Conference on “Myanmar after the 2010 Elections”

UTW's Presentation to the Seminar

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, and friends of Myanmar for Democracy:

I am to present the Role of the Opposition in the Political Arena in Myanmar.
Since 1962 there was no Role for the Opposition to play until the beginning of 2011. For more than 4 decades Myanmar was in Age of Total Darkness; there was no light at the end of the tunnel – the problem was – there was no tunnel at all.
In this presentation, I would like to focus on the current and future role of the oppositions, the role that is in existence tangibly now.
SPDC [State Peace and Development Committee], the ruling military junta announced that the election would be held by 2010, thus, antipathy among politicians – to be or not to be - had taken place.
If we look at the economic situation of the country Myanmar was one of a few lower than the lowest ebb countries among the ASEAN. Cronyism, corruption and nepotism were astoundingly practiced. The assimilated gap between the few rich and the silent majority poor was unfathomably huge.
Statistics showed there was 26% of total household that was lower than the lower class household; the lower class household means the household had only 70% income of disposable income. All in all, the summary for the reason why the country’s economy is in heels over head is quite simple – cronyism, nepotism, and corruption.
Equal justice before law for every citizen is the supreme requirement for Myanmar; supremacy of law, transparency, accountability, and responsibility are the essential elements of good governess. None were tangible.
Opposition, by definition is ‘resistance or disagreement’, or, ‘a group of opponents’ and in Britain ‘the main party in Parliament that is opposed to the one in the Government’. Opposition does not require opposing anything and everything the Government is undertaking.
There are bi-partisan undertakings but nonetheless there is an ultimate duty of the Opposition, that is, to win over the Government through democratic means; that is, through election; and form the new Government by themselves or form a Coalition Government if the required majority was not fulfilled.
Seated from the Left of the Speaker then to be seated to the Right of the Speaker is one of the aims and objectives of the Opposition and if the Opposition Party does not have such political fervor, then, that party is not a political party at all.


