Monday, March 9, 2009

CANADA IMMIGRATION ဆိုင္ရာမ်ား (၁)

Plenty of potential pitfalls for sponsoring foreign fiancées
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
February 17, 2009 04:00

Q: I am engaged to a woman in Vietnam. I’ve been doing some research online and understand that Canada no longer has a fiancée class. Should I have my fiancée come here as a visitor and have her apply for permanent residence from within Canada? Or should I go to Vietnam to get married and then sponsor her? Which option is better?

A: Your question is more complicated than you think, and for reasons you may not have considered.
Of course, you are right about the fiancée class. It was killed off in June, 2002. Since then, couples can no longer process their immigration applications at the same time that they are making their wedding preparations. Now they must wait until they are actually married before filing an application. This has unnecessarily forced a lengthy separation on many couples at precisely the time when they should be building a new life together. The reasons for this change have never been adequately explained by CIC, and this development persists as one of the most regressive amendments to the 2002 overhaul of our immigration laws. In contrast, the Americans, who also tightened up their immigration laws after 9-11, did not drop their fiancée class.
Obviously, it is almost always more desirable for people in your situation to bring their fiancée here to get married and start the process from within Canada. But many make a terrible mistake when they do so. The word that people hear on the street is that when you apply for a visitor’s visa at a Canadian visa post oversees, you shouldn’t tell them that you are engaged since this will almost certainly lead to the refusal of the application. Applicants who follow this advice often conjure up unrelated or false reasons for coming to Canada. If successful, however, a marriage ceremony is usually held here soon after the fiancée arrives and is then quickly followed by an inland spousal sponsorship.
Now the couple faces a serious dilemma.
The application forms ask for details about the evolution of the relationship. How you met, where you met, and when you met. If you tell the truth, this will inevitably lead to a question from CIC:
“Why didn’t your fiancée mention your relationship when she applied for a visitor’s visa?”
The withholding of this information will likely be used by CIC to substantiate a finding that you and your fiancée lack credibility. CIC may reason that if you were prepared to lie to them once for immigration related reasons, you may be lying to them now in connection with the application for permanent residence. This could easily lead to a refusal of the application for permanent residence. If you lie and say you met here, you will have to abandon real evidence about your relationship in favour of weaker, fabricated evidence.
Since this would be an inland sponsorship, as opposed to an overseas sponsorship, you will have no right to appeal to the IRB. Instead, your only recourse will be to the Federal Court where your chances of success are likely to be a fraction of what they would have been at the IRB.
By all means try bringing your fiancée here as a visitor. Make sure that she discloses that she is engaged to you. In my view, her visitor’s visa application will be a bit of long shot since the Canadian High Commission in Singapore will be more inclined to refuse it than to accept it.
However, at least she won’t mess up her chances of living permanently with you in Canada.

Applicants' personal information to be released to foreign governments
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
February 23, 2009 04:00
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and his officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada are making a mockery of Canada’s privacy laws by forcing foreign nationals, and possibly permanent residents, to agree to the release of their personal information to any and all foreign governments.
Last week, immigration lawyers discovered that the form used by foreign nationals for an extension of their stay in Canada (Form IMM1249) contains some new and disturbing language. The new form readily acknowledges that by virtue of Canada’s Privacy Act “individuals have the right to protection of and access to their personal information.” Nonetheless, the form declares that the applicant’s personal information may be shared not only with the CBSA, the RCMP and CSIS but also with any “foreign governments.”
The applicant is required to agree that they are “not obliged to consent” to the release of the information, but they must acknowledge that “failure to do so will mean that the request will not be processed.”
This seems to be a violation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which states that an officer “shall” extend the status of a foreign national in Canada if the officer feels that the applicant continues to meet the requirements for temporary status here. There is no requirement found in IRPA for the consent that is now being demanded. In any event, since this “consent” cannot be refused, it can hardly be called a “consent” at all.
It appears that the immigration department is attempting to impose a new requirement in the immigration application process that is not sanctioned anywhere in our immigration laws and which may also, in fact, amount to a violation of the letter, if not the spirit, of Canada’s Privacy Act.
According to Douglas Kellam, spokesman for CIC, this “generic message” is currently being implemented in thirty or so immigration application forms.
Given the significant privacy rights at stake by this development I contacted Ann-Marie Hayden,media relations officer for Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, who confirmed that her office was not consulted prior to the development of this dubious initiative.
It seems that this week I have more questions than I have answers.
Why was this change needed? Is it legal? When, if ever, does this “consent” expire? Can it be withdrawn? Will the applicant be told when his information is disclosed to a foreign government? What protection will be afforded to those who may face risk abroad as a result of the release of personal information? For example, if a foreigner enters into a same-sex marriage in Canada, can that information be released to the applicant’s government which views homosexuality as a serious crime? Will CIC return applications that have already been executed on the old forms? If so, when will this start? Or, has it already started?
While we await the answers to these questions, those facing the imminent expiry of their temporary status in Canada should immediately seek legal advice should they be concerned about the consequences of the possible release of their personal information.
Jennifer Stoddart, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, states that it is her job “to heighten the value of privacy in a global society where security, trade, technology and consumer expectations have created a volatile atmosphere for our personal information.” She concedes that “governments have a seemingly insatiable appetite for personal information” and that privacy rights often receive “short shrift” as new anti-terrorism and law enforcement initiatives are rolled out.
This week, CIC has proven her right.
What remains to be seen is, will CIC get away with it?

