken a stroll in one of the many under supplied and over filled refugee centers along the border, provided they are not being shelled by the Burmese military.
With the help of the “liars press” bold faced lies about the meeting circulated around the world as Webb made libelous statements about Daw Aung Suu Kyi. John “the moron” Yettaw made grandiose and thinly veiled lies about his encounter with Aung Suu Kyi then made public his book writing aspirations. I can see the book store now, protesters all around with posters and chants. Then there is John making a hasty retreat out the back door. Daw Aung Suu Kyi has long since decried the false and lascivious statements the dumb duo made. As far as Burma’s democracy was concerned, Jim’s visit was a giant step backward. Yettaw’s visit was catastrophic but “with no regrets”, in his words.
With Daewoo investing billions in Burma as of this writing it is clear the worldwide corporate agenda quietly moved forward. Burma, locked in the throws of indentured servitude, continues to be raped by outsiders. Than Shwe betrayed Burma sold her to the corporate world, the ultimate money laundering scheme. Globalization is colonization on a planetary scale and Burma is to rich in natural resources to ignore. It is obvious the fate of Burma has been determined by others. Than Shwe is just a pawn and a scapegoat to the ones who bought him years ago. In all reality sanctions have not been honored from the corporate world. Merger after merger internationally has laced a web of unscrupulously divisive criminals who’ve also managed to bypass U.S. monopoly laws.
Of the top 100 economies of the world at least half are corporations. Imagine corporations with a GDP larger then 80% of the nations of the world. One day you will drive around in a cute Nano by Tata Motors of India. Just don’t forget that Tata Motors is building a facility in Burma for the sole purpose of building medium to heavy trucks for Burma’s Military. The cute little Nano would be soaked in human blood and the suffering of an enslaved nation. The corporate web is all encompassing though. Two English institutions, Land Rover and Jaguar, now share the tainted resume’ in epic human carnage for Tata Motors is their parent company. From Mrs. Beasley’s Cookies to that cool Daewoo big screen TV, corporations doing business with Than Shwe stock our shelves. So when people say sanctions have not worked it’s because they were not enforced in earnest in the first place. In our complacency we’ve become unwitting benefactors of tyranny not only in Burma, but around the world. Lusting for the cheapest price we forget the price that is paid in human suffering.
The world has done nothing to ease Burma’s pain. The cowardly United Nations has exercised selective justice and all but ignored Burma year after year. Feel good speeches, fruitless visits and spineless sanctions have bought the people of Burma nothing but more broken promises. Now the monks of Burma have made their position known as they take destiny into their own hands. Than Shwe must apologies to the Buddhist Monks for the cruel treatment and murder of holy people from a faith he proclaims to be. He has until October 2nd of 2009 at 12 noon Rangoon time. If he ignores this request he will be excommunicated from all of Buddhism. In turn the junta has increased surveillance and security around monasteries and Buddhist enclaves across the country. The fuse has been lit as a nation under siege braces for the future. And the world is oblivious.
Your Devil’s Advocate
Buffalohair
ဆုိင္သည္ ဗဟန္းၿမိဳ႕နယ္၊ ကမၻာေအး ဘုရားလမ္း၊ ခ်င္းေခ်ာင္းနန္းေတာ္ ေရွ႕ရွိ ယဥ္ေက်းမႈ ၀န္ႀကီးဌာနပိုင္ ေျမတြင္ မၾကာမီ လပိုင္းကမွ ငွားရမ္း ဖြင့္လွစ္ထားသည့္ Seven Corners ေကာ္ဖီဆိုင္ ျဖစ္သည္။ စားသုံးသူမ်ား ႀကိဳးမ့ဲ အင္တာနက္ အသုံးျပဳႏုိင္သည့္ ေကာ္ဖီဆုိင္လည္း ျဖစ္သည္ဟု ဆုိသည္။
ၿပီးခဲ့သည့္ သီတင္းပတ္ ၃ ပတ္ခန္႔က ဖုိးလျပည့္က ဆုိင္ရွိ ပစၥည္းႏွင့္ မွန္မ်ားကို ရိုက္ခြဲရန္ ေစခိုင္းခဲ့ျခင္း ျဖစ္သည္ ဟု သိရွိရသည္။
ထိုသို႔ရိုက္ခြဲစဥ္ “ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ အတြင္းေရးမွဴး တာ၀န္ ယူထားတဲ့သူေတြရဲ႕ သားသမီးေတြက ဒီလို ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ပိုင္ ေျမေပၚမွာ စီးပြားေရး လုပ္စားရသလား” ဟုပါ ေျပာဆုိရန္ ေျမးျဖစ္သူက ညႊန္ၾကားခဲ့သည္ဟု အရာရွိေဟာင္း တဦးက ေျပာၾကားသည္။
ထိုသို႔ ရိုက္ခြဲ ဖ်က္ဆီးခုိင္းသည့္ ကိစၥမျဖစ္မီ ရက္ပိုင္းအလိုတြင္ အဆိုပါ ဆိုင္သုိ႔ ဖုိးလျပည့္ ေရာက္ခ့ဲၿပီး က်ပ္ ၅ေထာင္တန္ ေကာ္ဖီ ေသာက္လိုေၾကာင္း မွာၾကားခ့ဲသည္ဟု ဆုိသည္။
၀န္ထမ္းမ်ားက ဆုိင္တြင္ ၃ေထာင္ေက်ာ္တန္ ေကာ္ဖီသာ ရိွေၾကာင္း ရွင္းျပခ့ဲၿပီး ထုိ ေစ်းအႀကီးဆုံး ေကာ္ဖီကုိသာ ေရာင္းခ်ေပးခဲ့သည္ဟု ဆုိသည္။ ဖုိးလျပည့္က က်ပ္ ၅ေထာင္ ေပးေခ်ၿပီး ထြက္ခြာသြားခဲ့သည္ဟု သိရသည္။ ထုိအျဖစ္အပ်က္ ေနာက္ပုိင္းတြင္ ဆုိင္ကုိ ဖ်က္ဆီးမိန္႔ ေပးခ့ဲျခင္း ျဖစ္သည္ဟု ဆုိသည္။
ဆိုင္ရွိမွန္မ်ား ရိုက္ခြဲခံရၿပီးေနာက္တြင္ ဆိုင္ပိတ္ထားသည္ကုိ ေတြ႔ရသည္။ ၿပီးခဲ့သည့္ သီတင္းပတ္ကုန္တြင္ ဆိုင္ အေဆာက္အဦးကိုပါ အျမန္ ဖ်က္သိမ္းလ်က္ရွိသည္ကို ေတြ႕ရသည္။
ဆုိင္ကုိ နအဖအဖြဲ႕ အတြင္းေရးမွဴး ၁ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီး သီဟသူရ တင္ေအာင္ျမင့္ဦး၏ သား၊ အမ်ိဳးသားစီမံကိန္း ႏွင့္ စီးပြားေရးဖြံ႕ၿဖိဳးတိုးတက္မႈ ၀န္ႀကီးဌာန ၀န္ႀကီး ဦးစိုးသာ၏သား တုိ႔ အပါအ၀င္ ၅ဦး အစုစပ္ ဖြင့္လွစ္ၾကျခင္းျဖစ္သည္ဟု သိရသည္။
အျခား သီးျခား အတည္မျပဳႏိုင္သည့္ သတင္း တရပ္ အရ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္မွဴးႀကီး ေျမးျဖစ္သူႏွင့္ ဆက္ႏြယ္သည့္ ကုမၸဏီက ကုန္ပစၥည္း တင္သြင္းခြင့္ ပါမစ္ ေလွ်ာက္ထားရာတြင္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီး သီဟသူရတင္ေအာင္ျမင့္ဦးက ပယ္ခ်သည့္အတြက္ ယခုလို လုပ္ေဆာင္ရန္ ေစ့ေဆာ္ခဲ့ျခင္း ျဖစ္သည္ဟု ဆိုသည္။
ယခု အျဖစ္အပ်က္သည္ မၾကာေသးမီ ႏွစ္မ်ားက ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီးေဟာင္း ေန၀င္း၏ နာမည္ေက်ာ္ ေျမးျဖစ္သူ ေက်ာ္ေန၀င္းနွင့္ အေပါင္းအပါမ်ား ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕ရွိ ကလပ္မ်ားတြင္ ရမ္းကားခဲ့သည့္ အျဖစ္အပ်က္မ်ားကို ျပန္လည္ သတိရေစၿပီး၊ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္မွဴးႀကီး ေျမးျဖစ္သူက အဆိုပါ ေက်ာ္ေန၀င္းတို႔၏ ေနရာကို ၀င္ယူသည့္ သေဘာ ျဖစ္ေနသည္ဟု ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕မွ သတင္းေထာက္ တဦးက ေ၀ဖန္ ေျပာဆိုသည္။
နအဖ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္မွဴးႀကီး၏ သားသမီးမ်ား ပိုင္ဆိုင္သည့္ စီးပြားေရး လုပ္ငန္းမ်ား ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕တြင္ပင္ မ်ားစြာ ရွိေနသည္။ အလားတူပင္ ဒုတိယတန္း ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ား ျဖစ္သည့္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီးမ်ား၊ ဒုတိယဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီးမ်ား၏ သားသမီးမ်ားလည္း နယ္ပယ္အသီးသီးတြင္ စီးပြားေရး လုပ္ကိုင္လ်က္ ရွိၾကသည္ကို စီးပြားေရးနယ္ပယ္မွ လုပ္ငန္းရွင္မ်ားက သိရွိၾကသည္။
J Donuts ေကာ္ဖီဆိုင္ဆိုလွ်င္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္မွဴးႀကီး၏ မယားပါသား ဦးထြန္းႏိုင္ေရႊ ပိုင္ဆုိင္ၿပီး၊ ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕ စူပါမားကက္ နယ္ပယ္တြင္ အေအာင္ျမင္ဆံုး ျဖစ္သည့္ စီးတီးမတ္ အုပ္စုမွာလည္း ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္မွဴးႀကီး၏ သားသမီးမ်ားက ရွယ္ယာ အမ်ားစုကို ပိုင္ဆိုင္သည္ဟု အမည္မေဖၚလိုသည့္ အေကာက္ခြန္ ၀န္ထမ္းေဟာင္း တဦးက ေျပာဆိုသည္။
အဆိုပါ ၀န္ထမ္းက အျခားစီးပြားေရး လုပ္ငန္းရွင္မ်ား အေနျဖင့္ ျပည္ပမွ ဇိမ္ခံပစၥည္း၊ အစားအေသာက္မ်ား တင္သြင္းရန္ ခက္ခဲခ်ိန္တြင္ စီးတီးမတ္အတြက္ ကုန္ပစၥည္းမ်ားကို စစ္တပ္ အမည္ခံထားသည့္ ကုန္ေသတၱာမ်ားျဖင့္ တင္သြင္းခဲ့ၿပီး မည္သည့္ အေကာက္ခြန္၊ ေထာက္လွမ္းေရးမွ ဖြင့္ၾကည့္ စစ္ေဆးရန္ မ၀ံ့ရဲၾကဟု ဆိုသည္။
Thanks to the sender
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Bogyoke Aung San Poem
ဒို႔အဖိုး
လူ႔ေလာကထဲ သူေနခဲ့ရတာက
၃၂ ႏွစ္ ၅ လ ၆ ရက္ ထဲရယ္ပါ။
၁၃-၂-၁၉၁၅ မွ ၁၉-၇-၁၉၄၇
နတ္ေမာက္ ဦးေသာဘိသေက်ာင္း
ေရနံေခ်ာင္း အမ်ိဳးသားေက်ာင္း
ရန္ကုန္တကၠသိုလ္ေတြမွ ပညာဆည္းပူးခဲ့၊
၁၉၃၄ ေက်ာင္းသားသမဂၢအမႈေဆာင္နဲ႔ ႏိုင္ငံေရးဘ၀စတင္၊
ႏိုင္ငံေရး လုပ္သက္ ၁၃ ႏွစ္
အဓိက ျဖတ္သန္းမႈေတြက
သမဂၢ၊ တို႔ဗမာ၊ ရဲေဘာ္သံုးက်ိပ္၊ ဖဆပလ
အဓိက ေအာင္ျမင္မႈကေတာ့
ျမန္မာ့လြတ္လပ္ေရး သို႔မဟုတ္ စတုတၴျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံေတာ္)
အရပ္ ပုပု
မ်က္ေမွာင္ ကုတ္ကုတ္
ပိုသီပတ္သီ အညာသား။
ဘီေအ ေက်ာင္းသား
စကား မေျပာ
ေျပာရင ္မရပ္
ညႇင္းသိုးသိုး အ႐ိုးခံ
ေခါင္း အမာဆံုး
ဇြဲ အရွိဆံုး
စိတ္ဓာတ္ အျပင္းထန္ဆံုး လူသား။
သူမသိ နားမလည္တာေတြက အမ်ားသား
ေရ မကူးတတ္ဘူး
စက္ဘီး မစီးတတ္ဘူး
စႏၵရား မတီးတတ္ဘူး
သီခ်င္းေကာင္းေကာင္း နားမေထာင္ခဲ့ရဘူး
မိန္းမ မပိုးတတ္ဘူး
ဘိလပ္ျပန္သန္းကို ေမရွင့္သီခ်င္း ဆိုခိုင္းခဲ့သူ
ခ်စ္ရတဲ့ နာစ့္မေလးၾကည္ကို လူငွားနဲ႔ ပိုးခဲ့ရသူ
ဗြီအိုင္ပီဆိုတဲ့ စာတန္းကို အလြန္စက္ဆုပ္ရြံရွာသူ
လမ္းေဘးမွာ ေက်ာက္ေက်ာေရေသာက္တဲ့ ၀န္ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္
မဂၤလာေဆာင္မွာ ခဲဖိုးေတာင္းတာ နားမလည္တဲ့သူ
လြတ္လပ္ေရးကို စဥ္းစားရင္း စစ္ဖိနပ္ ေျပာင္းျပန္စီးတဲ့သူ
လြတ္လပ္ေရးကို စဥ္းစားရင္း ဆံပင္ညႇပ္မၿပီးခင္ ထထြက္သြားတဲ့သူ
ေတြ႕ခ်င္လြန္းလို႔ လမ္းမွာတားတဲ့ ရြာသားေတြနဲ႔
အတူ လမ္းေဘးမွာ အေၾကာ္စားတဲ့ ၀န္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္
သူ႔ကုိယ္သူ ျပည္သူတစ္ေယာက္အျဖစ္ခံယူတဲ့ ၀န္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္
"ၾကည္...ပဲျပဳတ္နဲ႔ နံျပားရရင္ စားခ်င္တယ္"
မိန္းမကို မနက္စာျပင္ခိုင္းတဲ့ သူ႔ရဲ႕ ကမၻာေက်ာ္စာ
ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္အဆင့္ရဲ႕ အမွားနဲ႔ သာမန္ရဲေဘာ္အဆင့္ရဲ႕ အမွန္ကို
ကြဲကြဲျပားျပားသိတဲ့သူ
လူငယ္ဘ၀၊ လူ႔ဘ၀ရဲ႕ စည္းစိမ္အရသာေတြ
ခံစားဖို႔ အခ်ိန္မရခဲ့တဲ့သူ
သူ႔ျဖတ္သန္းမႈမွာ
လြတ္လပ္ေရးဆိုတာ တစ္ခုတည္းနဲ႔
ပကတိ ႐ိုးရွင္းသန္႔စင္ခဲ့တဲ့သူ
သူ႔ကို ဒဂုန္တာရာက ကင္ပြန္းတပ္
ေအာင္ဆန္း သို႔မဟုတ္ အ႐ိုင္းတဲ့။
လုပ္သက္က ခပ္ႏုႏု
ေက်ာင္းသား ေပါက္စ
သခင္ ေပါက္စ
စစ္သား ေပါက္စ
ႏိုင္ငံေရးသမား ေပါက္စ
ဘ၀ေတြက အဖံုဖံု
အသက္က ၃၀ မရွိ တရွိ။
ဒီေအာင္ဆန္း လက္ေတာက္ေလာက္ေလးကို
ဘာ့ေၾကာင့္
ေနမ၀င္ အင္ပါယာႀကီး ဒူးေထာက္ခဲ့ရပါသလဲ...။
တကယ္ဆိုေတာ့
ငါတို႔ ေအာင္ဆန္းက
နယ္နယ္ရရ မဟုတ္-
႐ိုးသားတဲ့ ျမန္မာေတြထက္ပို
႐ိုးသားတဲ့ ေအာင္ဆန္း