Myanmar has a taste of democracy only recently after the civilian government was installed. Nonetheless, the transition of military government into civilian government in Myanmar was exceptionally smooth. No dictator in nowhere in the world relinquished state power the way Myanmar dictators had relinquished. It was retreat into victory for them; a systematic with well defended position, such as constitutional defense in their favor in place.
The new government is made up of well experienced ministers, from the top to down, but their experiences were in the dictatorial form of governance. They were responsible to none; budget allocation; road constructions for example were carried out by the whims of the top honcho.
The junta got into cease fire agreement with ethnic insurgents and gave them carte blanch business concessions; the result is the country lush forest was obliterated; Kachin State became swampy land; thank to the new civilian government the Irrawaddy Myitsone project was stopped. Stop shooting at each other is not considered Peace.
People cannot expect earth shaking stance from the new government as it stemmed out the previous military junta. Military by nature is security conscience and therefore they would want to have their position secured.
Up to now there are instances that the Service Personals at lower level are behaving what they were used to. In the case of Democratic Party Myanmar Organization Committee Organizer Daw Tin Tin Mya one could find that the responsible officer at the Municipal Office, Major Tun Tin, instead of enquiring the problem in depth the first thing he said was to get out otherwise he would arrest her for obstructing the work. Rangoon Division, South Okkalapa Township Municipal ordered Laborers to relocate with no prior notice on Dec 11 within three days. Anyhow, with persistent pleading of Daw Tin Tin Mya the Laborers now got new places to move only after their children sat for the exams in two months; but the Township Municipal Officer U Nyi Nyi Oo sued Daw Tin Tin Mya for obstructing the work.
For them it is the only way they know to run their business. They need to be educated that the system under which the country is running has changed.
The new government’s position on being security conscience is no difference from the previous ones. They need confidence. For that matter the Opposition are responsible to make the civilian government feels secured and help assist their confidence level raised for the better governance.
Under this special situation the Opposition needs to play a role not as No-Matter-What-Opposition but a responsible Opposition the way we 10 Fraternity Democracy Party are exercising now. We participated in their seminars. We gave timely advice. We will provide more assurances to the government’s unsure footings.
The Government so far did not give necessary attention or attached importance to the issues raise in the parliament by Opposition; answered flimsily was what we experienced. We had no plan to do filibustering in the parliament, unnecessarily; the government should aware of it.
Being new and too cautious to have their legislature passed the government with no prior sharing of information introduced Bills and tried to pass it. The government with an astounding majority supported by 25% Uncontested MPs could pass any legislation.
For example recently the government introduced Land Ownership Bill. The Opposition had no information ahead of time. Such an important Bill should have thorough study as well as fully debated. It is the role we have to play to make sure that the smooth transition that junta had made would bear more benefits for the masses.
Though the international community had accepted that the country is underway to reform; let me ask - is it? A few changes here and there in the Constitution mean Reform; let me ask – is it? Throwing feeds at places where fish swam around is not reform but it could be pacification, it could be adjustments or political alignment, the most. Reform needs a program, all encompass comprehensive program for the country.
Allow me to review a much talk about reform model. For over two centuries Japan had been closed to all foreigners until American warships forced Japan, in 1854, to open her ports to foreign trade.
The infuriated Japanese blamed the Tokugawa shogun - the military leader who had ruled Japan in place of the emperor - for the humiliation.
In 1867 the shogun was forced to resign and Emperor Mutsuhito announced that he had taken his traditional powers back from the shogun. The Emperor moved the capital from ancient Kyoto to Edo, which he renamed Tokyo and he assumed the name Meji meaning "enlightened rule".
During the Meji period (1868 -1912) the feudal system was abolished, and Western ideas and business contacts gained wide acceptance. The abolition of pensions to the samurai and of the ancient code of the sword led to the samurai uprising in 1877. Following its defeat the samurai caste disintegrated.
The Charter Oath of 1868, a five point document is one of the first documents written by the new Meiji leaders and reveals much about the new society they hoped to create.
By this oath Japan set up as their aim the establishment of the national weal on a broad basis and the framing of a constitution and laws.
The oath was written by the new leaders and given to the newly restored emperor to present to the people.
One of the top responsible leaders of the new Myanmarese Legislature revealed that there is a resistance that does not want to accept the new way of governance. The Opposition should be aware of that.
Let alone the new government lacks experience in the democratic form of governance, the opposition, some are out of touch, some have no experience. We have to be very careful in leading each other, and it is the responsibility of both sides to avoid a situation where a blind is leading a blind.
International expertise in governance, as well as running the national economy should be welcomed and encourage international community to share their expertise as well as assist us in our endeavor in rehabilitating the country.
Just going against the Government alone would not make the country prosper. Internal conflicts would undermine development and the class parity with the neighboring countries would be too vast if we cannot reduce the conflict level.
The Opposition will have to give timely advice to the Government for the development of the country and to have good governance; will have to give full support on the measures undertaken by the Government if they are for the betterment of the country.
People will encourage more and more if the Opposition poked at the weaknesses of the Government. But just for the sake of attacking the Government one becomes Opposition is meaningless.
Opposition’s duties are to make sure there is peace, and national unity; release of and having no more political prisoners in jails; advice the Government on peasants and labor issues in good stead.
Last but not least, the oppositions would have to make sure that the government upholds the country’s Neutral Foreign Policy and the country remains on the course of genuine, I repeat, genuine Free Market Economy.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: allow me to make a concluding remark with an appropriate Zart-ta-ka, a story of our Lord Buddha in his fifth embryo state of the Ten Last Incarnations before He reached the final State of Omniscience: Prince Ma-haw-tha-hta.
He was the Minister of Justice in the King’s Court. One day there was a dispute for possession of a baby between the two contending ladies. The case was brought to his Court.
Ma-haw-tha-hta asked the two ladies to ‘contest a tug-of-war using the baby as the rope’.
The struggle commenced, and the real mother, after realizing the pain baby was going through due to their competition, released and let the baby go.
So, announcing the fake mother as winner, Ma-haw-tha-hta passed the judgment as follows: ‘Clearly, the Lady who has the Baby in possession is the winner, but she could not be the real mother because she has no compunction whatsoever even when the Baby was suffering from the pain due to their competition; therefore, the Baby must be given to the real and rightful mother who lost in the competition’.
Politics in Myanmar is uniquely unique. Our people had suffered enough. They had gone through more than four decades of mismanagement, state of uncertainty, brutality and many untold stories. Enough is enough and we in the Opposition will dutifully discharge our honored duties and responsibilities for the betterment of the people, no-matter-what.
Freedom, Justice and Equality are the three Mantras we will be reciting as long as we are allowed to recite, devotedly, of course. Thank you.