Clarification on 'implied status' not so clear
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
February 09, 2009 04:00
Sometimes I feel like our immigration department makes things complicated just to baffle the public and keep immigration lawyers employed.
A case in point.
When a foreigner in Canada is about to run out of status they must submit an application to the Case Processing Centre in Vegreville, Alberta to extend their stay if they are to remain here legally.
Vegreville is currently taking 74 days to issue a study permit, 97 days to extend the status of a visitor, and 73 days to extend a work permit.
The frequent question that arises is: What happens if your work permit expires before you receive an extension? Can you still work in the meantime?
The answer to this is pretty simple. You may still do so under the terms of the expired work permit until a decision is communicated to you. This is so because you are granted “implied status” from the time you applied until the time that a decision is communicated to you.
However, what happens if the worker leaves the country briefly while awaiting a decision on an extension? When he returns to Canada, can he return to work while he continues to wait for the extension application to be processed?
The relevant section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) states that “if a temporary resident has applied for an extension…the period is extended…until a decision is made.” This seems to apply to temporary workers since they are classified as “temporary residents.” It contains no limitations for brief departures.
However, in an unrelated part of IRPA, i.e. the part which deals with those foreigners who are allowed to work in Canada without a work permit, the Act includes a provision which clouds the issue. It says that a person can work in Canada without a permit if they made a timely application for an extension and “if they have remained in Canada after the expiry of their work permit.”
Needless to say these two provisions suggest different answers and have caused quite a bit of confusion. The first provision suggests that the worker who briefly departs Canada continues to have implied status while the second suggests that they can’t return to work in Canada after a brief absence while awaiting processing. As a result, port-of-entry officers have been dealing with this scenario inconsistently.
On January 15th, the immigration department issued a bulletin ostensibly clarifying this situation. Indeed, a foreign worker who leaves Canada in these circumstances can re-enter Canada as a temporary resident but only if they are from a visitor visa exempt country or if they have a multiple entry visa. However, they will lose their right to work here “until their application for renewal has been granted.”
This result makes little sense from a public policy point of view.
Wasn’t the whole point of “implied status” to avoid disrupting Canadian employers and their businesses while their lawful foreign workers wait for Vegreville to process an extension request?
The answer to our question is now “clear.” However, the rationale for allowing the re-entry of a worker who left Canada with “implied status” but denying him the right to return to work while his work permit is being renewed is far from it.
Federal government delivers on protection for workers
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
January 19, 2009 07:00
It is not surprising for countries facing tough economic times to implement measures intended to better protect their domestic workers.
In Canada, this responsibility falls on the shoulders of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC).
Subject to certain exceptions, Canadian employers who wish to recruit foreign workers must demonstrate to HRSDC how the entry of the foreign worker(s) will transfer skills and knowledge to Canadians, fill a labour shortage, or directly create or retain job opportunities for other Canadians.
Canadian employers who wish to recruit overseas must first make an application to HRSDC for a Labour Market Opinion (LMO). If HRSDC is satisfied that the recruitment of a foreigner is in our interests, it will issue a positive LMO which then paves the way for the chosen foreign worker to submit a work permit application at a Canadian visa post overseas.
On Jan. 1, HRSDC implemented a national advertising requirement for all occupations.
The failure to comply with these minimum advertising requirements “will result in the application for a LMO being denied.”
As a general rule of thumb, the more complex the position, the less advertising is needed since those skill sets are believed to be harder to find here. The “lower” the position, the more likely it is perceived that we should be able to find someone locally to do the job.
Accordingly, employers who are offering positions in management or in occupations which usually require a university degree (i.e. positions described in our National Occupations Classification as skill levels O and A) must advertise the position on the national job bank (www.jobbank.gc.ca) for at least 14 calendar days. Alternatively, they can conduct similar recruitment activities consistent with the practices prevailing within that occupation. This can include advertising in professional journals, newsletters, national newspapers, or even consulting with unions or professional associations. These efforts must be made during the three months prior to the LMO application.
For occupations which usually require college education or apprenticeship training (i.e. NOC B occupations) advertising in the national job bank is mandatory and cannot be substituted with the alternatives listed above. Additionally, the advertisements must include the employers name and address and must disclose the wages being offered. This latter requirement will make this type of recruitment more delicate since existing employees will have access to the wages being offered to their foreign counterparts.
Lastly, employers who are recruiting those in occupations which require only high school education, occupation-specific training, or on-the-job training (i.e. NOC C and D occupations) must advertise on the job bank and must conduct other recruitment activities consistent with the practice in the occupation in question, all within three months of the LMO application. They must also demonstrate reasonable “ongoing” recruitment efforts in communities which face barriers to employment i.e. Aboriginals, seniors, and other disadvantaged groups.
HRSDC makes it clear that these requirements are the minimum efforts that can be expended and reserves the right to impose additional requirements.
From a public policy point of view, the recruitment of foreign workers is tricky business at the best of times. In the worst of times, the public insists on greater protection.
Now, it’s been delivered.