သတၱိေျပာင္တဲ့ ျမန္မာေတြထက္ပို
သတၱိရွိတဲ့ ေအာင္ဆန္း
စြန္႔လႊတ္ရဲတဲ့ ျမန္မာေတြထက္ပို
စြန္႔လႊတ္ျပတဲ့ ေအာင္ဆန္း၊
ဒီလို ေအာင္ဆန္း
သူ႔ေသြးသား အ႐ိုးအခ်ဥ္ေတြ အားလံုး
လြတ္လပ္ေရး တစ္ခုတည္းနဲ႔ အၿပီး
စုစည္းတည္ေဆာက္ျပတဲ့ ေအာင္ဆန္း
တကယ့္အ႐ိုးခံ ေအာင္ဆန္းေပါ့။
ဒီေအာင္ဆန္းကို
လြတ္လပ္ေရးလမ္း၀မွာ ဘြားကနဲ ျမင္လိုက္ရ႐ံုပဲ
ေအာင္ဆန္းရဲ႕ဆရာေတြ မႈိင္း၊ ျမ၊ ခ်ိဳတို႔ကအစ
""ငါတို႔ အားကိုးပါရေစ"" ဆိုလာၾက၊
ေရွးဘိုးဘြားမိဘျပည္သူေတြက
""ငါတို႔ကယ္မယ့္ မင္းေလာင္းေပၚၿပီ"" ၿပံဳးေပ်ာ္ၾက
လူငယ္ေသြးေသာက္ျမန္မာေတြက
""ငါတို႔ စြန္႔ပါရေစ"" ဆိုၿပီး ေရွ႕ထြက္လာၾက
စုၾက၊ ႐ံုးၾက၊ စည္းလံုးၾက
တကယ့္ဗမာေတြ
မဟာေအာင္ဆန္းအေနာက္က
ျပည္သူ႕ ဒီလႈိင္းလံုးႀကီးေတြရဲ႕
တ၀ုန္း၀ုန္း ႐ိုက္ခတ္သံဟာ
အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က ၀ိတိုရိယဘုရင္မႀကီးကိုေတာင္
အိပ္မက္ေတြ ေအးခဲေစခဲ့သေပါ့။
ေအာင္ဆန္းေရွ႕ေရာက္ရင္
ရွမ္းေတြက ရွမ္းစကားမဆိုၾက
ကခ်င္ေတြကလည္း ကခ်င္စကားမဟၾက
ေအာင္ဆန္းကို ယံုၾကည္စြာနဲ႔
သူတို႔ သခင္အျဖစ္ သိမွတ္ျပဳၾက
အားလံုးေသာ တိုင္းရင္းသားေတြ။
ဒီျပည္လံုးကၽြတ္အားကို စုစည္းႏုိင္ခဲ့လိုလည္း
အဂၤလိပ္ေတြက ဒီေအာင္ဆန္းလက္ေတာက္ေလာက္နဲ႔
တစ္စားပြဲထဲ ၀ိုင္းခဲ့ၾကေပါ့
အကင္းပါးသူေတြပီပီ
မတိုက္မီက ႐ံႈးေနတဲ့ ဒီစစ္ကို
ဒင္းတို႔ မတိုက္၀ံ့ၾက
မ်က္ႏွာမပ်က္ ေအာင္ျမင္စြာ ဆုတ္ခြာမယ့္လမ္းကို
သူတို႔ ေရြးခဲ့ၾက
ေအာင္ဆန္းနဲ႔အေတြ႕မွာ။
ယံုၾကည္အားကိုးတဲ့
မ်က္လံုးေပါင္း သန္း ၆၀
ေအာင္ဆန္းမွာ ရွိတယ္
လြတ္လပ္ေရးကို တ႐ႈိက္မက္မက္ေတာင့္တတဲ့
ႏွလံုးသားသန္း ၃၀ ေအာင္ဆန္းမွာရွိတယ္
ေအာင္ဆန္းေသဆို ေသျပ၀ံ့တဲ့သူ
ေအာင္ဆန္းမွာ တျပည္လံုးရွိတယ္
ဒီ မ်က္လံုးႏွလံုးအသက္
ဗို႔အားသိန္းသန္းခ်ီ မီးဆလိုက္အားေတြနဲ႔
ေနမ၀င္အင္ပါယာကို ျပတ္ျပတ္သားသား လွမ္းထိုးလိုက္တဲ့အခါ
အေျခာက္တိုက္ ဘ၀င္ျမင့္ေနသူေတြ
အားလံုး အရည္ေပ်ာ္သြားခဲ့ၾက။
ဘယ္ရာဇ၀င္မွာ ခင္ဗ်ားတို႔ ေတြ႕ဘူးလဲ။
ဂ်ပန္ဆိုတာ မႏူးမနပ္မဟုတ္ဘူး။
အဂၤလိပ္ဆိုတာက ေ၀လာေ၀း
သူငယ္ႏွပ္စားမဟုတ္။
ဒင္းတို႔ေတြေတာင္ ရေအာင္ စည္း႐ံုးႏိုင္တဲ့သူ
ေအာင္ဆန္း
ဒီေအာင္ဆန္းက စစ္ကို မလို
ဒါေပမဲ့ ရရင္ရ မရရင္ခ် ဆိုတာ ေအာင္ဆန္း၀ါဒ
လြတ္လပ္ေရးကို အျမန္ဆံုးလိုခ်င္ေနတဲ့
အဲ့ဒီအခ်ိန္ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ႕
တစ္ဦးတည္းေသာ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္
ငါတို႔ ေအာင္ဆန္းေပါ့။
ေအာင္ဆန္း
ဒီအခ်ိန္ဆို
၉၃ ႏွစ္ရွိၿပီ
ေအာင္ဆန္းေျပာမယ္
အဘိုးရဲ႕စကား နားေထာင္...။
""မေမ့နဲ႔
မင္းတို႔
ကေန႔ ႐ူေနတဲ့ ေလဟာ
ငါတို႔
မေန႔က ေခၽြးစက္ေတြဆိုတာ
မေမ့နဲ႔
မင္းတို႔
ျမန္မာဆိုတဲ့ စကားတစ္ခြန္းကိုရဖို႔
ငါတို႔
ဘံုးေဘာလေအာ က်ဆံုးေပးခဲ့ရတာ
မေမ့နဲ႔
မင္းတို႔
ကမၻာ႔ေျမပံုေပၚတက္ႏိုင္ဖို႔
ငါတို႔
အေလာင္းေကာင္ေတြဆင့္ၿပီး ထမ္းတင္ေပးခဲ့တာ
မေမ့နဲ႔။""
ျမန္မာလူမ်ိဳးတိုင္းမွာ
အေဖႏွစ္ေယာက္ရွိတယ္
တစ္ေယာက္က
ကိုယ့္ေသြးသားအေဖ
က်န္တစ္ေယာက္က
ျမန္မာလူမ်ိဳးကို ေမြးေပးတဲ့အေဖ
ျမန္မာလူမ်ိဳးရဲ႕အေဖ
ျမန္မာ့အေဖ
ေအာင္ဆန္းေပါ့။
က်ဳပ္အေဖနဲ႔အဖိုးဟာ ေအာင္ဆန္းသားေတြ
ေအာင္ဆန္းက က်ဳပ္အဖိုး
က်ဳပ္သားက ေအာင္ဆန္းရဲ႕ျမစ္ေပါ့
သူ႕အဘိုးကို သူ လြမ္းတတ္ေနၿပီ
သူ႕သားက်ရင္လဲ သူ႕အေဘးနဲ႔
ေပးေတြ႕ႏိုင္ဖို႔
အခုကတည္းက အေသအခ်ာ
က်ဳပ္ မွာထားရအံုးမယ္။
Thanks to sender- Zaw Zaw (Malaysia)
လူ႔ေလာကထဲ သူေနခဲ့ရတာက
၃၂ ႏွစ္ ၅ လ ၆ ရက္ ထဲရယ္ပါ။
၁၃-၂-၁၉၁၅ မွ ၁၉-၇-၁၉၄၇
နတ္ေမာက္ ဦးေသာဘိသေက်ာင္း
ေရနံေခ်ာင္း အမ်ိဳးသားေက်ာင္း
ရန္ကုန္တကၠသိုလ္ေတြမွ ပညာဆည္းပူးခဲ့၊
၁၉၃၄ ေက်ာင္းသားသမဂၢအမႈေဆာင္နဲ႔ ႏိုင္ငံေရးဘ၀စတင္၊
ႏိုင္ငံေရး လုပ္သက္ ၁၃ ႏွစ္
အဓိက ျဖတ္သန္းမႈေတြက
သမဂၢ၊ တို႔ဗမာ၊ ရဲေဘာ္သံုးက်ိပ္၊ ဖဆပလ
အဓိက ေအာင္ျမင္မႈကေတာ့
ျမန္မာ့လြတ္လပ္ေရး သို႔မဟုတ္ စတုတၴျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံေတာ္)
အရပ္ ပုပု
မ်က္ေမွာင္ ကုတ္ကုတ္
ပိုသီပတ္သီ အညာသား။
ဘီေအ ေက်ာင္းသား
စကား မေျပာ
ေျပာရင ္မရပ္
ညႇင္းသိုးသိုး အ႐ိုးခံ
ေခါင္း အမာဆံုး
ဇြဲ အရွိဆံုး
စိတ္ဓာတ္ အျပင္းထန္ဆံုး လူသား။
သူမသိ နားမလည္တာေတြက အမ်ားသား
ေရ မကူးတတ္ဘူး
စက္ဘီး မစီးတတ္ဘူး
စႏၵရား မတီးတတ္ဘူး
သီခ်င္းေကာင္းေကာင္း နားမေထာင္ခဲ့ရဘူး
မိန္းမ မပိုးတတ္ဘူး
ဘိလပ္ျပန္သန္းကို ေမရွင့္သီခ်င္း ဆိုခိုင္းခဲ့သူ
ခ်စ္ရတဲ့ နာစ့္မေလးၾကည္ကို လူငွားနဲ႔ ပိုးခဲ့ရသူ
ဗြီအိုင္ပီဆိုတဲ့ စာတန္းကို အလြန္စက္ဆုပ္ရြံရွာသူ
လမ္းေဘးမွာ ေက်ာက္ေက်ာေရေသာက္တဲ့ ၀န္ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္
မဂၤလာေဆာင္မွာ ခဲဖိုးေတာင္းတာ နားမလည္တဲ့သူ
လြတ္လပ္ေရးကို စဥ္းစားရင္း စစ္ဖိနပ္ ေျပာင္းျပန္စီးတဲ့သူ
လြတ္လပ္ေရးကို စဥ္းစားရင္း ဆံပင္ညႇပ္မၿပီးခင္ ထထြက္သြားတဲ့သူ
ေတြ႕ခ်င္လြန္းလို႔ လမ္းမွာတားတဲ့ ရြာသားေတြနဲ႔
အတူ လမ္းေဘးမွာ အေၾကာ္စားတဲ့ ၀န္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္
သူ႔ကုိယ္သူ ျပည္သူတစ္ေယာက္အျဖစ္ခံယူတဲ့ ၀န္ႀကီးခ်ဳပ္
"ၾကည္...ပဲျပဳတ္နဲ႔ နံျပားရရင္ စားခ်င္တယ္"
မိန္းမကို မနက္စာျပင္ခိုင္းတဲ့ သူ႔ရဲ႕ ကမၻာေက်ာ္စာ
ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္အဆင့္ရဲ႕ အမွားနဲ႔ သာမန္ရဲေဘာ္အဆင့္ရဲ႕ အမွန္ကို
ကြဲကြဲျပားျပားသိတဲ့သူ
လူငယ္ဘ၀၊ လူ႔ဘ၀ရဲ႕ စည္းစိမ္အရသာေတြ
ခံစားဖို႔ အခ်ိန္မရခဲ့တဲ့သူ
သူ႔ျဖတ္သန္းမႈမွာ
လြတ္လပ္ေရးဆိုတာ တစ္ခုတည္းနဲ႔
ပကတိ ႐ိုးရွင္းသန္႔စင္ခဲ့တဲ့သူ
သူ႔ကို ဒဂုန္တာရာက ကင္ပြန္းတပ္
ေအာင္ဆန္း သို႔မဟုတ္ အ႐ိုင္းတဲ့။
လုပ္သက္က ခပ္ႏုႏု
ေက်ာင္းသား ေပါက္စ
သခင္ ေပါက္စ
စစ္သား ေပါက္စ
ႏိုင္ငံေရးသမား ေပါက္စ
ဘ၀ေတြက အဖံုဖံု
အသက္က ၃၀ မရွိ တရွိ။
ဒီေအာင္ဆန္း လက္ေတာက္ေလာက္ေလးကို
ဘာ့ေၾကာင့္
ေနမ၀င္ အင္ပါယာႀကီး ဒူးေထာက္ခဲ့ရပါသလဲ...။
တကယ္ဆိုေတာ့
ငါတို႔ ေအာင္ဆန္းက
နယ္နယ္ရရ မဟုတ္-
႐ိုးသားတဲ့ ျမန္မာေတြထက္ပို
႐ိုးသားတဲ့ ေအာင္ဆန္း
သတၱိေျပာင္တဲ့ ျမန္မာေတြထက္ပို
သတၱိရွိတဲ့ ေအာင္ဆန္း
စြန္႔လႊတ္ရဲတဲ့ ျမန္မာေတြထက္ပို
စြန္႔လႊတ္ျပတဲ့ ေအာင္ဆန္း၊
ဒီလို ေအာင္ဆန္း
သူ႔ေသြးသား အ႐ိုးအခ်ဥ္ေတြ အားလံုး
လြတ္လပ္ေရး တစ္ခုတည္းနဲ႔ အၿပီး
စုစည္းတည္ေဆာက္ျပတဲ့ ေအာင္ဆန္း
တကယ့္အ႐ိုးခံ ေအာင္ဆန္းေပါ့။
ဒီေအာင္ဆန္းကို
လြတ္လပ္ေရးလမ္း၀မွာ ဘြားကနဲ ျမင္လိုက္ရ႐ံုပဲ
ေအာင္ဆန္းရဲ႕ဆရာေတြ မႈိင္း၊ ျမ၊ ခ်ိဳတို႔ကအစ
""ငါတို႔ အားကိုးပါရေစ"" ဆိုလာၾက၊
ေရွးဘိုးဘြားမိဘျပည္သူေတြက
""ငါတို႔ကယ္မယ့္ မင္းေလာင္းေပၚၿပီ"" ၿပံဳးေပ်ာ္ၾက
လူငယ္ေသြးေသာက္ျမန္မာေတြက
""ငါတို႔ စြန္႔ပါရေစ"" ဆိုၿပီး ေရွ႕ထြက္လာၾက
စုၾက၊ ႐ံုးၾက၊ စည္းလံုးၾက
တကယ့္ဗမာေတြ
မဟာေအာင္ဆန္းအေနာက္က
ျပည္သူ႕ ဒီလႈိင္းလံုးႀကီးေတြရဲ႕
တ၀ုန္း၀ုန္း ႐ိုက္ခတ္သံဟာ
အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က ၀ိတိုရိယဘုရင္မႀကီးကိုေတာင္
အိပ္မက္ေတြ ေအးခဲေစခဲ့သေပါ့။
ေအာင္ဆန္းေရွ႕ေရာက္ရင္
ရွမ္းေတြက ရွမ္းစကားမဆိုၾက
ကခ်င္ေတြကလည္း ကခ်င္စကားမဟၾက
ေအာင္ဆန္းကို ယံုၾကည္စြာနဲ႔
သူတို႔ သခင္အျဖစ္ သိမွတ္ျပဳၾက
အားလံုးေသာ တိုင္းရင္းသားေတြ။
ဒီျပည္လံုးကၽြတ္အားကို စုစည္းႏုိင္ခဲ့လိုလည္း
အဂၤလိပ္ေတြက ဒီေအာင္ဆန္းလက္ေတာက္ေလာက္နဲ႔
တစ္စားပြဲထဲ ၀ိုင္းခဲ့ၾကေပါ့
အကင္းပါးသူေတြပီပီ
မတိုက္မီက ႐ံႈးေနတဲ့ ဒီစစ္ကို
ဒင္းတို႔ မတိုက္၀ံ့ၾက
မ်က္ႏွာမပ်က္ ေအာင္ျမင္စြာ ဆုတ္ခြာမယ့္လမ္းကို
သူတို႔ ေရြးခဲ့ၾက
ေအာင္ဆန္းနဲ႔အေတြ႕မွာ။
ယံုၾကည္အားကိုးတဲ့
မ်က္လံုးေပါင္း သန္း ၆၀
ေအာင္ဆန္းမွာ ရွိတယ္
လြတ္လပ္ေရးကို တ႐ႈိက္မက္မက္ေတာင့္တတဲ့
ႏွလံုးသားသန္း ၃၀ ေအာင္ဆန္းမွာရွိတယ္
ေအာင္ဆန္းေသဆို ေသျပ၀ံ့တဲ့သူ
ေအာင္ဆန္းမွာ တျပည္လံုးရွိတယ္
ဒီ မ်က္လံုးႏွလံုးအသက္
ဗို႔အားသိန္းသန္းခ်ီ မီးဆလိုက္အားေတြနဲ႔
ေနမ၀င္အင္ပါယာကို ျပတ္ျပတ္သားသား လွမ္းထိုးလိုက္တဲ့အခါ
အေျခာက္တိုက္ ဘ၀င္ျမင့္ေနသူေတြ
အားလံုး အရည္ေပ်ာ္သြားခဲ့ၾက။
ဘယ္ရာဇ၀င္မွာ ခင္ဗ်ားတို႔ ေတြ႕ဘူးလဲ။
ဂ်ပန္ဆိုတာ မႏူးမနပ္မဟုတ္ဘူး။
အဂၤလိပ္ဆိုတာက ေ၀လာေ၀း
သူငယ္ႏွပ္စားမဟုတ္။
ဒင္းတို႔ေတြေတာင္ ရေအာင္ စည္း႐ံုးႏိုင္တဲ့သူ
ေအာင္ဆန္း
ဒီေအာင္ဆန္းက စစ္ကို မလို
ဒါေပမဲ့ ရရင္ရ မရရင္ခ် ဆိုတာ ေအာင္ဆန္း၀ါဒ
လြတ္လပ္ေရးကို အျမန္ဆံုးလိုခ်င္ေနတဲ့
အဲ့ဒီအခ်ိန္ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ႕
တစ္ဦးတည္းေသာ ကိုယ္စားလွယ္
ငါတို႔ ေအာင္ဆန္းေပါ့။
ေအာင္ဆန္း
ဒီအခ်ိန္ဆို
၉၃ ႏွစ္ရွိၿပီ
ေအာင္ဆန္းေျပာမယ္
အဘိုးရဲ႕စကား နားေထာင္...။
""မေမ့နဲ႔
မင္းတို႔
ကေန႔ ႐ူေနတဲ့ ေလဟာ
ငါတို႔
မေန႔က ေခၽြးစက္ေတြဆိုတာ
မေမ့နဲ႔
မင္းတို႔
ျမန္မာဆိုတဲ့ စကားတစ္ခြန္းကိုရဖို႔
ငါတို႔
ဘံုးေဘာလေအာ က်ဆံုးေပးခဲ့ရတာ
မေမ့နဲ႔
မင္းတို႔
ကမၻာ႔ေျမပံုေပၚတက္ႏိုင္ဖို႔
ငါတို႔
အေလာင္းေကာင္ေတြဆင့္ၿပီး ထမ္းတင္ေပးခဲ့တာ
မေမ့နဲ႔။""
ျမန္မာလူမ်ိဳးတိုင္းမွာ
အေဖႏွစ္ေယာက္ရွိတယ္
တစ္ေယာက္က
ကိုယ့္ေသြးသားအေဖ
က်န္တစ္ေယာက္က
ျမန္မာလူမ်ိဳးကို ေမြးေပးတဲ့အေဖ
ျမန္မာလူမ်ိဳးရဲ႕အေဖ
ျမန္မာ့အေဖ
ေအာင္ဆန္းေပါ့။
က်ဳပ္အေဖနဲ႔အဖိုးဟာ ေအာင္ဆန္းသားေတြ
ေအာင္ဆန္းက က်ဳပ္အဖိုး
က်ဳပ္သားက ေအာင္ဆန္းရဲ႕ျမစ္ေပါ့
သူ႕အဘိုးကို သူ လြမ္းတတ္ေနၿပီ
သူ႕သားက်ရင္လဲ သူ႕အေဘးနဲ႔
ေပးေတြ႕ႏိုင္ဖို႔
အခုကတည္းက အေသအခ်ာ
က်ဳပ္ မွာထားရအံုးမယ္။
Thanks to sender- Zaw Zaw (Malaysia)
Monday, 7 September 2009
ပထမအႀကိမ္၁၉၉၀ျပည့္ကာလ
မႏၱေလးမွာ ဆြမ္းေလာင္းလွဴစဥ္ကေပါ့
န အ ဖစစ္တပ္ ပစ္သတ္လုိ႔ဇီဝိန္ေႂကြ
သံဃာေတြေသေၾကၾက
ရုိင္းစုိင္းယုတ္မာစဥ္ကေပါ့
ဒုိ႔တေတြေခါင္းငုံ႔မခံ
တြန္းလွန္မယ္ဆုိၿပီး
ဘုရားေပးတဲ့ကမၼဝါ
ပတၱနိကၠဳဇၨနာကုိ
စုေပါင္းကာရြတ္ဆုိၾက
သပိတ္ေမွာက္ခဲ့ၾကေပါ့
ဒါေပမယ့္မ်ဳိးယုတ္န အ ဖ
သံဃာကုိပစ္ကာသတ္
တိပိဋကပါမက်န္လပ္ခံရ
ဆရာေတာ္ေတြေထာင္ထဲစံရေပါ့
ဒုတိယအႀကိမ္
၂၀၀၇ စက္တင္ဘာကာလ
သူတုိ႔ ရက္စက္ယုတ္မာစဥ္ကေပါ့
တုိ႔တေတြလုံးဝလက္မခံ တြန္းလွန္မယ္ဆုိၿပီး
သပိတ္ေမွာက္ကမၼဝါ ပတၱနိကၠဳဇၨနာကုိ
စုေပါင္းကာရြတ္ဖတ္ၾက
ေမတၱာပုိ႔ခ်ီတက္ဆႏၵျပၾကေပါ့
ဒါေပမယ့္ န အ ဖ ဘယ္သူ႔ကုိမွမခ
မာန္မာနေတြေထာင္ကာႂကြၿပီး
ေသနတ္နဲ႔ပစ္သတ္ ရက္ရက္စက္စက္
ညွင္းပမ္းႏွိပ္စက္ ယုတ္မာေနၾက
သံဃာေသြးေတြ ေက်ာင္းသားျပည္သူေသြးေတြ
ေျမမွာခၾကရေပါ့
ဒီလုိသာတသက္လုံး ခံခဲ့ၾကရင္
ဒုိ႔သာသနာ ဒုိ႔ျပည္ရြာကုိ
မိစာၦေတြလက္ ဝကြက္အပ္ရေတာ့မယ္
လာမည့္စက္တင္ဘာ ဆယ့္ခုႏွစ္ရက္ေန႔
ဒါဟာ န အ ဖ ကုိေပးခဲ့မန္႔ဒိတ္
ဖမ္းဆီးထားသံဃာမ်ားကုိ ခြ်င္းခ်က္မရွိ
ခ်က္ခ်င္းလႊတ္
မိမိမွားယြင္းေၾကာင္းျပန္ေတာင္းပန္
ဒီႏွစ္တန္ဒင္းတုိ႔ လက္မခံက
လာမည့္စက္တင္ဘာ ၁၈.၉.၂၀၀၉ ရက္ေန႔
တတိယအႀကိမ္သပိတ္
အဆုံးသတ္တုိက္ပြဲ
ဒုိ႔ဆင္ႏႊဲၾကမယ္
ရဟန္းသံဃာ ေက်ာင္းသားျပည္သူ
အားလုံးအသင့္ျပင္ထားၾက။ ။
ေရးသားသူ။ ။ မင္းသုည (ကြန္းျခံကြန္း)
စစ္ေခြးေတြရဲ႕ ေသနတ္ေျပာင္း
ကုိမေၾကာက္ဘဲ ျပည္သူတစ္ရပ္လုံး
ကသာ ပါဝင္ဆင္ႏြဲမယ္ဆုိရင္
ဒီစစ္အာဏာရွင္အစုိးရ ေခြး
ေျပးဝက္ေျပး ေျပးရမွာပါ။
အခုစက္တင္ဘာမွာ တုိက္မယ့္
သပိတ္တုိက္ပြဲမွာ တုိင္းရင္း
သားျပည္သူတစ္ရပ္လုံး ပါဝင္ဆင္
နြဲၾကဖုိ႔ ႏွဳိးေဆာ္အပ္ပါသည္။
ကုိယ္နဲ႔မဆုိင္သလုိမေနၾကပါႏွင့္။
ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံသူ/သား အားလုံးမွာ
တာဝန္ရွိပါသည္။
Respectfully
Si Thu Aung
Health Coordinator
Burma- Workers' Rights Protection Committee
Email:
http://www.malaysiaburma.blogspot.com
Mobile: +6012 347 0026
Strategic Outlook of 2010 and the Role of Moderates in Burma Conflict
Strategic Outlook of 2010 and the Role of Moderates in Burma Conflict
by Min Zaw Oo
Thursday, 29 January 2009 11:29
Key Points
1. The west-driven support to Burma's pro-democracy movement has reached its limit.
2. The regime has maintained its intuitional apparatus to crackdown domestic oppositions after the monk-led protest and the Cyclone Nargis.