-------------------

The Role of Opposition in the Political Arena in Myanmar
U Thu Wai

President, Democratic Party [Myanmar]
Background
Myanmar or Burma is sandwiched between the two giant nations, sharing 1,400 miles of common boundary with China and sharing 1,020 miles of common boundary with India. It is strategic to an extent and at the same time, being a small country it is something to worry.
In the historical context China had invaded Myanmar many a time and Myanmar repelled them time and again. Being a minor Imperialist, Myanmar, in the past had annexed Thailand, Yunnan, and Assam. When Myanmar met the real Imperialist, the British, Myanmar became a colony for 122 years.
With temperate temperature, fertile soil, lush forest, rich in natural resources – minerals, jade, ruby, etc. Burma is an attractive and interesting country.
From the beginning of Colonial era foreigners, especially Chinese and Indians started to migrate and had engaged in trade and commerce so much so that they not only controlled but also influenced business and trade sector of the country.
Buddhism spread from India and Sri Lanka, and, remains flourishing enormously in Burma. Burma has high standards of cultural traditions and therefore it has not fallen under the decadent foreign cultural influences.
Burma struggled for independence pre and during the Second World War and gained independence in 1948; thus, once again, Burma became a sovereign state among the family of nations.
A country-wide civil war broke out soon after independence, but, the then AFPFL Government was able to quell the insurgencies within a short period of time. The Government practiced Parliamentary Democracy and therefore people could enjoy freedom. People could exercise freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to organize – all the democratic rights prevailed.
Burma had not only sufficient amount of rice for internal consumption but was also able to export rice and was once the world’s top rice exporter in the yesteryears.
Burma’s industrial base had made ‘a proud country’ in the region, and was able to make economic ‘take off’ viably. Due to high standards of socio-politico and economic standards the country was able to present itself in the realm of International political arena presentably and with dignity.
Politics in Myanmar after 1962
The emerging development of the country was nipped in the bud by the Armed Forces in 1962. Factories, shops, schools, hospitals, all productive elements in sight were nationalized. The military dictatorial system that was forcefully introduced smashed Burma’s industries as well as economies and had drawn the country into total ruination.
Opposition party system was banned; more than five people gathered were a crowd and forbidden; listening BBC was a crime and could be arrested.
During the 26 years of military dictatorship there were several uprisings and mass demonstrations. All were suppressed with brute force.
Politics in Myanmar in 1988 uprisings and afterwards
By 1988 a country-wide uprising for democracy took place; and thus the original military junta demise. Nevertheless, militarism continued under the guise of State Law and Order Restoration Committee [SLORC]. Militarism was reestablished. But, peoples’ political fervor against the militarism had not extinguished.
The new junta announced to hold election and thus political parties were allowed to form. With a little political space available more than 200 political parties were formed. Statements after statements were flying high.
If one analyzed general prevailing situation of the time the pro-government National Unity Party {NUP} or [Ta Sa Nya] in short, the party belongs to previous military regime was the sure winner; the rest of the votes would be spread and thus NUP would win with majority. This analysis was also an analysis adopted by the SLORC and therefore the junta held the ‘rig free’ election.
The end result was quite contrary to what the junta had expected as the people cast their votes – the hate votes against the militarism - for National League for Democracy [NLD], the party that was in opposition against the junta.
Politics in Myanmar after 1990 election
The junta would not buy the election result, their defeat, easily; State Power was not transferred; NLD formed a parallel exiled Government; mass demonstrations against the junta had begun and suppression blew in. 10 arrested – five released; 20 arrested – 10 released; gave long and longer term sentences like 50 or 100 years were given using as intimidations.
During that intimidated era if an automobile stopped in front of a house people got frightened as if Military Intelligence [MI] had come to pick up for interrogation or for incarceration.
Meeting with foreigners was much dislike and meeting with diplomats was considered as crime. Youth as well as Buddhist Monks demonstrated against the junta; brutal suppression was the only method deployed by the junta, nothing else. Gradually, people dared not communicate with politicians. MI made sure politicians were socially ostracized. The military junta did not understand or accept that the Police Force has the legal supremacy over Army. For any disturbance, serious or not, Army was brought out. Army sprayed bullets on the innocent people as it seemed was a favorite sport of the Generals.
The personal experience in Burma’s politics after 1990
I was first arrested in 1991 one year after the 1990 election; at that time I was the President of Democracy Party. We have one candidate elected as a Peoples’ Representative Elect [PRE]; nevertheless, we continued actively and convened Party Conference; and thus the leaders of Democracy Party ended up in Jails.
MI agents followed me from U Aung Than’s funeral [Bogyoke Aung San’s brother] and asked me to accompany them ‘for a short while’. On the first day I was required to give personal history at an MI ‘Interrogation and Detention Camp’; the next day I was sent straight to Insein jail. No prosecution was made for a person arrested under Section 10 A Internments and as I was not sentenced to Jail but put under custody at the jail, so, I was not provided with clothing or bedding. I was fed only ‘Out of Sympathy’ by the Jailers.
MI’s ‘for a while’ lasted five months. While I was in Jail Democracy Party was disbanded.
The junta arrested me for the second time in May 1995. A few friends, about five or six, gathered at former Rector of the Rangoon University Dr. Thar Hla’s residence, once a week, chit chat about every possible topic inclusive of politics.
On that very day of arrest Dr. Thar Hla, former Colonel U Kyi Maung from NLD, former Major Tun Shwe, Attorney U Aye Maung and I were having snacks; I was the youngest of them all. All of a sudden about 20 or so MI walked in into the living room and took several photos of us. After that we all were masked with towels and herded into automobiles and drove away. For four days we were interrogated and on the fifth day Major Tun Shwe and I were sent to Insein Jail. The rest were released.
We were prosecuted in the Jail Court; as evidences the authorities submitted clipping from my house I have collected clippings relating Burma by Time, Newsweek, Economic Review, Bangkok Post, visiting cards of diplomats, invitations from USIS; the items the authorities confiscated while I was interrogated as anti-government literatures and sentenced to seven year term for possessing such papers. I argued that I also have several papers published by the Government. The Judge dismissed my argument by saying: ‘those are legal to keep; the argument is irrelevant’.
After serving full term we were not released but year on year basis extension was made for three consecutive years. So, seven year term was but served 10 years. Many had gone through such experiences; and, some even had to undergo tortures.
The Current Political Aspect
The 2010 election
The military regime drawn the skewed Constitution and allowed only NLD, NUP and a few ethnic political parties to play in the political arena. Though NLD was a legal political entity basically NLD could perform ceremonies for special occasions. MI was abolished and in its place Office of the Military Affairs Security [OMAS] was formed. OMAS hindered political activities. There was no political space at all.
Since more than five people could not gather under Marshall Law politicians invented birth day parties, anniversaries of this and that, swen offerings, where discussions and exchange of news were carried out.
SLORC was transformed into SPDC [State Peace and Development Committee] and have gone into two decades of existence. SPDC announced that the election would be held by 2010, thus, antipathy among politicians – to be or not to be - had taken place.
Pro-election politicians argued that several decades had gone by in removing the military junta but nothing had so far been substantiated but people suffered more and more; the election would bring an opportunity to express peoples’ will, political parties could be formed, could communicate with the masses openly, could express political opinions, could express peoples’ opinions in the Parliaments as MPs, and could legislate laws.
Anti-election campaigners argued that the military junta would not change but to prolong their existence. At that juncture there was no freedom of expression, or, organization. The country was in the iron grips of the OMAS and other Intelligence Agencies [IA].
Political parties were allowed to form and organize new members but IA arranged a system not to have the parties to have new members. Parties had to get prior permission to have public gatherings from the authorities. Any meeting, if it was not at the party Headquarters, no flag could be hoisted, no public speakers were allowed, no slogans shouted; and name of the speakers, content of the speech and expected public attendance had to submit ahead of time. Before the meeting was even started several IAs were in attendance and therefore people were petrified to attend the meetings. To those who attended the meeting were questioned, such as: how and when the party was known and the name of the contact person, etc.
There was another requirement to have a party registered; a party needed 1,000 members. The names and addresses of those members were required to submit to the Union Election Commission [UEC]. UEC deliberately gave the list of the party members to IA to investigate. IA investigated and many members resigned from parties out of fears.
In order to get permission to register a trip was required to Naypyidor; and another trip for registration, selected party leaders and member list submission was another trip, submission of script to broadcast over TV was another trip, and recording was another trip; to become a political party caused several trips to Naypyidor; that means quite a steep expenses.