3. The military is facing dilemma to proceed to the transition in 2010 because of the distrust of the oppositions and the lack of civilian partnership.
4. Factional mobilizations can lead to instabilities after 2010.
5. Conflict prevention based on reconciliation and nation-building should be priority after the coming election.
6. The emergence of moderate political forces is critical to promote reconciliation after 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Burmese regime has claimed to hold a new election in 2010 to facilitate a formation of a civil-military government in accordance with the military-orchestrated constitution which was approved in a widely slated referendum held last year. The prospect of the new election is a moral and strategic dilemma to the oppositions, especially the National League for Democracy (NLD) and its supporters who are entrenched in their upholding of the NLD's victory in the eighteen-year-old election.
Any proponent of the new election will undoubtedly find it hard to make a moral advocacy without risking an inadvertent endorsement of the reprobated constitution. However, the participation of moderate pro-democracy forces in the 2010 election is strategically sound and practically necessary to avoid instability and foster much-needed reconciliation for Burma's political and ethnic crises. This essay addresses why the 2010 election is important, and how the moderates can nurture reconciliation after 2010.
The State of the Opposition Movement
Before we think of the future, we should honestly assess our pro-democracy opposition movement, especially its west-driven support.
The attack on Aung San Suu Kyi's motorcade in Depayin and the crackdown on the NLD in 2003 marked a turning point in the conflict. The Depayin incident was also an enlightening moment for some opposition members to re-evaluate their strategies in Burma's protracted conflict.
The Depayin clampdown invigorated ferocity and anguish among the Burmese opposition communities. The emotional instinct called for escalation of the conflict to punish the military's onslaught on the NLD. Furious responses from the international community, including the abrasive condemnations coming from the US senior official, appeared to convince Burmese oppositions that their supporters in the west were ready to boost up Burma's opposition movement beyond rhetoric and miniscule financial supports.
Nevertheless, Burma's pro-democracy movement was merely a moral case for the west. Moral concern is usually inferior to strategic needs in international relations.
Even the Bill Clinton's administration approved about $ 100 million to support the Iraqi oppositions in 1998.1 Compared to this amount, less than $10 million of US funding, including the money to assist refugees and humanitarian programs, was a drop in an ocean of need to boost up an opposition movement.
The Depayin crackdown revealed the reality of the international support to the pro-democracy movement. A few exiles had reached a conclusion on the international front—the west-driven support to Burma's pro-democracy movement has exhausted its capacity in the international system.
On the political front, the NLD explicitly called for the intervention of the United Nations Security Council. The actual reason behind the NLD's SOS signal was its leadership's realization that the government had effectively clamped down the party's capacity to mobilize inside the country. While Aung San Suu Kyi and her able colleagues were under detention, the junta's restrictions had potently demolished the party's grassroots foundation.
The Burmese oppositions and their supporters in exile well heeded the NLD's distress call. Some activist lawyers in Washington prepared a lengthy and controversial appeal, commissioned by Former Czech President Vacláv Havel and noble laureate Desmond M. Tutu. The document argued that Burma under the military junta was a threat to regional stability although all neighboring countries refused to endorse this claim. Burma's threat to peace allegation came neither from the Pentagon nor the US intelligence community. It was a pure agenda from the activists using it as leverage to elevate pressure over the regime.
Despite the understanding in advance that such appeal at the UNSC would not survive, the US Congress and the Bush administration rode the flow of the activists' agenda. In contrast, the Clinton administration chose not to pursue the similar agenda at the UNSC after US ambassador to UN Madeleine Albright met Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in 1995 because of the same reason of an eventual failure. The result is the history.
Both the free Burma movement and the free Tibet campaign share the same fate. Both movements have been remarkably successful in awareness campaigns. However, awareness is only the first step to mobilize international support in transnational causes. The actual policy making depends on the willingness and capability of the international powers. Both free Burma and Tibet movements grind to a halt when their fates fall into the hands of the international system.
In the domestic front, the junta faced two major crises almost simultaneously within 8 months. The monk-led uprising brought thousands of people to the streets for the first time in eighteen years. Cyclone Nargis virtually destroyed the rice bowl of Burma in the delta region and killed over 130,000 people, marking it the worst natural disaster in Burma history. Nevertheless, the regime survived both crises.
The military proved its institutional capacity to shoot, arrest and torture even monks who are regarded one of the three most revered in Burmese society. The Cyclone deepened poverty and forced people to prioritize their economic survival over political dissatisfaction. The regime has successfully preserved its capacity to quash political challenges after two major crises.
The Limitations of the Military Junta
The major difference between Gen. Ne Win's military coup in 1962 and the current junta is the former's ability to consolidate its power by institutionalizing a one-party state 12 years after the military takeover. The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) successively claimed it was a coup d'état government. The nature of the current junta is transitional. Unlike Ne Win's coup, the current junta is not capable of institutionalizing its rule into a formal political system.
In addition, the regime is under constant pressures domestically and internationally although the junta is capable of withstanding them from pushing it to collapse or concede the oppositions' demands. The Depayin incident accelerated the regime's eventual end game, 7-step Road Map to a political transition.
The transition plan is based on the regime's orchestrated constitution which the junta forced through in a rigged referendum amidst the cyclone crisis in May 2008. According to the Road Map, the regime will hold a new election in 2010 and form a new government. The military will have 25 percent of seats in the Parliament, and the military's interests will be protected.
However, the interpretation of the constitution in practice will depend on the degree of participation by civilian politicians in the election and the authority of the elected representatives in the government. The constitution itself does allow elected members to hold substantial power in the new government. The legitimacy of the 2010 election depends on the participation of pro-democracy civilians and their roles in the new government.
The regime is also facing a dilemma based on three major concerns. First, the military is reluctant to open up political space for the civilian politicians to mobilize to contest in the election because the regime learned a hard lesson after it had released former student leaders and allowed them to organize their supporters. Their mobilization paved a way to the monk-led protest in 2007. The regime is very careful this time not to repeat the previous mistake.
Second, the regime is concerned with the repetition of the NLD's another victory in the 2010 election. The dominance of anti-military oppositions in the civilian portion of elected representatives will encourage the oppositions to challenge the military after the election. In other words, the military wants more 'moderate' opposition to contest in the election than the hard-liners. The release of student leaders in 2004 partially aimed at creating a so-called 'third force' between the NLD and the regime. However, the student leaders chose to take hard-line stance.
The regime's strategy appears to minimize the influence of hard liners, including the NLD, in the opposition movement. The recent arrests and severe jail-terms imposed on the activists are a part of the plan to steer clear hard-line elements before the election comes. On the other hand, an alternative third-force in the opposition movement is not in an organized form. Because of the nature of polarization in Burma's conflict, many moderate individuals are reluctant to engineer a third-force platform which is a politically derogative term for the Burmese oppositions.
Third, the regime is worried that the emerging civilian-led government would undermine the military's institutional interests. The military wants to avoid creating a Frankenstein monster by its own Road Map. The military therefore embedded protective clauses in the constitution to guarantee its own interests because of its distrust on civilian politicians.
Overall, the SPDC does not have viable civilian partnership in the new government after 2010. Lack of confidence on civilian politicians and amicable partnership has fostered siege mentality among the military leaders who cling onto the constitution and use suppression to safeguard their interests.
Civilian Forces in the 2010 Election
Depending on their roles and stance towards the coming election, there are four types of civilian politicians, in addition to the pro-military elements to contest the election. The majority of the oppositions strongly condemned the regime's road map. They will continue to reject the 2010 election and refuse to participate. These hardliners among the opposition movement are mostly in exile. Most hardcore activists inside the country have been placed under detention since the crackdown of the monk protests. The hardliners' voice will make little impact on the holding of the election.
The second type of oppositions sees the election as a step towards a confrontation with the military. Despite its call to recognize the result of the 1990 general election, the NLD is likely to participate in the 2010 election because it is the only option for Daw Suu's party to reclaim its legitimacy and remobilize its supporters after 2010. For many hardliners, including the Burmese Communist Party, the coming election is a tactical battleground for further escalation of the conflict.
The third political group views the coming election as an enticing opportunity to pursue their interests. Many ceasefire groups fall into this account. They will seek to strengthen their legitimacy through the existing electoral process regardless of the degree of fairness and freedom of the election. Some ceasefire groups are also inclined to transform into the fourth category, the third force.
Most individuals in the so-called third force inside Burma are non-NLD pro-democracy activists who disagree with the NLD's sanction-oriented policy and confrontation with the regime. They regard themselves moderates and share a view that the current NLD-led opposition movement is a failure. Many individuals in the third force include former political prisoners, elected representatives from the NLD, current leaders in NGOs, and environmental activists. Although they have not emerged as an institutionalized political force, they are likely to establish their political platform to contest the 2010 election.
Potential Instability after the 2010 Election
Under the current constitution, the likely polity in Burma is inclined towards illiberal democracy after 2010. Illiberal democracy is the most potent ingredient for instability when poor economic performance and factional mobilization characterize a new transition, according to the study of world-wide instabilities since 1955.2
Any new government, regardless of the forms of transition, will not be able to revive the country from current economic pauperization in a short term. Poverty will continue and quality of life remains poor after 2010. Economic destitutions are usually channeled towards political discontent. Under poverty, Burmese people will remain dissatisfied with the government as long as the military is a part of the ruling institution.
Illiberal democracy also expands political space for formerly suppressed oppositions who were deprived of political mobilization under the previous system. Economically dissatisfied public is vulnerable to political instigation stirring up unrests. The hardline oppositions will utilize newly emerging political space to mobilize poverty-stricken angry publics to pressure the new government. Their objective will aim to scrap the existing constitution and boot the military out of politics.
On the other hand, the military is likely to be politically defensive after the 2010 election while taking shelter under its brainchild constitution. The military's 25 percent of representatives in the parliament and its supporters will continue to preserve the military's institutional interests threatened by the oppositions' mobilization. Alternatively, the military may disenfranchise potential hardliners in the 2010 election and continue to deny their political freedom even after 2010. In both scenarios, the confrontation between the military and hardcore oppositions is likely to escalate after the election.
Another challenge for the post-2010 government is disarrangement and demobilization of ceasefire groups. Twenty-year old ceasefire has not addressed political settlement of fifteen major ceasefire groups whose strength reaches over 40,000 armed troops, approximately four-time larger than the size of Taliban in Afghanistan. Any misstep in the 2010 transition can trigger the revival of major armed conflicts in the country. The outbreak of wars will inevitably promote the role of military in Burma's politics.
Realistic Reconciliation after 2010
The only way to avoid potential instabilities, destructive confrontation and the revival of suppression is to purse realistic reconciliation after 2010. Reconciliation needs political space, common ground and readiness of both parties. The opposition's call for reconciliation in the past has failed because of the lack of all major premises.
The transition in post-2010 may not foster willingness to reconcile but will create political space to expand shared common ground where confidence can be restored among major parties in the conflict. In the past up to this point, both sides use 'reconciliation' merely as a political lexicon to take advantage over another while neglecting common grounds to cooperate on shared interests of the nation.
It will be the first time in 22 years both civilian politicians and the military representatives will be sitting under the same roof in the Parliament. It will also be the venue for both the military and civilians to interact in policy making and mutually envisioning the future. Against all odds, the transition in 2010 offers an opportunity to jumpstart confidence building to seek much need reconciliation for the country.
Realistically, the regime's Road Map is inevitable. The military will not drop its Road Map and seek an alternative political settlement with the opposition. Any political outcomes have to go through the military-led transitional process. In the past, the military is asked to sit down at a table set up by the opposition. It is now inexorable for the oppositions to proceed to the table prepared by the military.
The reconciliation after 2010 may not be an immediate tripartite dialogue among the military, pro-democracy oppositions, and ethnic minorities. The process will be likely initiated in phases, starting with the military and moderate political forces in the parliament and the government. The ceasefire groups in the political process can play a crucial role in steering the dialogue towards the issues of ethnic minorities.
Prevention of destructive conflicts and nation-building should be the priorities after 2010. These two critical processes are the indispensable steps towards successful democratization. Factional mobilization will be detrimental to any progress of liberalization and democratization. The grim truth about democratic transition is the fact that among 108 democratic transitions, only 12 countries have consolidated democracy since 1955.3 In many cases, instability follows transitions. Some countries fell back to some forms of autocracy. Many transitional countries are still struggling with factionalism.
Moderates Matter
Burma conflict is vastly factionalized, and the polarity between the military and the oppositions is deeply entrenched. The traditional opposition forces will likely take the path of confrontation with the military after 2010. Confidence building won't be materialized as long as both the civilian politicians and the military fail to cooperate in shared common interests, such as economic development, health care, security and public welfare. The essential approach is collaboration in common grounds instead of all-out confrontation.
As long as the junta sees no viable civilian partnership after 2010, the military will restrict the participation of civilian politicians in the coming election and their capacity to mobilize. The only civilian force willing to categorically cooperate with the military is moderate non-NLD pro-democracy activists who feel discontented with the status quo in the opposition movement. Although the military may not trust this so-called third force, it is the only viable civilian partnership the military needs to implement its Road Map.
The military and the third force share similar interests in development-related fields which can be the initial point of cooperation to foster confidence in civil-military relation. Pro-democracy orientation of the moderates can bridge the relationship between traditional oppositions and the military. The third force can function as a requisite buffer between both ends of hardliners by minimizing polarization in Burma conflict.
The major drawback of the potential third force in Burma is the lack of substantial leadership and institutionalization. The moderate force has not been able to organize its political platform and leadership structure to function as a feasible political institution. The election in 2010 will likely be a breeding ground to shape the structure of moderate force in Burmese politics. As long as the military's Road Map is the inescapable point for a change in Burma, the emergence of competent third force is strategically important to jumpstart reconciliation after 2010.
(Min Zaw Oo is a security analyst focusing on South and Southeast Asia region. He is also a PhD candidate at George Mason University, writing his dissertation on the analysis of 108 democratic transitions. Oo holds a MA in Security Studies, Georgetown University, and a MS in Conflict Analysis and Resolutions, George Mason University.)
by Min Zaw Oo
Thursday, 29 January 2009 11:29
Key Points
1. The west-driven support to Burma's pro-democracy movement has reached its limit.
2. The regime has maintained its intuitional apparatus to crackdown domestic oppositions after the monk-led protest and the Cyclone Nargis.
3. The military is facing dilemma to proceed to the transition in 2010 because of the distrust of the oppositions and the lack of civilian partnership.
4. Factional mobilizations can lead to instabilities after 2010.
5. Conflict prevention based on reconciliation and nation-building should be priority after the coming election.
6. The emergence of moderate political forces is critical to promote reconciliation after 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Burmese regime has claimed to hold a new election in 2010 to facilitate a formation of a civil-military government in accordance with the military-orchestrated constitution which was approved in a widely slated referendum held last year. The prospect of the new election is a moral and strategic dilemma to the oppositions, especially the National League for Democracy (NLD) and its supporters who are entrenched in their upholding of the NLD's victory in the eighteen-year-old election.
Any proponent of the new election will undoubtedly find it hard to make a moral advocacy without risking an inadvertent endorsement of the reprobated constitution. However, the participation of moderate pro-democracy forces in the 2010 election is strategically sound and practically necessary to avoid instability and foster much-needed reconciliation for Burma's political and ethnic crises. This essay addresses why the 2010 election is important, and how the moderates can nurture reconciliation after 2010.
The State of the Opposition Movement
Before we think of the future, we should honestly assess our pro-democracy opposition movement, especially its west-driven support.
The attack on Aung San Suu Kyi's motorcade in Depayin and the crackdown on the NLD in 2003 marked a turning point in the conflict. The Depayin incident was also an enlightening moment for some opposition members to re-evaluate their strategies in Burma's protracted conflict.
The Depayin clampdown invigorated ferocity and anguish among the Burmese opposition communities. The emotional instinct called for escalation of the conflict to punish the military's onslaught on the NLD. Furious responses from the international community, including the abrasive condemnations coming from the US senior official, appeared to convince Burmese oppositions that their supporters in the west were ready to boost up Burma's opposition movement beyond rhetoric and miniscule financial supports.
Nevertheless, Burma's pro-democracy movement was merely a moral case for the west. Moral concern is usually inferior to strategic needs in international relations.
Even the Bill Clinton's administration approved about $ 100 million to support the Iraqi oppositions in 1998.1 Compared to this amount, less than $10 million of US funding, including the money to assist refugees and humanitarian programs, was a drop in an ocean of need to boost up an opposition movement.
The Depayin crackdown revealed the reality of the international support to the pro-democracy movement. A few exiles had reached a conclusion on the international front—the west-driven support to Burma's pro-democracy movement has exhausted its capacity in the international system.
On the political front, the NLD explicitly called for the intervention of the United Nations Security Council. The actual reason behind the NLD's SOS signal was its leadership's realization that the government had effectively clamped down the party's capacity to mobilize inside the country. While Aung San Suu Kyi and her able colleagues were under detention, the junta's restrictions had potently demolished the party's grassroots foundation.
The Burmese oppositions and their supporters in exile well heeded the NLD's distress call. Some activist lawyers in Washington prepared a lengthy and controversial appeal, commissioned by Former Czech President Vacláv Havel and noble laureate Desmond M. Tutu. The document argued that Burma under the military junta was a threat to regional stability although all neighboring countries refused to endorse this claim. Burma's threat to peace allegation came neither from the Pentagon nor the US intelligence community. It was a pure agenda from the activists using it as leverage to elevate pressure over the regime.
Despite the understanding in advance that such appeal at the UNSC would not survive, the US Congress and the Bush administration rode the flow of the activists' agenda. In contrast, the Clinton administration chose not to pursue the similar agenda at the UNSC after US ambassador to UN Madeleine Albright met Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in 1995 because of the same reason of an eventual failure. The result is the history.
Both the free Burma movement and the free Tibet campaign share the same fate. Both movements have been remarkably successful in awareness campaigns. However, awareness is only the first step to mobilize international support in transnational causes. The actual policy making depends on the willingness and capability of the international powers. Both free Burma and Tibet movements grind to a halt when their fates fall into the hands of the international system.
In the domestic front, the junta faced two major crises almost simultaneously within 8 months. The monk-led uprising brought thousands of people to the streets for the first time in eighteen years. Cyclone Nargis virtually destroyed the rice bowl of Burma in the delta region and killed over 130,000 people, marking it the worst natural disaster in Burma history. Nevertheless, the regime survived both crises.
The military proved its institutional capacity to shoot, arrest and torture even monks who are regarded one of the three most revered in Burmese society. The Cyclone deepened poverty and forced people to prioritize their economic survival over political dissatisfaction. The regime has successfully preserved its capacity to quash political challenges after two major crises.
The Limitations of the Military Junta
The major difference between Gen. Ne Win's military coup in 1962 and the current junta is the former's ability to consolidate its power by institutionalizing a one-party state 12 years after the military takeover. The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) successively claimed it was a coup d'état government. The nature of the current junta is transitional. Unlike Ne Win's coup, the current junta is not capable of institutionalizing its rule into a formal political system.
In addition, the regime is under constant pressures domestically and internationally although the junta is capable of withstanding them from pushing it to collapse or concede the oppositions' demands. The Depayin incident accelerated the regime's eventual end game, 7-step Road Map to a political transition.
The transition plan is based on the regime's orchestrated constitution which the junta forced through in a rigged referendum amidst the cyclone crisis in May 2008. According to the Road Map, the regime will hold a new election in 2010 and form a new government. The military will have 25 percent of seats in the Parliament, and the military's interests will be protected.
However, the interpretation of the constitution in practice will depend on the degree of participation by civilian politicians in the election and the authority of the elected representatives in the government. The constitution itself does allow elected members to hold substantial power in the new government. The legitimacy of the 2010 election depends on the participation of pro-democracy civilians and their roles in the new government.
The regime is also facing a dilemma based on three major concerns. First, the military is reluctant to open up political space for the civilian politicians to mobilize to contest in the election because the regime learned a hard lesson after it had released former student leaders and allowed them to organize their supporters. Their mobilization paved a way to the monk-led protest in 2007. The regime is very careful this time not to repeat the previous mistake.
Second, the regime is concerned with the repetition of the NLD's another victory in the 2010 election. The dominance of anti-military oppositions in the civilian portion of elected representatives will encourage the oppositions to challenge the military after the election. In other words, the military wants more 'moderate' opposition to contest in the election than the hard-liners. The release of student leaders in 2004 partially aimed at creating a so-called 'third force' between the NLD and the regime. However, the student leaders chose to take hard-line stance.
The regime's strategy appears to minimize the influence of hard liners, including the NLD, in the opposition movement. The recent arrests and severe jail-terms imposed on the activists are a part of the plan to steer clear hard-line elements before the election comes. On the other hand, an alternative third-force in the opposition movement is not in an organized form. Because of the nature of polarization in Burma's conflict, many moderate individuals are reluctant to engineer a third-force platform which is a politically derogative term for the Burmese oppositions.
Third, the regime is worried that the emerging civilian-led government would undermine the military's institutional interests. The military wants to avoid creating a Frankenstein monster by its own Road Map. The military therefore embedded protective clauses in the constitution to guarantee its own interests because of its distrust on civilian politicians.
Overall, the SPDC does not have viable civilian partnership in the new government after 2010. Lack of confidence on civilian politicians and amicable partnership has fostered siege mentality among the military leaders who cling onto the constitution and use suppression to safeguard their interests.
Civilian Forces in the 2010 Election
Depending on their roles and stance towards the coming election, there are four types of civilian politicians, in addition to the pro-military elements to contest the election. The majority of the oppositions strongly condemned the regime's road map. They will continue to reject the 2010 election and refuse to participate. These hardliners among the opposition movement are mostly in exile. Most hardcore activists inside the country have been placed under detention since the crackdown of the monk protests. The hardliners' voice will make little impact on the holding of the election.
The second type of oppositions sees the election as a step towards a confrontation with the military. Despite its call to recognize the result of the 1990 general election, the NLD is likely to participate in the 2010 election because it is the only option for Daw Suu's party to reclaim its legitimacy and remobilize its supporters after 2010. For many hardliners, including the Burmese Communist Party, the coming election is a tactical battleground for further escalation of the conflict.
The third political group views the coming election as an enticing opportunity to pursue their interests. Many ceasefire groups fall into this account. They will seek to strengthen their legitimacy through the existing electoral process regardless of the degree of fairness and freedom of the election. Some ceasefire groups are also inclined to transform into the fourth category, the third force.
Most individuals in the so-called third force inside Burma are non-NLD pro-democracy activists who disagree with the NLD's sanction-oriented policy and confrontation with the regime. They regard themselves moderates and share a view that the current NLD-led opposition movement is a failure. Many individuals in the third force include former political prisoners, elected representatives from the NLD, current leaders in NGOs, and environmental activists. Although they have not emerged as an institutionalized political force, they are likely to establish their political platform to contest the 2010 election.
Potential Instability after the 2010 Election
Under the current constitution, the likely polity in Burma is inclined towards illiberal democracy after 2010. Illiberal democracy is the most potent ingredient for instability when poor economic performance and factional mobilization characterize a new transition, according to the study of world-wide instabilities since 1955.2
Any new government, regardless of the forms of transition, will not be able to revive the country from current economic pauperization in a short term. Poverty will continue and quality of life remains poor after 2010. Economic destitutions are usually channeled towards political discontent. Under poverty, Burmese people will remain dissatisfied with the government as long as the military is a part of the ruling institution.
Illiberal democracy also expands political space for formerly suppressed oppositions who were deprived of political mobilization under the previous system. Economically dissatisfied public is vulnerable to political instigation stirring up unrests. The hardline oppositions will utilize newly emerging political space to mobilize poverty-stricken angry publics to pressure the new government. Their objective will aim to scrap the existing constitution and boot the military out of politics.
On the other hand, the military is likely to be politically defensive after the 2010 election while taking shelter under its brainchild constitution. The military's 25 percent of representatives in the parliament and its supporters will continue to preserve the military's institutional interests threatened by the oppositions' mobilization. Alternatively, the military may disenfranchise potential hardliners in the 2010 election and continue to deny their political freedom even after 2010. In both scenarios, the confrontation between the military and hardcore oppositions is likely to escalate after the election.
Another challenge for the post-2010 government is disarrangement and demobilization of ceasefire groups. Twenty-year old ceasefire has not addressed political settlement of fifteen major ceasefire groups whose strength reaches over 40,000 armed troops, approximately four-time larger than the size of Taliban in Afghanistan. Any misstep in the 2010 transition can trigger the revival of major armed conflicts in the country. The outbreak of wars will inevitably promote the role of military in Burma's politics.
Realistic Reconciliation after 2010
The only way to avoid potential instabilities, destructive confrontation and the revival of suppression is to purse realistic reconciliation after 2010. Reconciliation needs political space, common ground and readiness of both parties. The opposition's call for reconciliation in the past has failed because of the lack of all major premises.
The transition in post-2010 may not foster willingness to reconcile but will create political space to expand shared common ground where confidence can be restored among major parties in the conflict. In the past up to this point, both sides use 'reconciliation' merely as a political lexicon to take advantage over another while neglecting common grounds to cooperate on shared interests of the nation.
It will be the first time in 22 years both civilian politicians and the military representatives will be sitting under the same roof in the Parliament. It will also be the venue for both the military and civilians to interact in policy making and mutually envisioning the future. Against all odds, the transition in 2010 offers an opportunity to jumpstart confidence building to seek much need reconciliation for the country.
Realistically, the regime's Road Map is inevitable. The military will not drop its Road Map and seek an alternative political settlement with the opposition. Any political outcomes have to go through the military-led transitional process. In the past, the military is asked to sit down at a table set up by the opposition. It is now inexorable for the oppositions to proceed to the table prepared by the military.
The reconciliation after 2010 may not be an immediate tripartite dialogue among the military, pro-democracy oppositions, and ethnic minorities. The process will be likely initiated in phases, starting with the military and moderate political forces in the parliament and the government. The ceasefire groups in the political process can play a crucial role in steering the dialogue towards the issues of ethnic minorities.
Prevention of destructive conflicts and nation-building should be the priorities after 2010. These two critical processes are the indispensable steps towards successful democratization. Factional mobilization will be detrimental to any progress of liberalization and democratization. The grim truth about democratic transition is the fact that among 108 democratic transitions, only 12 countries have consolidated democracy since 1955.3 In many cases, instability follows transitions. Some countries fell back to some forms of autocracy. Many transitional countries are still struggling with factionalism.
Moderates Matter
Burma conflict is vastly factionalized, and the polarity between the military and the oppositions is deeply entrenched. The traditional opposition forces will likely take the path of confrontation with the military after 2010. Confidence building won't be materialized as long as both the civilian politicians and the military fail to cooperate in shared common interests, such as economic development, health care, security and public welfare. The essential approach is collaboration in common grounds instead of all-out confrontation.
As long as the junta sees no viable civilian partnership after 2010, the military will restrict the participation of civilian politicians in the coming election and their capacity to mobilize. The only civilian force willing to categorically cooperate with the military is moderate non-NLD pro-democracy activists who feel discontented with the status quo in the opposition movement. Although the military may not trust this so-called third force, it is the only viable civilian partnership the military needs to implement its Road Map.
The military and the third force share similar interests in development-related fields which can be the initial point of cooperation to foster confidence in civil-military relation. Pro-democracy orientation of the moderates can bridge the relationship between traditional oppositions and the military. The third force can function as a requisite buffer between both ends of hardliners by minimizing polarization in Burma conflict.
The major drawback of the potential third force in Burma is the lack of substantial leadership and institutionalization. The moderate force has not been able to organize its political platform and leadership structure to function as a feasible political institution. The election in 2010 will likely be a breeding ground to shape the structure of moderate force in Burmese politics. As long as the military's Road Map is the inescapable point for a change in Burma, the emergence of competent third force is strategically important to jumpstart reconciliation after 2010.
(Min Zaw Oo is a security analyst focusing on South and Southeast Asia region. He is also a PhD candidate at George Mason University, writing his dissertation on the analysis of 108 democratic transitions. Oo holds a MA in Security Studies, Georgetown University, and a MS in Conflict Analysis and Resolutions, George Mason University.)
U.S. Needs 'New Formula' for S.E. Asia
U.S. Needs 'New Formula' for S.E. Asia, Sen. Webb Says Following Myanmar Visit
Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb talks about his unusual mission to reclusive Myanmar to secure the release of an American prisoner, and the other stops on his Asia tour.
MARGARET WARNER: For more than 10 years, the southeast nation of Myanmar, formerly Burma, has shut its doors to top American officials and foreign journalists. Most Americans' clearest images of Myanmar are stealthily filmed pictures of the government's repression of dissent. This was its violent crackdown two years ago on Buddhist monks who protested against the regime.
The U.S. and European Union have maintained economic sanctions on Myanmar for more than a decade, but China is investing heavily there. The country has been so closed off to the West that, after last year's devastating cyclone, which killed more than 80,000, it took immense international pressure to get any foreign aid into the country.
Yet the Burmese junta, which has been ruling for more than 50 years, did welcome Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia 10 days ago.
In quick succession, Webb met with the regime's reclusive leader, General Than Shwe, and then with Nobel Peace Prize-winner and leading democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi. Just days earlier, Suu Kyi had been convicted once again and her house arrest extended, triggering new street protests. The government imposed its latest punishment on her after an American, John Yettaw, swam across a lagoon and entered her house.
Yettaw, a Vietnam veteran suffering from epilepsy, had been sentenced to seven years' hard labor, but Webb gained his release. This week, Senator Webb authored an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, "We Can't Afford to Ignore Myanmar."
The senator's trip also took him to Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. I spoke with Senator Webb yesterday asked him why he thought the reclusive Burmese leader met with him, released the American prisoner, and let him talk with Suu Kyi.
Building 'a new formula' in region
SEN. JIM WEBB, D-Va.: The communications that went back and forth in preparation for our visit, there was a lot of, I think, testing on both sides going on beforehand, and I believe, though, all those things went into their decisions.
MARGARET WARNER: So...
SEN. JIM WEBB: The most important thing, actually, right now is that we have an opportunity here to try to construct a new formula, and it's vital for the interests of the United States in Southeast Asia that we re-engage across the Southeast Asian mainland.
We are in real danger of losing our position, with the expansion of China, with this whole series of countries that I visited.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, in an op-ed in the New York Times this week, you wrote that the U.S. should lift sanctions on Burma, and you said that the ultimate objective is to encourage Myanmar to become a responsible member of the world community, and you talked about having it under an open political system. In your meeting with General Shwe, did you see any evidence that he is interested at all in that kind of vision?
SEN. JIM WEBB: Probably. I don't want to characterize that meeting. I think the best thing for someone like myself is to leave the meeting where it was.
I made a series of observations and suggestions and recommendations to see how they respond following this visit. And there are a lot of ways that we can measure that.
And, by the way, another piece of this is, I'm not saying lift sanctions immediately. I'm saying we need to proceed immediately toward a formula where we can do that. By cutting off the United States and the European Union from Myanmar, as China is so heavily investing in the country, and we're seeing Myanmar now tilt away from our national interest. There's got to be a different way to do this.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, one of the leading pro-democracy in Burma groups says the U.S. should not offer the benefits of trade and investment to Burma, to Myanmar, until it takes real steps to open up its political system, that otherwise the U.S. would be just selling democracy down the river. What do you say to that?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I say, I share their objectives of moving toward a more open system. The question is how you get there.
And one of the interesting historical examples in that case is Vietnam itself. I was very strongly opposed to lifting sanctions on Vietnam after the Communists took over and how they treated the people who were with us.
But as other countries lifted their sanctions against Vietnam, it became more logical for us to do so, and, quite frankly, looking back on it, I think that was a key moment, in terms of beginning the process of opening up Vietnam.
The dissident groups that say you should have democracy first, really, I understand their frustrations, but they need to look at it a different way. Take what you can get and move toward democracy. That's the way you can bring change in Asia.
Regime's interest in the West
MARGARET WARNER: Now, you said "probably" you saw signs that the regime there is interested. I mean, can you be any more specific? Isn't it possible that they have no intention of making any real, concrete opening up to any other political party or to Aung San Suu Kyi's party?
SEN. JIM WEBB: Let's wait and see. I mean, the political party does exist. I had meetings in Burma, quite frankly, that I never could have had in Vietnam. If there would have been an opposition political party come and sit down and talk to me in Vietnam the way that they did in Burma, they'd have gone to jail.
So we need to take what we can get and see. My view is that there are other dimensions to lifting sanctions, and that is allowing people from Western cultures to interact on a daily basis with the people of Burma and, through those sorts of interactions, raising a level of consciousness so that you can have the right sort of interest, in terms of changing a system.
MARGARET WARNER: But then that gets back to the question of whether the regime is interested in having Western interaction with the people of Burma. I mean, they didn't indicate that after the cyclone last year.
SEN. JIM WEBB: They're a very isolated regime, geographically and otherwise. Because of the way that we have lost our contact with the people of Burma, there are very few people in this regime or in Burma who have had contact with the outside world, who have studied in our country or in European countries. So it's a process of breaking down a lot of barriers.
The only way you'll know is if we listen to them and begin to move forward. Clearly, what's been happening over the last 20 years, and particularly with the sanctions over the more than 10 years, has driven the people of Burma away from our type of society and isolated them from the rest of the world.
'Three strong recommendations'
MARGARET WARNER: And how did Than Shwe react when you suggested that Aung San Suu Kyi be freed from house arrest and that her party be allowed and encouraged to take part in next year's election?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I'm not going to characterize his reaction; I don't think it's appropriate. I laid out three strong recommendations in the meetings, all the meetings that I had there.
One was that they allow me to bring Mr. Yettaw home on humanitarian grounds. The other was that I be allowed a face-to-face meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. And the third was that they allow her to be released from confinement and to participate in the progress -- political process.
Another piece of this, quite frankly, is whether her political party will participate in the process unless it is something that they believe is more even-handed.
And one point I should raise, with respect to the meetings with General Than Shwe, is that I communicated to them as clearly as I could that the rest of the world views their government through the way that they treat Aung San Suu Kyi and it was important for them to show more even-handedness there.
MARGARET WARNER: You are one of the few Americans who's been able to even get into Myanmar in recent years. What were your visual impressions? What did it look like?
SEN. JIM WEBB: It's a beautiful country. I've been there eight years before. Even eight years ago, you could see that it was starting to show wear and tear from its isolation from the rest of the world. It's much more graphic today.
But I really don't want to be one of those members of Congress who can drop into a country for two days and come out and give you some, you know, grand assessment. I had a lot more time in Burma eight years ago as a private citizen than I would have now.
MARGARET WARNER: Let me finally, before we end this, ask about Afghanistan. You're a Vietnam veteran. You opposed both the Iraq -- the first Gulf War and the Iraq war. Five months into President Obama's heightened commitment in Afghanistan, how do you think it's going?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I have a lot of concerns about the way we've articulated our national goals in Afghanistan. I've commuted them directly -- communicated them directly to General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates in different hearings. And I think that it is extremely important for us to be able to articulate the end point of our strategy, just as it was in Iraq, and the same thing I was saying in Iraq.
MARGARET WARNER: Many Democrats -- a growing number of Democrats are beginning to see and draw parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. Do you see those parallels? Do they concern you?
SEN. JIM WEBB: It's a totally different situation, totally different situation. The challenge in both is to clearly articulate your strategy so that you will have an end point that you are working toward. And, quite frankly, I see that as less visible in Afghanistan than I saw it during the Vietnam War.
MARGARET WARNER: Senator Webb, thank you.
SEN. JIM WEBB: Thank you.
Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb talks about his unusual mission to reclusive Myanmar to secure the release of an American prisoner, and the other stops on his Asia tour.
MARGARET WARNER: For more than 10 years, the southeast nation of Myanmar, formerly Burma, has shut its doors to top American officials and foreign journalists. Most Americans' clearest images of Myanmar are stealthily filmed pictures of the government's repression of dissent. This was its violent crackdown two years ago on Buddhist monks who protested against the regime.
The U.S. and European Union have maintained economic sanctions on Myanmar for more than a decade, but China is investing heavily there. The country has been so closed off to the West that, after last year's devastating cyclone, which killed more than 80,000, it took immense international pressure to get any foreign aid into the country.
Yet the Burmese junta, which has been ruling for more than 50 years, did welcome Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia 10 days ago.
In quick succession, Webb met with the regime's reclusive leader, General Than Shwe, and then with Nobel Peace Prize-winner and leading democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi. Just days earlier, Suu Kyi had been convicted once again and her house arrest extended, triggering new street protests. The government imposed its latest punishment on her after an American, John Yettaw, swam across a lagoon and entered her house.
Yettaw, a Vietnam veteran suffering from epilepsy, had been sentenced to seven years' hard labor, but Webb gained his release. This week, Senator Webb authored an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, "We Can't Afford to Ignore Myanmar."
The senator's trip also took him to Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. I spoke with Senator Webb yesterday asked him why he thought the reclusive Burmese leader met with him, released the American prisoner, and let him talk with Suu Kyi.
Building 'a new formula' in region
SEN. JIM WEBB, D-Va.: The communications that went back and forth in preparation for our visit, there was a lot of, I think, testing on both sides going on beforehand, and I believe, though, all those things went into their decisions.
MARGARET WARNER: So...
SEN. JIM WEBB: The most important thing, actually, right now is that we have an opportunity here to try to construct a new formula, and it's vital for the interests of the United States in Southeast Asia that we re-engage across the Southeast Asian mainland.
We are in real danger of losing our position, with the expansion of China, with this whole series of countries that I visited.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, in an op-ed in the New York Times this week, you wrote that the U.S. should lift sanctions on Burma, and you said that the ultimate objective is to encourage Myanmar to become a responsible member of the world community, and you talked about having it under an open political system. In your meeting with General Shwe, did you see any evidence that he is interested at all in that kind of vision?
SEN. JIM WEBB: Probably. I don't want to characterize that meeting. I think the best thing for someone like myself is to leave the meeting where it was.
I made a series of observations and suggestions and recommendations to see how they respond following this visit. And there are a lot of ways that we can measure that.