The Current Economics Aspects
Taking a look at the economic situation of the country Myanmar was one of a few lower than the lowest ebb countries among the ASEAN though several billion dollars were raked in through Border Trade, Gas Sales, etc. Cronyism, corruption and nepotism were astoundingly practiced. The assimilated gap between the few rich and the silent majority poor was unfathomably huge. According to the statistics there was 26% of total household that was lower than the lower class household; the lower class household means the household had only 70% income of disposable income.
In order to make ends meet expenses had to be reduced; children were taken out from schools; thus Burma has child labor force at restaurants, railway stations, bus terminals, etc. As standard of living had dwindled nutrition was something to be neglected and thus mental and physical developments were hampered. By comparison against the newly rich, the kids from the poor families were far behind in every aspect.
In order to lure Foreign Direct Investment [FDI] Investment and Trade Laws need to be redrawn; transferring of money to and from abroad have but to be legalized; stability must be restored; communications and trading with developed countries need to be re-established; and importantly stop the existing no-payment-made-nothing-moves system; etc.
The Current Socio-economic aspects
Myanmar has many talented people but they have no opportunities in any sector, economy, administration, wherever. All in all the summary of the reason why the country’s economy is in heels over head is quite simple – cronyism, nepotism, and corruption.
Equal justice before law for every citizen is the supreme requirement for Myanmar; supremacy of law, transparency, and responsibility are the essential elements of good governess.
The Oppositions! What do they aim for?
These abovementioned factors are the main aims and objectives of the Oppositions; some are to be abolished and some are to be established. Just going against the Government alone would not make the country prosper. Internal conflicts would produce less development and the class parity with the neighboring countries would be too vast.
The Opposition will have to give timely advice to the Government for the development of the country and to ensure good governance. Full support will be provided on the measures undertaken by the Government if they are for the betterment of the country.
People will encourage more and more if the Opposition poked at the weaknesses of the Government. But just for the sake of attacking the Government alone one becomes Opposition is meaningless. Opposition’s duties are to make sure there is peace, and unity; work for the void of political prisoners, advice the Government on peasants and labor issues in good stead.
The Oppositions at Parliaments….how well do they serve people?
Post 2010 election:
The election was over, Parliaments are in session. One could assume that the Generals are quite satisfied with what they designed to have, so much so that there would be less and less unnecessary harassment on the political lives of the people.
Opposition, by definition is ‘resistance or disagreement’, or, ‘a group of opponents’ and in Britain ‘the main party in Parliament that is opposed to the one in the Government’. The Opposition sits on the Left of the Speaker, opposite side of the Government. Opposition does not require opposing anything and everything the Government is undertaking. There are bi-partisan undertakings but nonetheless there is an ultimate duty of the Opposition, that is, to win over the Government through democratic means; that is, through election, and form the new Government by themselves or form a Coalition Government if the required majority was not fulfilled.
Seated Left of the Speaker but plan to move on to the Right of the Speaker is one of the rightfull aims and objectives of the Opposition and if the Opposition Party does not have such political fervor, then, that party is not a political party at all. Then and then only the party’s policies could be implemented.
Role of Opposition in Current Political Scenario:
Myanmar has a taste of democracy only recently after the civilian government was installed. Nonetheless, the transition of military government into civilian government in Myanmar was exceptionally smooth. No dictator in nowhere in the world relinquished state power the way Myanmar dictators had relinquished. It was retreat into victory for them; a systematic with well defended position, such as constitutional defense in their favor in place.
The new government is made up of well experienced ministers, from the top to down, but their experiences were in the dictatorial form of governance. They were responsible to none; budget allocation; road constructions for example were carried out by the whims of the top honcho.
The junta got into cease fire agreement with ethnic insurgents and gave them carte blanch business concessions; the result is the country lush forest was obliterated; Kachin State became swampy land; thank to the new civilian government the Irrawaddy Myitsone project was stopped. Stop shooting at each other cannot be considered as Peace.
People cannot expect earth shaking stance from the new government as it stemmed from the previous military junta. Military by nature is security conscience and therefore they would want to have their position secured. Up to now there are instances that the Service Personals at lower level are behaving what they were used to.
In the case of Democratic Party Myanmar [DPM] Organization Committee Organizer Daw Tin Tin Mya one could find that the responsible officer at the Municipal Office, Major Tun Tin, instead of enquiring the problem in depth the first thing he said was to get out otherwise he would arrest her for obstructing the work. Rangoon Division, South Okkalapa Township Municipal ordered Laborers to relocate with no prior notice on Dec 11 within three days. Anyhow, with persistent pleading of Daw Tin Tin Mya the Laborers now got new places to move only after their children sat for the exams in two months; but the Township Municipal Officer U Nyi Nyi Oo sued Daw Tin Tin Mya for obstructing the work. For them it is the only way they know to run their business. They need to be educated that the system under which the country is running has changed.
The new government’s position on security conscience is no difference from the previous ones. They need confidence. For that matter the Opposition are also responsible to make the civilian government feels secured and help assist their confidence level raised for the better governance.
Under this special situation the Opposition needs to play a role not as No-Matter-What-Opposition but a responsible Opposition the way the 10 Fraternity Democracy Parties are exercising now by participating in seminars organized by government, by giving timely advices, and by providing more assurances to the government’s unsure footings.
For example: the Government did not give necessary attention or attached importance to the issues raise in the parliament by Opposition; answered flimsily was what we experienced. The 10 Fraternity Democracy Parties had no plan to do filibustering in the parliament, unnecessarily.
Being new and too cautious to have their legislature passed the government made no prior sharing of information introduced Bills and tried to pass it. Of course, the government with an astounding majority supported by 25% Uncontested MPs could pass any legislation.
For example recently the government introduced Land Ownership Bill. The Opposition had no information ahead of time. Such an important Bill should have thorough study as well as fully debated. It is the role we have to play to make sure that the smooth transition that junta had made would bear more benefits for the masses.
Though the international community had accepted the fact that the country is underway to reform; is it? A few changes here and there in the Constitution mean Reform? Throwing feeds at places where fish swam around is not reform but it could be pacification, it could be adjustments or political alignment, the most. Reform needs a program, all encompass comprehensive program for the country.
Reform Model….applicable?
The reform model that Japan applied was reviewed and presented. For over two centuries Japan had been closed to all foreigners until American warships forced Japan, in 1854, to open her ports to foreign trade.
The infuriated Japanese blamed the Tokugawa shogun - the military leader who had ruled Japan in place of the emperor - for the humiliation.
In 1867 the shogun was forced to resign and Emperor Mutsuhito announced that he had taken his traditional powers back from the shogun. The Emperor moved the capital from ancient Kyoto to Edo, which he renamed Tokyo and he assumed the name Meji meaning "enlightened rule".
During the Meji period (1868 -1912) the feudal system was abolished, and Western ideas and business contacts gained wide acceptance. The abolition of pensions to the samurai and of the ancient code of the sword led to the samurai uprising in 1877. Following its defeat the samurai caste disintegrated.
In the newly established parliament (1878) the military party began to reject European influence; it considered expansion to the continent of Asia more important than social and economic reforms. This led in 1894 to the Sino-Japanese war, when the superior Japanese forces conquered Dairen, Shantung, and Seoul. China ceded Formosa to the Japanese, and after the successful Russo-Japanese war Japan occupied Korea.
The Charter Oath of 1868 is one of the first documents written by the new Meiji leaders and reveals much about the new society they hoped to create.
By this oath Japan set up as their aim the establishment of the national weal on a broad basis and the framing of a constitution and laws.
Deliberative assemblies shall be widely established and all matters decided by public discussion.
All classes, high and low, shall unite in vigorously carrying out the administration of affairs of state.
The common people, no less than the civil and military officials, shall each be allowed to pursue his own calling so that there may be no discontent.
Evil customs of the past shall be broken off and everything based upon the just laws of Nature.
Knowledge shall be sought throughout the world so as to strengthen the foundations of imperial rule.
The oath was written by the new leaders and given to the newly restored emperor to present to the people.