And, by the way, another piece of this is, I'm not saying lift sanctions immediately. I'm saying we need to proceed immediately toward a formula where we can do that. By cutting off the United States and the European Union from Myanmar, as China is so heavily investing in the country, and we're seeing Myanmar now tilt away from our national interest. There's got to be a different way to do this.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, one of the leading pro-democracy in Burma groups says the U.S. should not offer the benefits of trade and investment to Burma, to Myanmar, until it takes real steps to open up its political system, that otherwise the U.S. would be just selling democracy down the river. What do you say to that?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I say, I share their objectives of moving toward a more open system. The question is how you get there.
And one of the interesting historical examples in that case is Vietnam itself. I was very strongly opposed to lifting sanctions on Vietnam after the Communists took over and how they treated the people who were with us.
But as other countries lifted their sanctions against Vietnam, it became more logical for us to do so, and, quite frankly, looking back on it, I think that was a key moment, in terms of beginning the process of opening up Vietnam.
The dissident groups that say you should have democracy first, really, I understand their frustrations, but they need to look at it a different way. Take what you can get and move toward democracy. That's the way you can bring change in Asia.
Regime's interest in the West
MARGARET WARNER: Now, you said "probably" you saw signs that the regime there is interested. I mean, can you be any more specific? Isn't it possible that they have no intention of making any real, concrete opening up to any other political party or to Aung San Suu Kyi's party?
SEN. JIM WEBB: Let's wait and see. I mean, the political party does exist. I had meetings in Burma, quite frankly, that I never could have had in Vietnam. If there would have been an opposition political party come and sit down and talk to me in Vietnam the way that they did in Burma, they'd have gone to jail.
So we need to take what we can get and see. My view is that there are other dimensions to lifting sanctions, and that is allowing people from Western cultures to interact on a daily basis with the people of Burma and, through those sorts of interactions, raising a level of consciousness so that you can have the right sort of interest, in terms of changing a system.
MARGARET WARNER: But then that gets back to the question of whether the regime is interested in having Western interaction with the people of Burma. I mean, they didn't indicate that after the cyclone last year.
SEN. JIM WEBB: They're a very isolated regime, geographically and otherwise. Because of the way that we have lost our contact with the people of Burma, there are very few people in this regime or in Burma who have had contact with the outside world, who have studied in our country or in European countries. So it's a process of breaking down a lot of barriers.
The only way you'll know is if we listen to them and begin to move forward. Clearly, what's been happening over the last 20 years, and particularly with the sanctions over the more than 10 years, has driven the people of Burma away from our type of society and isolated them from the rest of the world.
'Three strong recommendations'
MARGARET WARNER: And how did Than Shwe react when you suggested that Aung San Suu Kyi be freed from house arrest and that her party be allowed and encouraged to take part in next year's election?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I'm not going to characterize his reaction; I don't think it's appropriate. I laid out three strong recommendations in the meetings, all the meetings that I had there.
One was that they allow me to bring Mr. Yettaw home on humanitarian grounds. The other was that I be allowed a face-to-face meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. And the third was that they allow her to be released from confinement and to participate in the progress -- political process.
Another piece of this, quite frankly, is whether her political party will participate in the process unless it is something that they believe is more even-handed.
And one point I should raise, with respect to the meetings with General Than Shwe, is that I communicated to them as clearly as I could that the rest of the world views their government through the way that they treat Aung San Suu Kyi and it was important for them to show more even-handedness there.
MARGARET WARNER: You are one of the few Americans who's been able to even get into Myanmar in recent years. What were your visual impressions? What did it look like?
SEN. JIM WEBB: It's a beautiful country. I've been there eight years before. Even eight years ago, you could see that it was starting to show wear and tear from its isolation from the rest of the world. It's much more graphic today.
But I really don't want to be one of those members of Congress who can drop into a country for two days and come out and give you some, you know, grand assessment. I had a lot more time in Burma eight years ago as a private citizen than I would have now.
MARGARET WARNER: Let me finally, before we end this, ask about Afghanistan. You're a Vietnam veteran. You opposed both the Iraq -- the first Gulf War and the Iraq war. Five months into President Obama's heightened commitment in Afghanistan, how do you think it's going?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I have a lot of concerns about the way we've articulated our national goals in Afghanistan. I've commuted them directly -- communicated them directly to General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates in different hearings. And I think that it is extremely important for us to be able to articulate the end point of our strategy, just as it was in Iraq, and the same thing I was saying in Iraq.
MARGARET WARNER: Many Democrats -- a growing number of Democrats are beginning to see and draw parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. Do you see those parallels? Do they concern you?
SEN. JIM WEBB: It's a totally different situation, totally different situation. The challenge in both is to clearly articulate your strategy so that you will have an end point that you are working toward. And, quite frankly, I see that as less visible in Afghanistan than I saw it during the Vietnam War.
MARGARET WARNER: Senator Webb, thank you.
SEN. JIM WEBB: Thank you.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Friday, 4 September 2009
ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME
Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-110-2009
3 September 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BURMA: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself
ISSUES: Rule of law; military government; judicial system; illegal detention; torture
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has obtained detailed information about the case of a monk in Burma who is being tried without evidence for insulting religion. The monk, U Sandadhika, went like other onlookers to the outside of the court where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her co-defendants were being tried in August. Afterwards a group of unidentified men picked him up and took him into custody where they accused him of planning to immolate himself in protest. They have no evidence to back the charge and the only witnesses in the case, which is continuing, are police. The detainee has been forcibly disrobed and assaulted in custody, resulting in a hernia.
CASE DETAILS:
U Sandadhika went to nearby the central prison on 11 August 2009 to meet with people who had gathered to await the verdict in the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and three others. The 36-year-old told relatives that as he was leaving the area a white car pulled up alongside him with three unidentified men inside. One of them told him that they had an offering of a drink to give him, but he replied that he had already taken his meal for the day and that it was unnecessary. Then they said that they had some things to ask him and told him to get in the car.
The men took Sandadhika to the Rangoon North District police premises where at least two police assaulted him with a bamboo rod, causing him to have a hernia and suffer other injuries. (Full details of the alleged perpetrators are included in the sample letter, below, as usual.) Thereafter they took him to be forcibly disrobed.
The police opened a criminal case against Sandadhika for allegedly insulting religion because, they claim, he had intended to burn himself in protest at the conviction of Aung San Suu Kyi. But under cross-examination in court they admitted that they have no evidence at all to support the claim: they did not find any kerosene or other materials on the defendant or elsewhere to suggest that there is any truth to it. They do not even have any independent witnesses: all of those deposing against the accused are police.
The trial is continuing on September 3.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The AHRC has been documenting numerous cases speaking to what it has described as Burma's "injustice system" and provided a range of links on these in its most recent prior urgent appeal, on the case of Aung Aung Oo and his fellow defendants: AHRC-UA-107-2009. In the aftermath of the September 2007 monk-led protests it also followed the cases of monks and nuns tried and imprisoned over those events, including U Gambira (AHRC-UA-248-2008). At the time of the protests it set up a website that has a variety of relevant resources and topics: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/burmaprotests/
Two special reports have also been issued in the article 2 periodical, "Saffron Revolution imprisoned, law denied" (vol. 7, no. 3, September 2008) and "Burma, political psychosis and legal dementia" (vol. 6, no. 5-6, December 2007). There are also a number of related sites, including the AHRC Burmese-language blog, Pyithu Hittaing, and the 2008 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter onBurma.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the persons listed below to call for the case against U Sandadhika to be dropped. Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma, and Yangon rather than Rangoon.
Please be informed that the AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar and torture, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia calling for interventions into this case.
SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear ___________,
MYANMAR: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself
Details of accused: U Sandadhika, a.k.a. Nyi Nyi Lwin/ Nyi Nyi San, 36, monk of the Daysunpar Temple, Laygyunmandaing Monastery, Bago, Myanmar
Police officers involved:
1. Inspector Zaw Pone Win, Serial No. La/167400, Yangon Division Police Headquarters (prosecuting officer)
2. Deputy Inspector Kyi Khaing Kyaw, Serial No. La/176001, Yangon Division Police HQ (witness & alleged torturer)
3. Deputy Inspector Hla Kyaw Oo, Serial No. La/168797, Yangon North District Police HQ (witness)
4. Deputy Inspector Aung Myint Thein, Serial No. La/148152, Insein Township Police Station (witness)
5. Inspector Kyaw Sein, Yangon North District Police Headquarters (alleged torturer)
Charges & trial: Penal Code section 295A, insulting religion; Felony No. 507/09, Bahan Township Court, Judge Daw Toe Toe Yein (Serial No. Ta/2270, Assistant Township Judge 1, Special Power) presiding
I am very sorry to hear of yet another evidence-free case against someone in Myanmar, this time against a monk who was forcibly disrobed and assaulted while in custody, causing him to have a hernia.
From the details that I have been given, U Sandadhika went to nearby where the hearings in the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and three other defendants were taking place at the Central Prison, Insein Township, on 11 August 2009. There three men in an unmarked vehicle picked him up and took him to the Yangon North District Police Headquarters, where he was assaulted with a bamboo rod, causing injuries including the hernia, which he has shown to the prison hospital.
The police accused him of having had a plan to self immolate as an act of protest, but Sandadhika has denied this and the police have since admitted in court that they have no material evidence to prove the allegation. They had him forcibly disrobed and charged in court with insulting religion. However, aside from not having material evidence to present, the police also had no independent witnesses and have listed only four police officers to appear against him.
I am deeply concerned that despite the lack of evidence and allegations of torture in this case, the accused will nonetheless be convicted on spurious and politically directed grounds. I urge that this not be the case and that the Township Law Office concerned at once review the case and drop the charges against the accused or that the responsible authorities otherwise take the necessary steps to see that the matter is laid to rest and that the accused is allowed to go free.
Finally, I take this opportunity to remind the Government of Myanmar of the need to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to places of detention, in accordance with its globally recognized mandate, including to all those monks and nuns imprisoned in the aftermath of the September 2007 protests, and to ensure that all prisoners obtain appropriate medical treatment for ailments suffered, such as those of U Sandadhika caused by the torture that he allegedly suffered.
Yours sincerely,
----------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +95 67 412 439
2. Lt-Gen. Thein Sein
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624
3. U Aung Toe
Chief Justice
Office of the Supreme Court
Office No. 24
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 67 404 080/ 071/ 078/ 067 or + 95 1 372 145
Fax: + 95 67 404 059
4. U Aye Maung
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office No. 25
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 404 088/ 090/ 092/ 094/ 097
Fax: +95 67 404 146/ 106
5. Brig-Gen. Khin Yi
Director General
Myanmar Police Force
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +951 549 663 / 549 208
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (ua@ahrc.asia)
-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
ေလ့လာစရာ မွတ္သားစရာ - ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္အမႈႏွင့္ ေရြးခ်ယ္စရာလမ္း
ႏိုင္ငံေရးအမႈလိုက္ ေရွ႕ေနၾကီးတဦး
ၾကာသပေတးေန႔၊ စက္တင္ဘာလ 03 ရက္ 2009 ခုႏွစ္ 13 နာရီ 41 မိနစ္
ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္တယ္ဆို႐ုံမွ်နဲ႔ အျပစ္ရွိတယ္လုိ႔ ဆုံးျဖတ္လုိ႔မရဘူး။ အဲဒီလုိ ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္လိုတဲ့ စိတ္ဆႏၵ (guilty mind) နဲ႔ က်ဴးလြန္တာ ျဖစ္ရမယ္။ ဒါကုိ man srea လုိ႔ေခၚတဲ့ လက္တင္ ဥပေဒ ဆုိး႐ုိးစကား (legal maxims, in Latin) နဲ႔ ကုိးကားၿပီး အနည္းငယ္ ရွင္းျပ ေပး ပါရေစ။
အဲဒီ ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္လုိတဲ့ စိတ္ဆႏၵ ရွိ၊ မရွိ ဆိုတာကေတာ့ ျပစ္မႈမက်ဴးလြန္ခင္၊ ျပဳဆဲ၊ ျပဳၿပီး၊ ေနာက္ သူ႔ရဲ႕ အျပဳအမူ၊ အလုပ္အကုိင္ အေျခအေနအရပ္ရပ္ကုိ ထည့္သြင္းစဥ္းစား ဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးရပါတယ္။ အဲဒီလုိ စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးတာကုိေတာ့ အတၱေနာမတိ လို႔ေခၚတဲ့ တရားသူၾကီးရဲ႕ ဆင္ျခင္တုံတရား (common sense) ကေန စဥ္းစား ဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးရမွာပါ။ အရင္က ျပ႒ာန္းထားတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္ဝင္လ်က္ ရွိ၊ မရွိ ဆုိတာကုိ စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ရာမွာလည္း အတိတ္က အျပဳအမႈ၊ ပစၥဳပၸန္အျပဳအမူနဲ႔ ေနာင္ျဖစ္လာႏုိင္မယ့္ အျပဳအမူေတြကုိ ထည့္သြင္း စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကို စြပ္စြဲအေရးယူခဲ့တဲ့ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္သည့္ ဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ (၂၂) ဆုိတာက ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ႏိုင္ငံသားတဦးဦးရဲ႕ မူလအခြင့္အေရးေတြကုိ ကန္႔သတ္တဲ့ဥပေဒ ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။ အဲဒီဥပေဒရဲ႕ ပုဒ္မ ၉ (စ) မွာ အေရးယူျခင္း ခံရသူသည္ ကန္႔သတ္ျခင္းခံရသည့္ မူလအခြင့္အေရးမ်ားမွအပ အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ အျခား မူလ အခြင့္အေရးမ်ားကုိမူ ခံစားခြင့္ရွိေစရမည္လုိ႔ အတိအလင္း ျပ႒ာန္းထားၿပီးသားပါ။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္မရွိေတာ့ရင္ အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မွီတည္ၿပီး ထုတ္ျပန္ထားတဲ့ ၁၉၇၅ ခုႏွစ္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရာယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္ေရး ဥပေဒဆုိတာလည္း အလုိလုိပယ္ဖ်က္ၿပီးသား ျဖစ္ေနတဲ့အတြက္ ခုတ္လွဲၿပီး မရွိေတာ့့တာၾကာၿပီျဖစ္တဲ့ သစ္ပင္ၾကီးဆီက အကိုင္းကုိ ထင္းမီးစုိက္ဖုိ႔ေနာက္ ၂၁ ႏွစ္ၾကာမွ သတိရတာနဲ႔ တူေနပါတယ္။
သစ္ပင္လဲရင္ အကုိင္းအခက္ေတြလည္း ေျမခရတာဟာ သဘာဝဓမၼ ဥပေဒသပါ။ အကိုင္းအခက္ေတြမွာ အသက္ရွိေသးတယ္လုိ႔ ေျပာခ်င္ရင္ေတာ့ ျပန္စုိက္ရပါမယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ သစ္ပင္ၾကီးနဲ႔တူတဲ့ ဖြ႔ဲစည္းအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒၾကီး မရွိေတာ့တဲ့အခါမွ အဲဒီ ဖြဲ႔စည္း အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံဥပေဒရဲ႕ အကုိင္းအခက္ျဖစ္တဲ့ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရာယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္တဲ့ ဥပေဒလည္း မရွိေတာ့တာမုိ႔ မရွိေတာ့တဲ့ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ တရားစြဲထားျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ လႊတ္ကို လႊတ္ေပးရမယ့္ အမႈျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ေအာက္႐ုံးခ႐ုိင္ တရားသူၾကီးေတြရဲ႕ မွားယြင္းဆံုးျဖတ္မႈ၊ အမိန္႔မလြန္ဆန္ႏုိင္မႈေတြကုိ အဆင့္ျမင့္ တရား႐ုံးေတြက ျပင္ဆင္ေပးလုိက္မယ္ ဆုိရင္ တုိင္းျပည္အတြက္လည္း သိကၡာရွိမယ္။ တရားစီရင္ေရးအတြက္လည္း ေကာင္းမြန္တဲ့ အလားအလာေကာင္းေတြ ရွိလာေစမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
အရင္အာဏာသိမ္း အစုိးရတုန္းက အျပဳအမူ၊ အခုလက္ရွိ အာဏာသိမ္းအစုိးရရဲ႕ အျပဳအမႈေတြနဲ႔ ေနာင္ျပဳလုပ္မယ္လို႔ ေၾကညာထားတဲ့ ေၾကညာခ်က္ေတြအရ အရင္ျပ႒ာန္းထားခဲ့ဖူးတဲ့ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ ဒီကေန႔ထက္တုိင္ အသက္ဝင္လ်က္မရွိဘူး ဆုိတာကုိ လက္ခံရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
၁၉၄၈ ခုႏွစ္ လြတ္လပ္ေရးရၿပီးကတည္းက ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ အေျခခံဥပေဒ ၂ ခုနဲ႔ ၾကံဳခဲ့ၿပီးေပမယ့္ ေနာက္ထပ္တခုနဲ႔ ထပ္ၾကံဳရဦးမယ့္ အေန အထားမွာ အရင္အေျခခံဥပေဒက အခုထိ အသက္ဝင္ေနပါေသးတယ္ ဆုိတဲ့ အေၾကာင္းျပခ်က္နဲ႔ ဒီကေန႔ ျမန္မာ့ႏိုင္ငံအေရးအတြက္ အေရးပါဆုံး သူတဦးျဖစ္တဲ့ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ ဒုကၡေရာက္ေနရတဲ့ အေျခအေနမွာ အရင္က အေျခခံဥပေဒေတြ ဒီကေန႔ထက္တုိင္ အသက္ရွိမရွိ ဆုိတဲ့ ဥပေဒ ျပႆနာကုိ အခုအခ်ိန္ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ အေရးတၾကီး ေဆြးေႏြးဖုိ႔ လုိအပ္ေနပါတယ္။
၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ လြတ္လပ္ေရးမရခင္ တႏွစ္အလုိမွာ လြတ္လပ္ေရး ရယူဖုိ႔အတြက္ ေရးဆြဲခဲ့ရတာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းနဲ႔ ၿဗိတိသွ်ဝန္ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္ အားရ္အက္တလီ (Prime minister Earl Attlee 1945-1951) တုိ႔ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ဇန္နဝါရီလ ၂၈ ရက္ေန႔မွာ အဂၤလန္က ပါလီမန္ အေဆာက္အအုံအတြင္းမွာ လက္မွတ္ေရးထုိးခဲ့ၾကပါတယ္။ ေအာင္ဆန္း-အက္တလီ စာခ်ဳပ္အရ ျမန္မာ ႏိုင္ငံမွာ လြတ္လပ္ေရးယူမယ္ဆုိရင္ ၿဗိတိသွ်ေတြ ယုံၾကည္ရမယ့္ အေျခခံအုတ္ျမစ္ေကာင္းေတြရွိမွ လြတ္လပ္ေရးရမယ္ဆုိတာ ရွင္းေနပါတယ္။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းဟာ ေဖေဖာ္ဝါရီလဆန္းမွာ အဂၤလန္က ျပန္လာၿပီးတာန႔ဲ တၿပိဳင္နက္ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က ဥပေဒပညာရွင္ေတြျဖစ္တဲ့ ဝတ္လုံေတာ္ရ ဦးခ်န္ထြန္း၊ ဦးဘဝင္း စတဲ့ ပုဂၢိဳလ္ေတြ ပါဝင္တဲ့ ေကာ္မတီအဖြဲ႔ဟာ အိႏၵိယကုိ ေလ့လာေရးအဖြဲ႔ ေစလႊတ္ၿပီးေနာက္ပုိင္း ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ၾသဂုတ္လအတြင္းမွာ အေျခခံဥပေဒ မူၾကမ္းကုိ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကုိ တင္ျပႏိုင္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ စက္တင္ဘာလ ၂၄ ရက္ေန႔ မွာ အတည္ျပဳႏိုင္ခဲ့တဲ့အတြက္ ၆ လအတြင္းမွာ ေရးဆြဲခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒလည္း ျဖစ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။
အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ အခ်ိန္တုိအတြင္းမွာ ဥပေဒပညာရွင္မ်ားမ်ားစားစား မပါဝင္ ဘဲေရး ဆြဲခဲ့တယ္ဆုိေပမယ့္ လက္ခံရေလာက္ေအာင္ ေစ့စပ္ေသခ်ာခဲ့လို႔ ၿဗိတိသွ်ပါလီမန္က ျငင္းမရခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒတခု ျဖစ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က ၿဗိတိသွ်ဝန္ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္ အက္တလီဟာ ေအာက္စဖုိ႔ဒ္ ေက်ာင္းဆင္းျဖစ္ၿပီး၊ အလုပ္သမားပါတီ (Labour Party) ေခါင္းေဆာင္၊ ဝတ္လုံေတာ္ရေရွ႕ေနၾကီး (Barrister) တဦး ျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ သူလက္ခံခဲ့တာကို ေလွ်ာ့တြက္လို႔ မရပါဘူး။
ဒါေပမဲ့ ကာလေဒသ အေျခအေနအရပ္ရပ္ေတြ အၿမဲေျပာင္းလဲေနတာေၾကာင့္ တခ်ဳိ႕ေနရာေတြမွာ အားနည္းခ်က္ေတြ အထုိက္အေလ်ာက္ ရွိေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီအားနည္းခ်က္ေတြကုိ ေနာက္ဆက္တြဲ ျပင္ဆင္ခ်က္ေတြအေနနဲ႔ ၁၉၄၉ ခုႏွစ္ကေန ၁၉၆၁ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ၁၁ ၾကိမ္တုိင္တုိင္ ျပင္ဆင္ခဲ့ရပါတယ္။
အဲဒီလုိ ျပင္ဆင္ရင္းနဲ႔ ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏွစ္မွာ စစ္တပ္က အာဏာသိမ္းသြားၿပီးေနာက္ပိုင္း အဲဒီ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ လုံးဝ မသုံးေတာ့ဘဲ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္မွာ ေနာက္ထပ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒတခုကုိ ထပ္မံ အတည္ျပဳခဲ့ျပန္ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီၾကားကာလမွာ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ကုိ အေကာင္အထည္ ေဖာ္မွာ ျဖစ္တဲ့အတြက္ အရင္ရွိခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ ဆက္လက္ မသုံးခဲ့ေတာ့ပါဘူး။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏွစ္ကေန ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ထိ အရင္ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ ျပင္ဆင္ျဖည့္စြက္တာမ်ဳိး လုံးဝ မလုပ္ခဲ့တာက သက္ေသ ျပေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။
ေနာက္ထပ္ အသစ္ျပ႒ာန္းလုိက္တဲ့ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မျပ႒ာန္းခင္ကာလ တေလွ်ာက္လုံးမွာ စစ္တပ္အာဏာသိမ္းခဲ့ၿပီး ၁၉၆၂ -
၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ဆိုရွယ္လစ္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ကုိ ထူေထာင္မယ္လုိ႔ ေၾကြးေၾကာ္ေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီလုိ ၁၂ ႏွစ္ေက်ာ္ၾကာ အခ်ိန္ယူေရးဆြဲခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒေတာင္မွ ၁၉၇၄-၁၉၈၈ အထိ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ ျမန္မာ့ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ လမ္းစဥ္ ပါတီ အစုိးရ (မဆလ) ဟာ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ သူ႔လက္ထက္မွာ ၄ ၾကိမ္ ျပင္ဆင္ခဲ့ရပါေသးတယ္။ သက္ေသျပေနတာကေတာ့ အသုံးျပဳေနတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒဆုိရင္ ေခတ္ကာလအေလ်ာက္ ျပဳျပင္စရာေတြ၊ မြမ္းမံစရာေတြဟာ ေပၚေပါက္လာတတ္တာ သဘာဝဆုိတာပါပဲ။
၂၁ ႏွစ္ၾကာ ျပဳျပင္ျခင္း၊ ျပင္ဆင္ျခင္း၊ မြမ္းမံျခင္း လုံးဝ မရွိခဲ့ဘဲ စကားထဲေတာင္ ထည့္မေျပာခဲ့တာေၾကာင့္ မဆလ အစုိးရက ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မ်က္ကြယ္ျပဳ ဖ်က္သိမ္းပစ္ခဲ့ၿပီးျဖစ္သလုိ လက္ရွိအာဏာသိမ္း အစုိးရကလည္း အရင္အေျခခံဥပေဒကို အလုိလုိ ဖ်က္သိမ္း ၿပီးသားျဖစ္တယ္လို႔ အထက္႐ုံးပညာရွိ တရားသူၾကီးေတြက ေကာက္ယူသုံးသပ္ျခင္းဟာ အတၱေနာမတိကုိသုံးၿပီး ဆင္ျခင္တုံတရားနဲ႔ ေကာက္ယူသုံးသပ္ၾကရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
အရင္အာဏာသိမ္းအစုိးရက ၾကားကာလတေလ်ာက္လုံး ဆုိရွယ္လစ္စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ ထူေထာင္မယ္ဆုိၿပီး ေၾကြးေၾကာ္ခဲ့သလုိ ၁၉၈၈ အာဏာသိမ္းစစ္အစုိးရရဲ႕ စီးပြားေရးဦးတည္ခ်က္ ၄ ရပ္ကလည္း ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ရဲ႕ ဆန္႔က်င္ဘက္ျဖစ္တဲ့ ေစ်းကြက္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ ပီျပင္စြာ ျဖစ္ေပၚလာေရးဆုိတာကုိ အခုခ်ိန္ထိ ေအာ္ေနဆဲျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
စစ္တပ္က အာဏာသိမ္းခဲ့တဲ့ ၁၉၈၈-၂ဝဝ၉ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ႏွစ္ ၂ဝ ေက်ာ္ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအေၾကာင္း လုံးဝ မေျပာခဲ့တဲ့အျပင္ ၂/၈၈ နဲ႔ ၃/၈၈ ဆုိၿပီး ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ ၿငိမ္ဝပ္ပိျပားမႈ တည္ေဆာက္ေရး ဥပေဒလုိ႔ ေၾကညာကာ ဥပေဒျပ႒ာန္းလုိက္တာဟာ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအပုိဒ္ ၁၉၄ (က) အရ ျပဳလုပ္ခြင့္မရိွသည္ကုိ ျပဳလုပ္ေသာ တရားမဝင္အဖြဲ႔အစည္းျဖစ္ေနသည္ဆိုတဲ့ အဓိပၸာယ္ ထြက္ပါတယ္။ (၂/၈၈ ဆုိတာ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ တရားစီရင္ေရးအာဏာကို ဖ်က္သိမ္းတဲ့ ဥပေဒျဖစ္ၿပီး၊ ၃/၈၈ ဆုိတာကေတာ့ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ ဥပေဒျပဳေရး အာဏာကုိ ဖ်က္သိမ္းတဲ့ ဥပေဒျဖစ္ပါတယ္။)
၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအပုိဒ္ ၁၉၄ (က) အရ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကသာ အခ်ဳပ္အျခာအာဏာပုိင္ ျဖစ္တယ္၊ ေနာက္ၿပီး ဥပေဒျပဳအာဏာဟာ လည္း လႊတ္ေတာ္မွာပဲ ရွိရမယ္ ဆိုတာေတြကုိ ျပင္ဆင္ခ်င္တယ္ဆုိရင္ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကုိယ္စားလွယ္ ၇၅ ရာခုိင္ႏႈန္းရဲ႕ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္အျပင္ မဲေပးခြင့္ရွိသူ ျပည္သူလူထု ထက္ဝက္ေက်ာ္ ေထာက္ခံမွသာ ျပင္ဆင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ရွိတယ္ ဆုိတာကုိ ေဖာက္ဖ်က္ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္ခဲ့တယ္ ဆိုတာ ထင္ရွားေနပါတယ္။
အသက္ဝင္ေနတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒက တားျမစ္ထားတာေတြကို ဂ႐ုမစုိက္လုပ္ခ်င္ရာလုပ္တာဟာ ႏိုင္ငံသားအားလုံးရဲ႕ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရး၊ လုံၿခံဳေရးနဲ႔ ေကာင္းျမတ္မႈေတြကုိ ၿခိမ္းေျခာက္ေနျခင္း ျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ စစ္အစိုးရဟာ အျပည္ျပည္ဆုိင္ရာ ရာဇဝတ္ခုံ႐ုံးရဲ႕ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္ေတြ၊ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ေတြကုိ ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္ေနတဲ့ အဖြဲ႔အစည္းတခုျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ခုိင္လုံတဲ့ အၿပီးသတ္ သက္ေသခံခ်က္ ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအရ ႏိုင္ငံသားအခြင့္အေရးကို ကန္႔သတ္တဲ့ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ တရားစြဲထားသူေတြကုိ လႊတ္ေပးမလား။ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္ဝင္ေနတာေၾကာင့္ အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္ေတြကုိ ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္လုိ႔ လူသားျဖစ္မႈဆန္႔က်င္တဲ့ ျပစ္မႈနဲ႔ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ ျပစ္မႈဆုိင္ရာ တရား႐ုံးက အေရးယူတာကုိ ခံမလား ေစာင့္ၾကည့္ၾကပါစုိ႔။
http://www.lovelamp88.co.cc/
Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-110-2009
3 September 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BURMA: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself
ISSUES: Rule of law; military government; judicial system; illegal detention; torture
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has obtained detailed information about the case of a monk in Burma who is being tried without evidence for insulting religion. The monk, U Sandadhika, went like other onlookers to the outside of the court where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her co-defendants were being tried in August. Afterwards a group of unidentified men picked him up and took him into custody where they accused him of planning to immolate himself in protest. They have no evidence to back the charge and the only witnesses in the case, which is continuing, are police. The detainee has been forcibly disrobed and assaulted in custody, resulting in a hernia.
CASE DETAILS:
U Sandadhika went to nearby the central prison on 11 August 2009 to meet with people who had gathered to await the verdict in the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and three others. The 36-year-old told relatives that as he was leaving the area a white car pulled up alongside him with three unidentified men inside. One of them told him that they had an offering of a drink to give him, but he replied that he had already taken his meal for the day and that it was unnecessary. Then they said that they had some things to ask him and told him to get in the car.
The men took Sandadhika to the Rangoon North District police premises where at least two police assaulted him with a bamboo rod, causing him to have a hernia and suffer other injuries. (Full details of the alleged perpetrators are included in the sample letter, below, as usual.) Thereafter they took him to be forcibly disrobed.
The police opened a criminal case against Sandadhika for allegedly insulting religion because, they claim, he had intended to burn himself in protest at the conviction of Aung San Suu Kyi. But under cross-examination in court they admitted that they have no evidence at all to support the claim: they did not find any kerosene or other materials on the defendant or elsewhere to suggest that there is any truth to it. They do not even have any independent witnesses: all of those deposing against the accused are police.
The trial is continuing on September 3.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The AHRC has been documenting numerous cases speaking to what it has described as Burma's "injustice system" and provided a range of links on these in its most recent prior urgent appeal, on the case of Aung Aung Oo and his fellow defendants: AHRC-UA-107-2009. In the aftermath of the September 2007 monk-led protests it also followed the cases of monks and nuns tried and imprisoned over those events, including U Gambira (AHRC-UA-248-2008). At the time of the protests it set up a website that has a variety of relevant resources and topics: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/burmaprotests/
Two special reports have also been issued in the article 2 periodical, "Saffron Revolution imprisoned, law denied" (vol. 7, no. 3, September 2008) and "Burma, political psychosis and legal dementia" (vol. 6, no. 5-6, December 2007). There are also a number of related sites, including the AHRC Burmese-language blog, Pyithu Hittaing, and the 2008 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter onBurma.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the persons listed below to call for the case against U Sandadhika to be dropped. Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma, and Yangon rather than Rangoon.
Please be informed that the AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar and torture, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia calling for interventions into this case.
SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear ___________,
MYANMAR: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself
Details of accused: U Sandadhika, a.k.a. Nyi Nyi Lwin/ Nyi Nyi San, 36, monk of the Daysunpar Temple, Laygyunmandaing Monastery, Bago, Myanmar
Police officers involved:
1. Inspector Zaw Pone Win, Serial No. La/167400, Yangon Division Police Headquarters (prosecuting officer)
2. Deputy Inspector Kyi Khaing Kyaw, Serial No. La/176001, Yangon Division Police HQ (witness & alleged torturer)
3. Deputy Inspector Hla Kyaw Oo, Serial No. La/168797, Yangon North District Police HQ (witness)
4. Deputy Inspector Aung Myint Thein, Serial No. La/148152, Insein Township Police Station (witness)
5. Inspector Kyaw Sein, Yangon North District Police Headquarters (alleged torturer)
Charges & trial: Penal Code section 295A, insulting religion; Felony No. 507/09, Bahan Township Court, Judge Daw Toe Toe Yein (Serial No. Ta/2270, Assistant Township Judge 1, Special Power) presiding
I am very sorry to hear of yet another evidence-free case against someone in Myanmar, this time against a monk who was forcibly disrobed and assaulted while in custody, causing him to have a hernia.
From the details that I have been given, U Sandadhika went to nearby where the hearings in the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and three other defendants were taking place at the Central Prison, Insein Township, on 11 August 2009. There three men in an unmarked vehicle picked him up and took him to the Yangon North District Police Headquarters, where he was assaulted with a bamboo rod, causing injuries including the hernia, which he has shown to the prison hospital.
The police accused him of having had a plan to self immolate as an act of protest, but Sandadhika has denied this and the police have since admitted in court that they have no material evidence to prove the allegation. They had him forcibly disrobed and charged in court with insulting religion. However, aside from not having material evidence to present, the police also had no independent witnesses and have listed only four police officers to appear against him.
I am deeply concerned that despite the lack of evidence and allegations of torture in this case, the accused will nonetheless be convicted on spurious and politically directed grounds. I urge that this not be the case and that the Township Law Office concerned at once review the case and drop the charges against the accused or that the responsible authorities otherwise take the necessary steps to see that the matter is laid to rest and that the accused is allowed to go free.
Finally, I take this opportunity to remind the Government of Myanmar of the need to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to places of detention, in accordance with its globally recognized mandate, including to all those monks and nuns imprisoned in the aftermath of the September 2007 protests, and to ensure that all prisoners obtain appropriate medical treatment for ailments suffered, such as those of U Sandadhika caused by the torture that he allegedly suffered.
Yours sincerely,
----------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +95 67 412 439