Role of Opposition in Future Political Scenario
One of the top responsible leaders of the Myanmar Legislature revealed that there is a resistance in their Administration that does not want to accept the new way of governance. The Opposition should be aware of that.
Let alone the new government lacks experience in the democratic form of governance, the opposition, some are out of touch, some have no experience. Both sides have to be very careful in leading each other, and it is the responsibility of both sides to avoid a situation where a blind is leading a blind. International expertise in governance, as well as running the national economy and finances should be welcomed and encourage international community to share as well as assist us in our endeavor in rehabilitating the country.
Just going against the Government alone would not make the country prosper. Internal conflicts would undermine development and the class parity with the neighboring countries would be too vast if we cannot reduce the conflict level.
The Opposition will have to give timely advice to the Government for the development of the country and to have good governance; will have to give full support on the measures undertaken by the Government if they are for the betterment of the country.
People will encourage more and more if the Opposition poked at the weaknesses of the Government. But just for the sake of attacking the Government one becomes Opposition is meaningless. Opposition’s duties are to make sure there is peace, and national unity; the release of and having no more political prisoners; advice the Government on peasants and labor issues in good stead.
Last but not least, the oppositions would have to make sure that the government upholds the country’s Neutral Foreign Policy and the country remains on the course of genuine Free Market Economy.
Conclusion
I would like to make a concluding remark with an appropriate Zart-ta-ka, a story of our Lord Buddha in his fifth embryo state of the Ten Last Incarnations before He reached the final State of Omniscience: Prince Ma-haw-tha-hta. The Buddha was the Minister of Justice in the King’s Court. One day there was a dispute for possession of a baby between the two contending ladies. The case was brought to his Court.
Ma-haw-tha-hta asked the two ladies to ‘contest a tug-of-war using the baby as the rope’.
The struggle commenced, and the real mother, after realizing the pain that the baby was going through due to their competition, released and let the baby go.
So, announcing the fake mother as winner, Ma-haw-tha-hta passed the judgment as follows: ‘Clearly, the Lady who has the Baby in possession is the winner, but she could not be the real mother because she has no compunction whatsoever even when the Baby was suffering from the pain due to their competition; therefore, the Baby must be given to the real and rightful mother who lost in the competition’.
Politics in Myanmar is uniquely unique. Our people had suffered enough. They had gone through more than four decades of mismanagement, state of uncertainty, brutality and many untold stories. Enough is enough and we in the Opposition will dutifully discharge our honored duties and responsibilities for the betterment of the people, no-matter-what.
Freedom, Justice and Equality are the three Mantras we will be reciting as long as we are allowed to recite, devotedly, of course. Thank you.