2. Lt-Gen. Thein Sein
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624
3. U Aung Toe
Chief Justice
Office of the Supreme Court
Office No. 24
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 67 404 080/ 071/ 078/ 067 or + 95 1 372 145
Fax: + 95 67 404 059
4. U Aye Maung
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office No. 25
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 404 088/ 090/ 092/ 094/ 097
Fax: +95 67 404 146/ 106
5. Brig-Gen. Khin Yi
Director General
Myanmar Police Force
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +951 549 663 / 549 208
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (ua@ahrc.asia)
-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
ေလ့လာစရာ မွတ္သားစရာ - ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္အမႈႏွင့္ ေရြးခ်ယ္စရာလမ္း
ႏိုင္ငံေရးအမႈလိုက္ ေရွ႕ေနၾကီးတဦး
ၾကာသပေတးေန႔၊ စက္တင္ဘာလ 03 ရက္ 2009 ခုႏွစ္ 13 နာရီ 41 မိနစ္
ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္တယ္ဆို႐ုံမွ်နဲ႔ အျပစ္ရွိတယ္လုိ႔ ဆုံးျဖတ္လုိ႔မရဘူး။ အဲဒီလုိ ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္လိုတဲ့ စိတ္ဆႏၵ (guilty mind) နဲ႔ က်ဴးလြန္တာ ျဖစ္ရမယ္။ ဒါကုိ man srea လုိ႔ေခၚတဲ့ လက္တင္ ဥပေဒ ဆုိး႐ုိးစကား (legal maxims, in Latin) နဲ႔ ကုိးကားၿပီး အနည္းငယ္ ရွင္းျပ ေပး ပါရေစ။
အဲဒီ ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္လုိတဲ့ စိတ္ဆႏၵ ရွိ၊ မရွိ ဆိုတာကေတာ့ ျပစ္မႈမက်ဴးလြန္ခင္၊ ျပဳဆဲ၊ ျပဳၿပီး၊ ေနာက္ သူ႔ရဲ႕ အျပဳအမူ၊ အလုပ္အကုိင္ အေျခအေနအရပ္ရပ္ကုိ ထည့္သြင္းစဥ္းစား ဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးရပါတယ္။ အဲဒီလုိ စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးတာကုိေတာ့ အတၱေနာမတိ လို႔ေခၚတဲ့ တရားသူၾကီးရဲ႕ ဆင္ျခင္တုံတရား (common sense) ကေန စဥ္းစား ဆုံးျဖတ္ေပးရမွာပါ။ အရင္က ျပ႒ာန္းထားတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္ဝင္လ်က္ ရွိ၊ မရွိ ဆုိတာကုိ စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ရာမွာလည္း အတိတ္က အျပဳအမႈ၊ ပစၥဳပၸန္အျပဳအမူနဲ႔ ေနာင္ျဖစ္လာႏုိင္မယ့္ အျပဳအမူေတြကုိ ထည့္သြင္း စဥ္းစားဆုံးျဖတ္ရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကို စြပ္စြဲအေရးယူခဲ့တဲ့ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္သည့္ ဥပေဒ ပုဒ္မ (၂၂) ဆုိတာက ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ႏိုင္ငံသားတဦးဦးရဲ႕ မူလအခြင့္အေရးေတြကုိ ကန္႔သတ္တဲ့ဥပေဒ ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။ အဲဒီဥပေဒရဲ႕ ပုဒ္မ ၉ (စ) မွာ အေရးယူျခင္း ခံရသူသည္ ကန္႔သတ္ျခင္းခံရသည့္ မူလအခြင့္အေရးမ်ားမွအပ အေျခခံဥပေဒပါ အျခား မူလ အခြင့္အေရးမ်ားကုိမူ ခံစားခြင့္ရွိေစရမည္လုိ႔ အတိအလင္း ျပ႒ာန္းထားၿပီးသားပါ။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္မရွိေတာ့ရင္ အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မွီတည္ၿပီး ထုတ္ျပန္ထားတဲ့ ၁၉၇၅ ခုႏွစ္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရာယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္ေရး ဥပေဒဆုိတာလည္း အလုိလုိပယ္ဖ်က္ၿပီးသား ျဖစ္ေနတဲ့အတြက္ ခုတ္လွဲၿပီး မရွိေတာ့့တာၾကာၿပီျဖစ္တဲ့ သစ္ပင္ၾကီးဆီက အကိုင္းကုိ ထင္းမီးစုိက္ဖုိ႔ေနာက္ ၂၁ ႏွစ္ၾကာမွ သတိရတာနဲ႔ တူေနပါတယ္။
သစ္ပင္လဲရင္ အကုိင္းအခက္ေတြလည္း ေျမခရတာဟာ သဘာဝဓမၼ ဥပေဒသပါ။ အကိုင္းအခက္ေတြမွာ အသက္ရွိေသးတယ္လုိ႔ ေျပာခ်င္ရင္ေတာ့ ျပန္စုိက္ရပါမယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ သစ္ပင္ၾကီးနဲ႔တူတဲ့ ဖြ႔ဲစည္းအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံ ဥပေဒၾကီး မရွိေတာ့တဲ့အခါမွ အဲဒီ ဖြဲ႔စည္း အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံ အေျခခံဥပေဒရဲ႕ အကုိင္းအခက္ျဖစ္တဲ့ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အား ေႏွာင့္ယွက္ဖ်က္ဆီးလုိသူမ်ား ေဘးအႏၲရာယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္တဲ့ ဥပေဒလည္း မရွိေတာ့တာမုိ႔ မရွိေတာ့တဲ့ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ တရားစြဲထားျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ လႊတ္ကို လႊတ္ေပးရမယ့္ အမႈျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ေအာက္႐ုံးခ႐ုိင္ တရားသူၾကီးေတြရဲ႕ မွားယြင္းဆံုးျဖတ္မႈ၊ အမိန္႔မလြန္ဆန္ႏုိင္မႈေတြကုိ အဆင့္ျမင့္ တရား႐ုံးေတြက ျပင္ဆင္ေပးလုိက္မယ္ ဆုိရင္ တုိင္းျပည္အတြက္လည္း သိကၡာရွိမယ္။ တရားစီရင္ေရးအတြက္လည္း ေကာင္းမြန္တဲ့ အလားအလာေကာင္းေတြ ရွိလာေစမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
အရင္အာဏာသိမ္း အစုိးရတုန္းက အျပဳအမူ၊ အခုလက္ရွိ အာဏာသိမ္းအစုိးရရဲ႕ အျပဳအမႈေတြနဲ႔ ေနာင္ျပဳလုပ္မယ္လို႔ ေၾကညာထားတဲ့ ေၾကညာခ်က္ေတြအရ အရင္ျပ႒ာန္းထားခဲ့ဖူးတဲ့ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ ဒီကေန႔ထက္တုိင္ အသက္ဝင္လ်က္မရွိဘူး ဆုိတာကုိ လက္ခံရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
၁၉၄၈ ခုႏွစ္ လြတ္လပ္ေရးရၿပီးကတည္းက ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ အေျခခံဥပေဒ ၂ ခုနဲ႔ ၾကံဳခဲ့ၿပီးေပမယ့္ ေနာက္ထပ္တခုနဲ႔ ထပ္ၾကံဳရဦးမယ့္ အေန အထားမွာ အရင္အေျခခံဥပေဒက အခုထိ အသက္ဝင္ေနပါေသးတယ္ ဆုိတဲ့ အေၾကာင္းျပခ်က္နဲ႔ ဒီကေန႔ ျမန္မာ့ႏိုင္ငံအေရးအတြက္ အေရးပါဆုံး သူတဦးျဖစ္တဲ့ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ ဒုကၡေရာက္ေနရတဲ့ အေျခအေနမွာ အရင္က အေျခခံဥပေဒေတြ ဒီကေန႔ထက္တုိင္ အသက္ရွိမရွိ ဆုိတဲ့ ဥပေဒ ျပႆနာကုိ အခုအခ်ိန္ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ အေရးတၾကီး ေဆြးေႏြးဖုိ႔ လုိအပ္ေနပါတယ္။
၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ လြတ္လပ္ေရးမရခင္ တႏွစ္အလုိမွာ လြတ္လပ္ေရး ရယူဖုိ႔အတြက္ ေရးဆြဲခဲ့ရတာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းနဲ႔ ၿဗိတိသွ်ဝန္ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္ အားရ္အက္တလီ (Prime minister Earl Attlee 1945-1951) တုိ႔ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ဇန္နဝါရီလ ၂၈ ရက္ေန႔မွာ အဂၤလန္က ပါလီမန္ အေဆာက္အအုံအတြင္းမွာ လက္မွတ္ေရးထုိးခဲ့ၾကပါတယ္။ ေအာင္ဆန္း-အက္တလီ စာခ်ဳပ္အရ ျမန္မာ ႏိုင္ငံမွာ လြတ္လပ္ေရးယူမယ္ဆုိရင္ ၿဗိတိသွ်ေတြ ယုံၾကည္ရမယ့္ အေျခခံအုတ္ျမစ္ေကာင္းေတြရွိမွ လြတ္လပ္ေရးရမယ္ဆုိတာ ရွင္းေနပါတယ္။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းဟာ ေဖေဖာ္ဝါရီလဆန္းမွာ အဂၤလန္က ျပန္လာၿပီးတာန႔ဲ တၿပိဳင္နက္ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က ဥပေဒပညာရွင္ေတြျဖစ္တဲ့ ဝတ္လုံေတာ္ရ ဦးခ်န္ထြန္း၊ ဦးဘဝင္း စတဲ့ ပုဂၢိဳလ္ေတြ ပါဝင္တဲ့ ေကာ္မတီအဖြဲ႔ဟာ အိႏၵိယကုိ ေလ့လာေရးအဖြဲ႔ ေစလႊတ္ၿပီးေနာက္ပုိင္း ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ ၾသဂုတ္လအတြင္းမွာ အေျခခံဥပေဒ မူၾကမ္းကုိ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကုိ တင္ျပႏိုင္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ စက္တင္ဘာလ ၂၄ ရက္ေန႔ မွာ အတည္ျပဳႏိုင္ခဲ့တဲ့အတြက္ ၆ လအတြင္းမွာ ေရးဆြဲခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒလည္း ျဖစ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။
အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒဟာ အခ်ိန္တုိအတြင္းမွာ ဥပေဒပညာရွင္မ်ားမ်ားစားစား မပါဝင္ ဘဲေရး ဆြဲခဲ့တယ္ဆုိေပမယ့္ လက္ခံရေလာက္ေအာင္ ေစ့စပ္ေသခ်ာခဲ့လို႔ ၿဗိတိသွ်ပါလီမန္က ျငင္းမရခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒတခု ျဖစ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က ၿဗိတိသွ်ဝန္ၾကီးခ်ဳပ္ အက္တလီဟာ ေအာက္စဖုိ႔ဒ္ ေက်ာင္းဆင္းျဖစ္ၿပီး၊ အလုပ္သမားပါတီ (Labour Party) ေခါင္းေဆာင္၊ ဝတ္လုံေတာ္ရေရွ႕ေနၾကီး (Barrister) တဦး ျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ သူလက္ခံခဲ့တာကို ေလွ်ာ့တြက္လို႔ မရပါဘူး။
ဒါေပမဲ့ ကာလေဒသ အေျခအေနအရပ္ရပ္ေတြ အၿမဲေျပာင္းလဲေနတာေၾကာင့္ တခ်ဳိ႕ေနရာေတြမွာ အားနည္းခ်က္ေတြ အထုိက္အေလ်ာက္ ရွိေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီအားနည္းခ်က္ေတြကုိ ေနာက္ဆက္တြဲ ျပင္ဆင္ခ်က္ေတြအေနနဲ႔ ၁၉၄၉ ခုႏွစ္ကေန ၁၉၆၁ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ၁၁ ၾကိမ္တုိင္တုိင္ ျပင္ဆင္ခဲ့ရပါတယ္။
အဲဒီလုိ ျပင္ဆင္ရင္းနဲ႔ ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏွစ္မွာ စစ္တပ္က အာဏာသိမ္းသြားၿပီးေနာက္ပိုင္း အဲဒီ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ လုံးဝ မသုံးေတာ့ဘဲ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္မွာ ေနာက္ထပ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒတခုကုိ ထပ္မံ အတည္ျပဳခဲ့ျပန္ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီၾကားကာလမွာ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ကုိ အေကာင္အထည္ ေဖာ္မွာ ျဖစ္တဲ့အတြက္ အရင္ရွိခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ ဆက္လက္ မသုံးခဲ့ေတာ့ပါဘူး။ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏွစ္ကေန ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ထိ အရင္ ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ ျပင္ဆင္ျဖည့္စြက္တာမ်ဳိး လုံးဝ မလုပ္ခဲ့တာက သက္ေသ ျပေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။
ေနာက္ထပ္ အသစ္ျပ႒ာန္းလုိက္တဲ့ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မျပ႒ာန္းခင္ကာလ တေလွ်ာက္လုံးမွာ စစ္တပ္အာဏာသိမ္းခဲ့ၿပီး ၁၉၆၂ -
၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ဆိုရွယ္လစ္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ကုိ ထူေထာင္မယ္လုိ႔ ေၾကြးေၾကာ္ေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အဲဒီလုိ ၁၂ ႏွစ္ေက်ာ္ၾကာ အခ်ိန္ယူေရးဆြဲခဲ့တဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒေတာင္မွ ၁၉၇၄-၁၉၈၈ အထိ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ ျမန္မာ့ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ လမ္းစဥ္ ပါတီ အစုိးရ (မဆလ) ဟာ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ သူ႔လက္ထက္မွာ ၄ ၾကိမ္ ျပင္ဆင္ခဲ့ရပါေသးတယ္။ သက္ေသျပေနတာကေတာ့ အသုံးျပဳေနတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒဆုိရင္ ေခတ္ကာလအေလ်ာက္ ျပဳျပင္စရာေတြ၊ မြမ္းမံစရာေတြဟာ ေပၚေပါက္လာတတ္တာ သဘာဝဆုိတာပါပဲ။
၂၁ ႏွစ္ၾကာ ျပဳျပင္ျခင္း၊ ျပင္ဆင္ျခင္း၊ မြမ္းမံျခင္း လုံးဝ မရွိခဲ့ဘဲ စကားထဲေတာင္ ထည့္မေျပာခဲ့တာေၾကာင့္ မဆလ အစုိးရက ၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒကုိ မ်က္ကြယ္ျပဳ ဖ်က္သိမ္းပစ္ခဲ့ၿပီးျဖစ္သလုိ လက္ရွိအာဏာသိမ္း အစုိးရကလည္း အရင္အေျခခံဥပေဒကို အလုိလုိ ဖ်က္သိမ္း ၿပီးသားျဖစ္တယ္လို႔ အထက္႐ုံးပညာရွိ တရားသူၾကီးေတြက ေကာက္ယူသုံးသပ္ျခင္းဟာ အတၱေနာမတိကုိသုံးၿပီး ဆင္ျခင္တုံတရားနဲ႔ ေကာက္ယူသုံးသပ္ၾကရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
အရင္အာဏာသိမ္းအစုိးရက ၾကားကာလတေလ်ာက္လုံး ဆုိရွယ္လစ္စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ ထူေထာင္မယ္ဆုိၿပီး ေၾကြးေၾကာ္ခဲ့သလုိ ၁၉၈၈ အာဏာသိမ္းစစ္အစုိးရရဲ႕ စီးပြားေရးဦးတည္ခ်က္ ၄ ရပ္ကလည္း ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ရဲ႕ ဆန္႔က်င္ဘက္ျဖစ္တဲ့ ေစ်းကြက္ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ ပီျပင္စြာ ျဖစ္ေပၚလာေရးဆုိတာကုိ အခုခ်ိန္ထိ ေအာ္ေနဆဲျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
စစ္တပ္က အာဏာသိမ္းခဲ့တဲ့ ၁၉၈၈-၂ဝဝ၉ ခုႏွစ္အထိ ႏွစ္ ၂ဝ ေက်ာ္ ကာလအတြင္းမွာ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအေၾကာင္း လုံးဝ မေျပာခဲ့တဲ့အျပင္ ၂/၈၈ နဲ႔ ၃/၈၈ ဆုိၿပီး ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ ၿငိမ္ဝပ္ပိျပားမႈ တည္ေဆာက္ေရး ဥပေဒလုိ႔ ေၾကညာကာ ဥပေဒျပ႒ာန္းလုိက္တာဟာ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအပုိဒ္ ၁၉၄ (က) အရ ျပဳလုပ္ခြင့္မရိွသည္ကုိ ျပဳလုပ္ေသာ တရားမဝင္အဖြဲ႔အစည္းျဖစ္ေနသည္ဆိုတဲ့ အဓိပၸာယ္ ထြက္ပါတယ္။ (၂/၈၈ ဆုိတာ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ တရားစီရင္ေရးအာဏာကို ဖ်က္သိမ္းတဲ့ ဥပေဒျဖစ္ၿပီး၊ ၃/၈၈ ဆုိတာကေတာ့ ဆုိရွယ္လစ္ ဥပေဒျပဳေရး အာဏာကုိ ဖ်က္သိမ္းတဲ့ ဥပေဒျဖစ္ပါတယ္။)
၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအပုိဒ္ ၁၉၄ (က) အရ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကသာ အခ်ဳပ္အျခာအာဏာပုိင္ ျဖစ္တယ္၊ ေနာက္ၿပီး ဥပေဒျပဳအာဏာဟာ လည္း လႊတ္ေတာ္မွာပဲ ရွိရမယ္ ဆိုတာေတြကုိ ျပင္ဆင္ခ်င္တယ္ဆုိရင္ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကုိယ္စားလွယ္ ၇၅ ရာခုိင္ႏႈန္းရဲ႕ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္အျပင္ မဲေပးခြင့္ရွိသူ ျပည္သူလူထု ထက္ဝက္ေက်ာ္ ေထာက္ခံမွသာ ျပင္ဆင္ျပ႒ာန္းခြင့္ရွိတယ္ ဆုိတာကုိ ေဖာက္ဖ်က္ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္ခဲ့တယ္ ဆိုတာ ထင္ရွားေနပါတယ္။
အသက္ဝင္ေနတဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒက တားျမစ္ထားတာေတြကို ဂ႐ုမစုိက္လုပ္ခ်င္ရာလုပ္တာဟာ ႏိုင္ငံသားအားလုံးရဲ႕ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရး၊ လုံၿခံဳေရးနဲ႔ ေကာင္းျမတ္မႈေတြကုိ ၿခိမ္းေျခာက္ေနျခင္း ျဖစ္တာေၾကာင့္ စစ္အစိုးရဟာ အျပည္ျပည္ဆုိင္ရာ ရာဇဝတ္ခုံ႐ုံးရဲ႕ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္ေတြ၊ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ေတြကုိ ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္ေနတဲ့ အဖြဲ႔အစည္းတခုျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ခုိင္လုံတဲ့ အၿပီးသတ္ သက္ေသခံခ်က္ ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။
ဒါေၾကာင့္ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒအရ ႏိုင္ငံသားအခြင့္အေရးကို ကန္႔သတ္တဲ့ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ တရားစြဲထားသူေတြကုိ လႊတ္ေပးမလား။ ၁၉၇၄ ခုႏွစ္ အေျခခံဥပေဒ အသက္ဝင္ေနတာေၾကာင့္ အဲဒီအေျခခံဥပေဒပါ ျပ႒ာန္းခ်က္ေတြကုိ ခ်ဳိးေဖာက္လုိ႔ လူသားျဖစ္မႈဆန္႔က်င္တဲ့ ျပစ္မႈနဲ႔ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ ျပစ္မႈဆုိင္ရာ တရား႐ုံးက အေရးယူတာကုိ ခံမလား ေစာင့္ၾကည့္ၾကပါစုိ႔။
http://www.lovelamp88.co.cc/
Thursday, 3 September 2009
For Online Users,
ကြ်န္ေတာ္တုိ.သည္ အမ်ဳိးသားစီမံခန္႕ခြဲမႈနည္းပညာေကာလိပ္ (ဗိုလ္တေထာင္)
{ယခင္ဗိုလ္တေထာင္ေကာလိပ္ (ခ) လုပ္သားေကာလိပ္} မွေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားျဖစ္ႀကပါသည္။
ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕သည္ ဒီပလိုမာအတန္းတက္သူမ်ားျဖစ္ႀကပါသည္။ ယင္းေကာလိပ္သည္
အစိုးရ၏ ပညာေရးဝန္ႀကီးဌာနမွဦးစီးကာ WINNER ပညာေရးဝန္ေဆာင္မႈအဖြဲ.အစည္း ႏွင့္
ပူးေပါင္း၍ဒီပလိုမာအတန္းမ်ားျဖစ္ေသာ DICT, DHE, DSE, DNE အတန္းမ်ားကိုဖြင့္လွစ္
သင္ႀကားလ်က္ရွိပါသည္ ။ သင္တန္းကာလမွာတစ္ႏွစ္ျဖစ္ၿပီးသင္တန္းၿပီးလွ်င္ Project တစ္ခု
တင္ျပၿပီးမွသာဒီပလိုမာကိုလက္ခံရရွိပါသည္။
ယင္းဒီပလိုမာသည္ျပည္တြင္း၌အလုပ္အကိုင္ေကာင္းမ်ားရရွိရန္အခြင့္အလမ္းမ်ားစြာရွိပါသည္ ။ ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕ေျပာႀကားလိုေသာကိစၥမွာ Project ႏွင္႔ပက္သက္၍ျဖစ္ပါသည္ ။ ယင္း Project ကိုကိုင္တြယ္ဦးစီးေသာဆရာမွာ ဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔ ျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ၎ Project လုပ္ရာတြင္ေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုလုပ္ေသာ Project ကိုပယ္ခ်ျခင္းခံရပါသည္။
အေႀကာင္းမွာ ယင္းဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔ဆိုသူသည္ ၎ႏွင္႔သိေသာသူမ်ား၊ ယင္းကိုလာဘ္လာဘထိုး၍ကန္ေတာ႔ေသာေက်ာင္းသား/ ေက်ာင္းသူမ်ား ၊ အစိုးရႏွင္႔သက္ဆိုင္ေသာသူမ်ား၏ Project ကိုအသိအမွတ္ျပဳေပးျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ ယင္းမေက်နပ္ေသာသူမ်ားဆိုပါက Project မည္သို႔ပင္ေကာင္းေစကာမူ အေႀကာင္းအမ်ိဳးမ်ိဳးျပကာ ပယ္ခ်ေလ႔ရွိသည္။ ႏွစ္စဥ္ ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႔ေကာလိပ္တြင္းဒီပလိုမာ
ရေသာသူမွာလက္ခ်ိဳး၍ေရတြက္လို႔ပင္ရရွိသည္။ အတန္းတစ္တန္းလွ်င္ေက်ာင္းသား /
ေက်ာင္းသူအေယာက္ (၄၀) တက္ပါက (၄) (၅) ေယာက္သာဒီပလိုမာရရွိသည္ ။
ထိုရရွိေသာသူမ်ားမွာအစိုးရႏွင္႔ပက္သက္ေသာသူမ်ား၊ ယင္းဆရာကိုမိ်ဳးသန္႔ကိုလာဘ္ထိုး
ေသာသူမ်ားသာျဖစ္ေလ့ရွိပါသည္။ ၎ဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔သည္သူ၏လုပ္ပိုင္ခြင့္အာဏာမွ အခြင့္
အေရးမ်ားစြာယူကာေက်ာင္းသားေက်ာင္းသူမ်ားကိုအလြန္အမင္းအႏုိင္က်င္႔လ်က္ရွိပါသည္။
ယင္းဆရာသည္ၾကံ ႔ခိုင္ေရးႏွင္႔ဖြံ ႔ၿဖိဳးေရးအသင္းဝင္တစ္ဦးျဖစ္ေႀကာင္းလည္းသိရွိရသည္။
ထိုအေႀကာင္းကိုေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုကမေက်မနပ္ျဖစ္ကာကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕ကဦးစီး၍ယခုကဲ႔
သို႔တင္ျပေပးျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုမွာအခ်ိန္ကုန္၊ လူပင္ပန္းျဖစ္ကာထိုေကာ
လိပ္မွေနာက္ဆုံးတြင္ဘာမွ်မရရွိလိုက္ပါ။ ယင္းမတရားမႈကိုမေက်နပ္ေသာေႀကာင့္ယခုလို
သတင္းေပးတိုင္ႀကားျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။
ကြ်န္ေတာ္တုိ.သည္ အမ်ဳိးသားစီမံခန္႕ခြဲမႈနည္းပညာေကာလိပ္ (ဗိုလ္တေထာင္)
{ယခင္ဗိုလ္တေထာင္ေကာလိပ္ (ခ) လုပ္သားေကာလိပ္} မွေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားျဖစ္ႀကပါသည္။
ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕သည္ ဒီပလိုမာအတန္းတက္သူမ်ားျဖစ္ႀကပါသည္။ ယင္းေကာလိပ္သည္
အစိုးရ၏ ပညာေရးဝန္ႀကီးဌာနမွဦးစီးကာ WINNER ပညာေရးဝန္ေဆာင္မႈအဖြဲ.အစည္း ႏွင့္
ပူးေပါင္း၍ဒီပလိုမာအတန္းမ်ားျဖစ္ေသာ DICT, DHE, DSE, DNE အတန္းမ်ားကိုဖြင့္လွစ္
သင္ႀကားလ်က္ရွိပါသည္ ။ သင္တန္းကာလမွာတစ္ႏွစ္ျဖစ္ၿပီးသင္တန္းၿပီးလွ်င္ Project တစ္ခု
တင္ျပၿပီးမွသာဒီပလိုမာကိုလက္ခံရရွိပါသည္။
ယင္းဒီပလိုမာသည္ျပည္တြင္း၌အလုပ္အကိုင္ေကာင္းမ်ားရရွိရန္အခြင့္အလမ္းမ်ားစြာရွိပါသည္ ။ ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕ေျပာႀကားလိုေသာကိစၥမွာ Project ႏွင္႔ပက္သက္၍ျဖစ္ပါသည္ ။ ယင္း Project ကိုကိုင္တြယ္ဦးစီးေသာဆရာမွာ ဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔ ျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ၎ Project လုပ္ရာတြင္ေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုလုပ္ေသာ Project ကိုပယ္ခ်ျခင္းခံရပါသည္။
အေႀကာင္းမွာ ယင္းဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔ဆိုသူသည္ ၎ႏွင္႔သိေသာသူမ်ား၊ ယင္းကိုလာဘ္လာဘထိုး၍ကန္ေတာ႔ေသာေက်ာင္းသား/ ေက်ာင္းသူမ်ား ၊ အစိုးရႏွင္႔သက္ဆိုင္ေသာသူမ်ား၏ Project ကိုအသိအမွတ္ျပဳေပးျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ ယင္းမေက်နပ္ေသာသူမ်ားဆိုပါက Project မည္သို႔ပင္ေကာင္းေစကာမူ အေႀကာင္းအမ်ိဳးမ်ိဳးျပကာ ပယ္ခ်ေလ႔ရွိသည္။ ႏွစ္စဥ္ ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႔ေကာလိပ္တြင္းဒီပလိုမာ
ရေသာသူမွာလက္ခ်ိဳး၍ေရတြက္လို႔ပင္ရရွိသည္။ အတန္းတစ္တန္းလွ်င္ေက်ာင္းသား /
ေက်ာင္းသူအေယာက္ (၄၀) တက္ပါက (၄) (၅) ေယာက္သာဒီပလိုမာရရွိသည္ ။
ထိုရရွိေသာသူမ်ားမွာအစိုးရႏွင္႔ပက္သက္ေသာသူမ်ား၊ ယင္းဆရာကိုမိ်ဳးသန္႔ကိုလာဘ္ထိုး
ေသာသူမ်ားသာျဖစ္ေလ့ရွိပါသည္။ ၎ဆရာကိုမ်ိဳးသန္႔သည္သူ၏လုပ္ပိုင္ခြင့္အာဏာမွ အခြင့္
အေရးမ်ားစြာယူကာေက်ာင္းသားေက်ာင္းသူမ်ားကိုအလြန္အမင္းအႏုိင္က်င္႔လ်က္ရွိပါသည္။
ယင္းဆရာသည္ၾကံ ႔ခိုင္ေရးႏွင္႔ဖြံ ႔ၿဖိဳးေရးအသင္းဝင္တစ္ဦးျဖစ္ေႀကာင္းလည္းသိရွိရသည္။
ထိုအေႀကာင္းကိုေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုကမေက်မနပ္ျဖစ္ကာကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕ကဦးစီး၍ယခုကဲ႔
သို႔တင္ျပေပးျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ေက်ာင္းသားအမ်ားစုမွာအခ်ိန္ကုန္၊ လူပင္ပန္းျဖစ္ကာထိုေကာ
လိပ္မွေနာက္ဆုံးတြင္ဘာမွ်မရရွိလိုက္ပါ။ ယင္းမတရားမႈကိုမေက်နပ္ေသာေႀကာင့္ယခုလို
သတင္းေပးတိုင္ႀကားျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။
Looking For help!!!!!