Conference on “Myanmar after the 2010 Elections”

Jointly organized by

Southeast Asia Research Centre (SEARC), CityU and

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), Germany

Date: 26 and 27 January 2012

Time: 9:00 am – 5:00pm

Venue: Multi-media Conference Room, City University of Hong Kong

This conference will focus on the surprising socio-political and economic changes have recently taken place in Myanmar in the wake of the 2010 elections and which have attracted world-wide attention. It will examine the prospect for further political liberalization in the context of the reforms that have already taken place.

(The Southeast Asia Research Centre organized a workshop on Problems with the National Reconciliation Process in Myanmar in 2009. The 2009 workshop examined Myanmar politics under the military rule. This 2012 conference can be considered a sequel to this earlier workshop.)

Speakers and Discussants

1. Kyaw Yin Hlaing, Associate Director of SEARC and Assistant Professor of AIS, CityU

2. Robert Taylor, Visiting Professional Fellow, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Singapore

3. Ko Ko Hlaing, Presidential Adviser, Government of Myanmar

4. Thu Wai, Chairman, Democrat Party, Myanmar

5. Wa Wa Tun, President, Myanmar Women Entrepreneur Association, Yangon, Myanmar

6. Myint Su, Freelance Consultant and Community Development Worker, Yangon, Myanmar

7. Zaw Zaw Han, Civil Society Activist and Founder and CEO of the Forever Group, Yangon, Myanmar

8. Hla Maung Shwe, Vice-President, Myanmar Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Yangon, Myanmar

9. Soe Thein, Chief editor, Namath Khitai journal, Yangon, Myanmar

10. Aung Naing Oo, Bahu Institute, Chiangmai, Thailand

11. Thihan Myo-Nyun, Attorney and Legal Scholar, School of Law, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio, USA

12. Winston Set Aung, Consultant and Presidential Adviser, Government of Myanmar

13. Tin Htut Oo, Consultant, Yangon, Myanmar

14. Nyunt Maung Shein, Retired Director-General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Myanmar

15. Kyee Myint, Retired Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Myanmar

16. Mary Callahan, University of Washington, USA

17. Andreas List, Ambassador, European Union

18. Li Chanyang, Director, Southeast Asia Centre, Yunnan University, Kunming, China

19. U Ye Htut, Ministry of Information

20. U Chit Khaing, President, Myanmar Rice Merchants Association

21. Aung Naing Oo, Bahu Institute, Chiangmai, Thailand

22. Saw Yong Paing Shan, Nationalities Democracy Party, Yangon, Myanmar

23. Chit Than, Freelance Consultant, Myanmar

24. Andy Hall, Consultant to the Human Rights and Development Foundation

25. Nyo Ohn Myint, National League for Democracy, Liberated Area

26. Bo Bo Kyaw Nyein, Political Commentator, Myanmar

27. Lian Sakhong, Chin Political Activist

Conference Overview

On March 30, 2011, Myanmar’s long ruling military government, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), handed over power to a new civilian government that came into being in the wake of the SPDC-sponsored elections held in November 2010. Because all administrative and legislative bodies both at the central and local levels were controlled by members of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), many political activists and Myanmar watchers did not expect much change under the new government. However, on August 19, 2011, to the surprise of many, President Thein Sein met pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in his official residence. Two days earlier, the president invited exile activists to return to the country. When Aung San Suu Kyi attended a government-sponsored conference on macro-economic reforms, she was welcomed as a “very very important person” (VVIP). Several senior government officials were very friendly towards her and many well-known cronies of senior government officials who in the past stayed away from members of the opposition lined up for a photo opportunity with the lady.