DEAR FRIENDS,
PLEASE TRY TO HELP ME BY FORWARDING AND SPREADING ABOUT THIS EMAIL.
THANKS FOR YOUR KINDNESS AND HELPS.Sent: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:06:31 +0630
Subject: Attention To: ChairMan of Kingfisher Airline Limited
Attention To:
Dr. Vijay Mallya
Chairman of The UB Group
Date: 30th August 2009
Dear Dr. Vijay Mallya,
I am Swe Naing Aung from Myanmar. I think you would remember me as Capt. Aung
Myint’s son. I am now writing this letter because it has been overstepping my
endurance. You, Kingfisher Airline (KFA) and Rishworth Aviation Limited
(RAL) made very unethically and inhumanly on my family, especially on my
mother and I.
I have asked my father’s PM Report for a long time on KFA human resource
manager, Mr. Jargdish Iyer, But until now, there is no response and did not
send PM Report. So, I am just wondering why?????
You, KFA and RAL collaborated and took my father’s left salary for over 1 year
and 8 months. My mother gave time until 22nd August 2009, but RAL did not
send my father’s left family because of your instigation. We have asked our
bank at 23rd August 2009, but RAL did not send my father’s salary. So, my
mother believe that RAL take my father’s left salary with unfairness,
unethical, inhumanity, racism, and discriminating on other nationality and
other nationality employee. So, my mother does not open her email anymore and
she will not accept any mail or contact with from KFA and RAL. Now, my mother
gives every right to do on that matter. I am the only person KFA and RAL
shall negotiate with.
First, you, KFA have send my father’s mortal remain back to Myanmar very fast
and your KFA employees promised me that KFA will settle all my family’s
entitlement. My family and I are very thanking to you, Dr. Vijay Mallya as
you are very kind and gentlemanly person. But after a month later, I have
known that you, Dr. Vijay Mallya, is just an ogre with prince mask. You
ordered your KFA employees to open my father’s room take everything without
informing my family.
RAL also took salary and coerced to sign the indemnity to release RAL after we
got salary.
You, Dr. Vijay Mallya did not want to give anything and so, you and RAL
collaborated and took my father’s left salary with unfairness. Because of KFA
and RAL took my father’s salary for long, my family lost many things. I do
not think that Southern California University will not give PHD to oppress and
do unfairly on other people, and will not teach you unethical way and
inhumanly manner. You, KFA and RAL collaborated and made mentally damage on
our family.
Because of you, KFA and RAL collaborated and made unethically and inhumanly on
my family, we have lost the following-
1. Salary
2. Taking salary until now and the salary is in US $, so, because of
inflation, even if we get now, we will lost 30%.
3. Because of taking my father’s salary, we cannot invest. So, we are still
struggling and trying to get stable life. (there should be 3 times the amount
of salary)
4. Mentally damaged (nobody can calculate how much)
5. Physically lost health (nobody can calculate how much)
6. Even Both KFA and RAL shall have life insurance for my father; both KFA and
RAL did not take any life insurance for my father. So we lost again.
If I keep writing about our lost, there may be much more. But as an unethical
and inhuman person like you, Dr. Vijay Mallya, you will not understand
whatever our lost.
Both KFA and RAL shall have responsible on all our lost. So, I now asked you
both KFA and RAL shall have to give compensation for all our lost. Before we
have negotiated with the amount of compensation, there will be no transaction
of money without my acceptance. RAL also have overdue of my mother’s dead
line date, ie. 22nd August 2009. The only acceptance of RAL that RAL did not
mean to take my father’s salary with unfairness, unethical, inhumanity,
racism, and discriminating on other nationality and other nationality
employee, RAL shall negotiate with me and give compensation of our lost. If
there is no negotiation with me, RAL is meaning to take my father’s salary
with unfairness, unethical, inhumanity, racism, and discriminating on other
nationality and other nationality employee.
The negotiation time is before GMT time 1200 of 14th September 2009.
Kinds Regards,
Swe Naing Aung
I am Daw Htwe Htwe from Union of Myanmar. My husband, Capt Aung Myint, who had made contract with Rishworth Aviation Limited (RAL) and working in India Kingfisher Airline. He,Captain Aung Myint while stationed on duty in Hydrabird, India passed away at 4th December 2007. After he passed away, RAL took his left salary until now, ie, 23rd August 2009. SO RAL took for over 1 year and 9 month. I asked again and again. I also hired lawyer and he also asked for me. But RAL give many reason again and again.
My husband, Capt Aung Myint, was the sole bread winner in our family and the loss not only affected us normally but financially also. RAL also know that we cannot afford the cost of law suit. So, RAL took the basis labor right of salary with unfairness, inhumanity and unethically.
As I am the citizen of Myanmar, I do not use to with English and I am weak in English. As we are living in peaceful normal life, we do not have much knowledge in Legal. Because of those RAL also took upper-hand on contract.
Because I am weak in English, I cannot write subject matter in specifically.
I would like to ask ILO for helping the family who lost the basis labor right.
I also hope ILO will help us because ILO has been participating much in our country affair.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Daw Htwe Htwe
PLEASE TRY TO HELP ME BY FORWARDING AND SPREADING ABOUT THIS EMAIL.
THANKS FOR YOUR KINDNESS AND HELPS.Sent: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:06:31 +0630
Subject: Attention To: ChairMan of Kingfisher Airline Limited
Attention To:
Dr. Vijay Mallya
Chairman of The UB Group
Date: 30th August 2009
Dear Dr. Vijay Mallya,
I am Swe Naing Aung from Myanmar. I think you would remember me as Capt. Aung
Myint’s son. I am now writing this letter because it has been overstepping my
endurance. You, Kingfisher Airline (KFA) and Rishworth Aviation Limited
(RAL) made very unethically and inhumanly on my family, especially on my
mother and I.
I have asked my father’s PM Report for a long time on KFA human resource
manager, Mr. Jargdish Iyer, But until now, there is no response and did not
send PM Report. So, I am just wondering why?????
You, KFA and RAL collaborated and took my father’s left salary for over 1 year
and 8 months. My mother gave time until 22nd August 2009, but RAL did not
send my father’s left family because of your instigation. We have asked our
bank at 23rd August 2009, but RAL did not send my father’s salary. So, my
mother believe that RAL take my father’s left salary with unfairness,
unethical, inhumanity, racism, and discriminating on other nationality and
other nationality employee. So, my mother does not open her email anymore and
she will not accept any mail or contact with from KFA and RAL. Now, my mother
gives every right to do on that matter. I am the only person KFA and RAL
shall negotiate with.
First, you, KFA have send my father’s mortal remain back to Myanmar very fast
and your KFA employees promised me that KFA will settle all my family’s
entitlement. My family and I are very thanking to you, Dr. Vijay Mallya as
you are very kind and gentlemanly person. But after a month later, I have
known that you, Dr. Vijay Mallya, is just an ogre with prince mask. You
ordered your KFA employees to open my father’s room take everything without
informing my family.
RAL also took salary and coerced to sign the indemnity to release RAL after we
got salary.
You, Dr. Vijay Mallya did not want to give anything and so, you and RAL
collaborated and took my father’s left salary with unfairness. Because of KFA
and RAL took my father’s salary for long, my family lost many things. I do
not think that Southern California University will not give PHD to oppress and
do unfairly on other people, and will not teach you unethical way and
inhumanly manner. You, KFA and RAL collaborated and made mentally damage on
our family.
Because of you, KFA and RAL collaborated and made unethically and inhumanly on
my family, we have lost the following-
1. Salary
2. Taking salary until now and the salary is in US $, so, because of
inflation, even if we get now, we will lost 30%.
3. Because of taking my father’s salary, we cannot invest. So, we are still
struggling and trying to get stable life. (there should be 3 times the amount
of salary)
4. Mentally damaged (nobody can calculate how much)
5. Physically lost health (nobody can calculate how much)
6. Even Both KFA and RAL shall have life insurance for my father; both KFA and
RAL did not take any life insurance for my father. So we lost again.
If I keep writing about our lost, there may be much more. But as an unethical
and inhuman person like you, Dr. Vijay Mallya, you will not understand
whatever our lost.
Both KFA and RAL shall have responsible on all our lost. So, I now asked you
both KFA and RAL shall have to give compensation for all our lost. Before we
have negotiated with the amount of compensation, there will be no transaction
of money without my acceptance. RAL also have overdue of my mother’s dead
line date, ie. 22nd August 2009. The only acceptance of RAL that RAL did not
mean to take my father’s salary with unfairness, unethical, inhumanity,
racism, and discriminating on other nationality and other nationality
employee, RAL shall negotiate with me and give compensation of our lost. If
there is no negotiation with me, RAL is meaning to take my father’s salary
with unfairness, unethical, inhumanity, racism, and discriminating on other
nationality and other nationality employee.
The negotiation time is before GMT time 1200 of 14th September 2009.
Kinds Regards,
Swe Naing Aung
I am Daw Htwe Htwe from Union of Myanmar. My husband, Capt Aung Myint, who had made contract with Rishworth Aviation Limited (RAL) and working in India Kingfisher Airline. He,Captain Aung Myint while stationed on duty in Hydrabird, India passed away at 4th December 2007. After he passed away, RAL took his left salary until now, ie, 23rd August 2009. SO RAL took for over 1 year and 9 month. I asked again and again. I also hired lawyer and he also asked for me. But RAL give many reason again and again.
My husband, Capt Aung Myint, was the sole bread winner in our family and the loss not only affected us normally but financially also. RAL also know that we cannot afford the cost of law suit. So, RAL took the basis labor right of salary with unfairness, inhumanity and unethically.
As I am the citizen of Myanmar, I do not use to with English and I am weak in English. As we are living in peaceful normal life, we do not have much knowledge in Legal. Because of those RAL also took upper-hand on contract.
Because I am weak in English, I cannot write subject matter in specifically.
I would like to ask ILO for helping the family who lost the basis labor right.
I also hope ILO will help us because ILO has been participating much in our country affair.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Daw Htwe Htwe
ျပည္သူေတြဟာ လွ်ပ္စစ္မီး ပံုမွန္ မရရွိတာမို ့ပဲခူးျမိဳ ့နယ္ထဲက ေက်းရြာေတြမွာ ကုိယ္ထူကုိယ္ထ မီးလင္းေရး ေကာ္မီေတြ ဖြဲ ့ျပီး ေဆာင္ရြက္ေနၾကရတာလို ့ဆိုပါ ညည္။
ေက်းရြာအတြင္း လွ်ပ္စစ္မီး လိုအပ္သူေတြက သိန္းခ်ီတဲ့ေငြေၾကးေတြ ထည့္၀င္ရျပီး ဒီေငြေတြကို မီးလင္းေရး ေကာ္မီတီေတြက စီမံ သံုးစြဲေနတာ ၾကာခဲ့ျပီလုိ ့လဲ ဆိုပါ ညည္။
ဒီအထဲက ပဲခူးျမိဳ ့နယ္၊ သမန္းကုန္းရြာ မီးလင္းေရး ေကာ္မီတီ ဥကဌ ဦးေက်ာ္ျမင့္နဲ ့ အဖြဲ ့ကေန ေငြက်ပ္ ၃၅ သိန္း အလြဲသံုးစားလုပ္ထားတယ္ဆိုျပီး ၾသဂုတ္လ ၂၁ ရက္ေန ့ က ေနျပည္ေတာ္အထိ စာေရးတုိင္တန္းခဲ့ေပမဲ့ အခု သတင္း ၂ ပါတ္ေက်ာ္လာတဲ့တုိင္ အေရးယူမွဳ မရွိေသးတာလဲ ျဖစ္ပါ ညည္။
အခုလို ေငြေတြ ေကာက္ခံခဲ့တာကုိ မရွင္းလင္းတဲ့အျပင္ ေနာက္ထပ္ ေသာင္းနဲ ိ့ခ်ီတဲ့ ေငြေတြ ထပ္ေတာင္းျပီး ေငြမေပးတဲ့အိမ္ေတြကို မီးျဖတ္လုိက္တာမို ့အခုခါ သမန္းကုန္းရြာက အိမ္တခ်ိဳ ့မွာ လ်ပ္စစ္မီး ျပတ္ေတာက္ေနရပါျပီ၊၊
အလားတူ ပဲခူးျမိဳ ့ေပါၚ အပါ၀င္ ျမိဳ ့နယ္အတြင္း ေက်းရြာတုိင္းက မီးလင္းေရး ေကာ္မီေတြမွာ အနည္းနဲ ့အမ်ား ေငြအလြဲသံုးစားမွဳေတြ ေပၚေပါက္ေနတယ္လုိ ့လဲ ေဒသခံေတြက ေျပာျပၾကပါ ညည္။
သမန္းကုန္း၇ြာကမီးလင္းေ၇းေကာ္မတီ၇ဲ.ေငြအလႊဲသုံးစားလုပ္မွု.
ဒီကိစၥနဲ.ပက္သက္ၿပီးေတာ.သမန္းကုန္းေက်း၇ြာမီးလင္းေ၇းေကာ္မတီဥကၠဌႏွင္.အဖြဲ.မွ၂၀၀၇ခုႏွစ္
ဒီဇင္ဘာလတြင္မီတာ၃၃လုံးအတြက္ေငြ (၆၀၀၀၀)က်ပ္ႏွင္.ဓါတ္မီးတုိင္တုိင္ကုိ
(၁၄၀၀၀၀)က်ပ္ၿဖင္.မီတာ ၃၃ လုံးအတြက္ စုစုေပါင္းကုန္က်ေငြ (၆၆) သိန္းအား
ေက်း၇ြာမီးလင္းေ၇းေကာ္မတီဥကၠဌဦးေက်ာ္ၿမင္.။အတြင္းေ၇းမွူးဦးတင္စုိး။ဘ႑ာေ၇းမွူးဦးေ၇ႊ
။အဖြဲ.၀င္ဦးတင္၀င္းတုိ.ထံ ေပးသြင္းခဲ.ပါညည္။ထုိမီတာ ၃၃ လုံးအတြက္ေငြ
(၁၉၈၀၀၀၀)ေပးသြင္းခဲ.ပါညည္။ထုိ.ေနာက္ ၂၀၀၉-ခုႏွစ္ ဧၿပီလတြင္ေနာက္ထပ္မီးတုိင္
(၂၀)အတြက္အားဆက္လက္တပ္ဆင္ခဲ.ပါညည္။တတုိင္လွ်င္( ၁၄၀၀၀၀၀)ႏွူံးၿဖစ္ညည္.အတြက္တုင္ (၂၀)အတြက္က်သင္.ေငြ(၂၈၀၀၀၀၀)ကုိလည္းမီးလင္းေ၇းေကာ္မတီမွေပးသြင္းခဲ.ပါညည္။မီးလင္းေ၇းေကာ္မတီမွအစုး၇ထံသုိ.သြင္းေငြစုစုေပါင္းမွာ(၄၇၈၀၀၀၀)က်ပ္ေငြဘဲ၇ွိပါညည္။ထုိ.ေႀကာင္.က်န္ေငြ
(၁၈၂၀၀၀၀)က်ပ္ကုိစာ၇င္း၇ွင္းေပး၇န္ေငြေပးထားေသာရြာသားမ်ားကေၿပာဆုိေသာ္လည္းစ၇င္းမရွင္းေသးဘဲ (၂.၆.၀၉)ေန.တြင္မီတာတလုံးလွ်င္ ေငြ (၂၀၀၀၀)ႏွံူးၿဖင္. စုစုေပါင္းမီတာ ၈၇ လုံးအတြက္က်သင္.ေငြ
(၁၇၄၀၀၀၀)ကုိထပ္မံေကာက္ခံခဲ.ၿပီးမီတာမ်ားၿပုၿပင္တပ္ဆင္ၿခင္းမရွိဘဲေနခဲ.ပါညည္။က်န္ရွိေသာမီတာ
(၃၅)လုံးအတြက္ေငြကုိဦးေက်ာ္ၿမင္.ႏွင္.အဖြဲ.က(၁၁.၆.၀၉)၇က္ေန.ေပးသြင္း၇န္ေၿပာဆုိခဲ.၇ာလယ္သမားမ်ားကေစာင္.ဆုိင္းေပး၇န္ေၿပာဆုိေပမယ္. (၁၂.၆.၀၉)ေန.လည္၂နာ၇ီတြင္ထုိလယ္သမားမ်ားဧ။္ေနအိမ္မွမီးႀကုိးမ်ားကုိ
မီး၇ုံးမွတာ၀န္ရွိ၀န္ထမ္းမ်ားမပါဘဲဦးေက်ာ္ၿမင္.ႏွင္.အဖြဲ.မွၿဖတ္ခ်ခဲ.ပါညည္။ထုိ.ေႀကာင္.ဦးေက်ာ္ၿမင္.ႏွင္.အဖြဲ.၀င္ (၄)ဥိးအားစုစုေပါင္းေငြ(၃၅၀၀၀၀၀)သိန္းကုိကုိယ္က်ဳိးအတြက္သုံးစြဲခဲ.သၿဖင္.သက္ဆုိင္
၇ာသုိ.တုိင္ႀကားေသာ္လည္းအခုခ်ိန္ထိအေ၇းယူေဆာင္၇ြက္ေပးၿခင္းမ၇ွိွိသည္.အတြက္ တုိင္ႀကားၿခင္းၿဖစ္ပါညည္။
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