Aung San Suu Kyi publicly stated that she was very encouraged by the meeting and that she had trust in the president’s determination to bring about political change to the country, including on the issue of democracy. For the first time in its history, the main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) issued a statement with positive comments about the government a few days after their leader met with President Thein Sein. While major EU countries welcomed the meeting, the United Nations’ human rights rapporteur Mr Quintana noted in a statement issued at the end of his recent visit to Myanmar that there were “real opportunities for positive and meaningful developments to improve the human rights situation and bring about a genuine transition to democracy”. On the other hand, many exile activists still have reservations about the sincerity of the president. Some have gone so far as to claim that what the president has done has been little more than a publicity stunt and that there was no difference between the new civilian government and the predecessor military regime.

When President Thein Sein suspended the controversial Myitsone dam project (jointly developed with Chinese construction companies) in response to the rejection of the project by civil society groups, the US and EU governments praised the decision. Even some exile activists began to opine that the new Myanmar government should be given a chance to prove itself different from its predecessor.

Myanmar has long defied some major social science theories and the expectations of both social scientists and journalists. Although some political transition theories speculated that military governments would not last very long, the military rule in Myanmar has lasted several decades. At the same time, although several Myanmar watchers had argued that the political liberalization undertaken by the military council that ruled the country between 1988 and 2011 would be meaningless, recent changes have indicated that real political change might be in the making. Therefore, it is a high time to examine how the emergence of the new government has affected Myanmar politics, economy, civil society space and foreign relations and how the recent political changes, especially the relations between the government and the opposition should be understood. This conference at the South East Asia Research Centre of the City University of Hong Kong will bring together 26 top scholars, political consultants, human rights activists, journalists as well as government and opposition representatives to discuss these important and timely issues.

Wai Hnin Pwint Thone on Burma’s Reform

On Friday 13 January I was able to speak with my father Ko Mya Aye, a free man again after being jailed in 2007 for his role in organising protests against the Burmese dictatorship. I
was shaking, so excited; I could hardly believe it was true. There have been so
many broken promises in the past, so many times when releases were promised and
didn't happen, or where only a small number were released and my father was
left in jail. He was held in a remote prison, at one point even on death row,
and was denied medical treatment for a life-threatening heart condition. I
feared I may never see him again.

As a refugee living inLondon, I still can't see him, but just to hear his voice was wonderful. Typically for him, it
didn't take long for him to start talking about politics, and one of his main concerns is the political prisoners still left behind in jail. "We must
campaign together for their release," he said.

Of course I agreed,
but at the same time there is a part of me which is anxious and scared. This
isn't the first time my father has been arrested and released. And I fear it
won't be the last. My father and other political prisoners are being released but with no apology and no acknowledgment that they should never have been in jail in the first place.
This wasn't a true amnesty or pardon, the sentences have just been suspended. They
still have criminal records, and receive no compensation, no support for the
medical care they need to recover from torture, mistreatment and psychological
abuses. They receive no support to rebuild their lives. There is no attempt at
reconciliation. Instead they are expected to be grateful for being released.

The laws under which he was arrested remain
in place. There is change, but not yet reform. Nothing that has taken place so far is irreversible.
There is nothing to stop him being jailed again for campaigning for democracy and human rights.
This is one of the reasons why despite seemingly positive steps by the military-backed government, many of us are still very cautious. Are they doing this as a genuine
move towards democracy, or just to try to get sanctions lifted? After all,
they only just brought in a new constitution which gives the military the power
not only to effectively overrule the government and parliament, but also places
them outside their control. It was Thein Sein, the new president, who oversaw
the drafting of that constitution. Having just drafted a constitution which
gives them absolute power, are they really about to give that power up?
My father also spoke about U Shwe Htoo, a prisoner of conscience who wasn't on the list of those released today, or on other lists of political prisoners. They became friends when held together in Liokaw prison. The case of U Shwe Htoo is an example of why it is so important
that independent international monitors be given access to Burma's prisons and
are able make an independent assessment of how many political prisoners remain
in jail.
Some people are now arguing that the release of these political prisoners is proof that there is genuine reform in Burma, and that sanctions should now be lifted. I ask them to remember that in mid-2007 there were around a thousand political prisoners in Burma. This was considered
unacceptable, and the European Union, US, Canada, and Australia
were debating whether to increase sanctions. Following the uprising in late
2007 the number of political prisoners almost doubled. My father was one of
those jailed. Now, after all the excitement about these releases, there are
still possibly around a thousand political prisoners in Burma's jails.
Compared to the situation last year, it looks like we have come a long way.
Compared to the situation five years ago, it looks like we have stood still.
I wish I could have been with my family as they celebrated on Friday night. But the next day my
father was having meetings with colleagues. It was back to work. Many prisoners
have been released, but many also remain. Even if all the political prisoners
are eventually released, and if there are ceasefires that reduce human rights
abuses against ethnic people by the Burmese army, that is just one part of the
problem. The political system responsible for these abuses has not been
reformed. We still don't have a democratic society or the rule of law. While
this is the case, we still need international pressure to support real reform.

The laws under which he was arrested remain
in place. There is
change, but not yet reform. Nothing that has taken place so far is irreversible.
There is nothing to stop him being jailed again for campaigning for democracy
and human rights.
This is one of the reasons why despite
seemingly positive steps by the military-backed government, many of us are
still very cautious. Are they doing this as a genuine
move towards democracy, or just to try to get sanctions lifted? After all,
they only just brought in a new constitution which gives the military the power
not only to effectively overrule the government and parliament, but also places
them outside their control. It was Thein Sein, the new president, who oversaw
the drafting of that constitution. Having just drafted a constitution which
gives them absolute power, are they really about to give that power up?
My father also spoke about U Shwe Htoo, a
prisoner of conscience who wasn't on the list of those released today, or on
other lists of political prisoners. They became friends when held together in
Liokaw prison. The case of U Shwe Htoo is an example of why it is so important
that independent international monitors be given access to Burma's prisons and
are able make an independent assessment of how many political prisoners remain
in jail.
Some people are now arguing that the
release of these political prisoners is proof that there is genuine reform in Burma, and that
sanctions should now be lifted. I ask them to remember that in mid-2007 there
were around a thousand political prisoners in Burma. This was considered
unacceptable, and the European Union, US, Canada,
and Australia
were debating whether to increase sanctions. Following the uprising in late
2007 the number of political prisoners almost doubled. My father was one of
those jailed. Now, after all the excitement about these releases, there are
still possibly around a thousand political prisoners in Burma's jails.
Compared to the situation last year, it looks like we have come a long way.
Compared to the situation five years ago, it looks like we have stood still.
I wish I could have been with my family as they celebrated on Friday night. But the next day my
father was having meetings with colleagues. It was back to work. Many prisoners
have been released, but many also remain. Even if all the political prisoners
are eventually released, and if there are ceasefires that reduce human rights
abuses against ethnic people by the Burmese army, that is just one part of the
problem. The political system responsible for these abuses has not been
reformed. We still don't have a democratic society or the rule of law. While
this is the case, we still need international pressure to support real reform.

McCain and Company with Shwe Mahn.

Only Fools will say Reform is underway in Burma

FACT SHEET on Political Activities

On January 14 at 09:30 hr an Australian Member of Parliament, Ms. Janelle Saffin, Federal Member for Page, [Janelle has been active in the Australian Labor Party since 1982 and served in the NSW Legislative Council from 1995 to 2003. From 2004 until 2007, Janelle was senior political adviser to His Excellency Dr Jose Ramos-Horta while the Nobel Laureate was Timor Leste’s Foreign Minister, Defence Minister, Prime Minister and President. Janelle became the first female to represent the rural seat of Page, wresting it from the Nationals in 2007. As the local member, Janelle has done what she said she would do, and ensured Canberra pays attention to this area. She has attracted much needed services in health, education, and community infrastructure. In August 2010 Janelle was re-elected to serve a second term as the Federal Member for Page.] accompanied by Mr. Eugene Khwa, Australian Educational Advisor to Myanmar met with DPM Chairman U Thu Wai, Secretary General Daw Than Than Nu and General Secretary Daw Cho Cho Kyaw Nyein at Park Royal Hotel, Yangon; the main topic discussed was on Australian Political Education Program for Myanmar.
DPM Leaders were informed that Australian Education Training Director for Myanmar will arrive by the end of January. Political parties will be invited to attend the Australian Training Program. The Program will deal with: democratic electioneering, selecting representatives for the constituencies, nature and characteristic of civil society, and how to become a good leader, etc.

The Australian MP had visited Myanmar before and was interested in educating Myanmerese youth. ‘Only now the program can be implemented’ Janelle lamented, and is sharing ideas with the DPM Leaders to promote the Program.
On January 15 at 13:00 hr the inauguration of All Myanmar Youth Organization was held at the No. 151, 6th Floor, Upper Pazundaung Street, Pazundaung, Yangon.

The four prominent personas, Daw Than Than Nu from DPM, Author Maung Wun Tha [Pyithu Khit], U Saing Saing from NLD, and Author Soe Oate gave speeches relating Youth and Youth Participation in Politics.

About 70 Youth attended the inauguration. Daw Than Than Nu was accompanied by DPM Treasurer U Aung Nyein, DPM Chief of Info Bureau U Hla Myint, and DPM CC Member Daw Minnie Thinn Kyaw. The ceremony ended at 16:00 hr.
On January 16 All Religious Denomination Peace Prayer Meeting was held in Yangon. DPM Leaders Daw Than Than Nu, Daw Cho Cho Kyaw Nyein, U Aung Nyein, U Hla Myint and Daw Minnie Thinn Kyaw attended the ceremony.

Four major religions in Myanmar, viz. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam moved together for the Socio-religious Peaceful harmony throughout the country especially among the religious groups, to achieve ethnic harmonious embracement and for the national reconciliation.

On December 27, 2011 Jewish Community of Myanmar celebrated Hanukkah in Yangon. DPM Deputy Leader Daw Than Than Nu lighted the Candles for the Jewish Community.

Annually held important event in Yangon took place on January 18. Famous Author and Poet ‘Dagon’ Taya, contemporary to Bogyoke Aung San, U Kyaw Nyein and many Rangoon University 1936 Strike Leaders celebrated his Pre-Birth Day Party at Mahar Thanti Thukha Buddhist Monastery, Yangon where many friends, old and young alike, old and current politicians – both used and unused alike, poets and authors, 88 Generation Leaders attended the ceremony.

တာရာမဂၢဇင္းမွ တဂုံတာရာ၏ စာတပုဒ္