What's needed to claim points for a blood relative
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
February 02, 2009 04:00

Q: My uncle is living in Canada. I want to claim five points for having a blood relative living there. Please let me know what documents I would need to prove that he's my uncle. He has lots of documents to prove that he's permanently living in Canada and will provide me those, but I don't know what documents they will ask me to provide to prove that he's my uncle.

A: Amongst the many requirements that applicants must meet to be approved under our Federal Skilled Worker category, they must also score at least 67 points. Points are awarded for a number of things such as education, age, abilities in English or French, work experience, etc.
If you can prove that you have a qualifying relative living in Canada who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident then you will be awarded five points for “adaptability,” since it is assumed that your relative will help you to adapt to your new life in Canada.
It is important to note that your uncle cannot “sponsor” you and, in fact, does not assume any responsibility for you in any way. He does not need to “consent” to your immigration as it is his status and residency in Canada that gives you points, not his willingness to support you. Interestingly enough, there is no legal requirement that he even know of your immigration plans although it is likely that he will since you will likely need his help in gathering certain documents.
What you must do is prove three things. First, you must prove his status in Canada through a Canadian birth certificate, passport, citizenship certificate, or a record of landing or permanent resident card.
You must also show that he is living here. This is usually accomplished through a provincial driver’s license, a Canadian employment letter, a deed to property here, utility bills etc.
As for proving his relationship, there is no method stated in our immigration laws for doing so. Normally, you will be asked to provide the birth certificate of your parent who is your uncle's sibling. You will also need your uncle’s birth certificate. Both certificates should show the same parents. This proves that your uncle is the sibling of one of your parents.
When one or both of these birth certificates is not available, you will need to get creative. You should always start by producing affidavits from one or more reliable sources attesting to the qualifying relationship and the source of that knowledge. You should also have a sworn statement explaining the absence of these certificates. Officers know that in many parts of the world births are not always recorded. If your uncle immigrated to Canada, he may have disclosed the existence of your parent when he completed his forms. That might help to buttress your case. If he didn’t…look out!
Remember, you bear the burden of proving your case. If you need these points to reach 67, the officer will look at your evidence much more closely because it is determinative of your application and you are relying on less than ideal proof.
I am confident that you will be fine and that you will be joining your uncle here sometime soon.

How will the recent downturn affect immigration levels?
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
January 05, 2009 08:00
I was asked recently how the current economic downturn might affect Canada’s annual immigration levels.
Immigration laws require our immigration minister to table a report with Parliament no later than 30 days after Nov. 1 of each year setting out how many newcomers Canada took in during the previous year and how many it plans to take on in the coming year.
Accordingly, in late November 2008, newly-appointed immigration minister Jason Kenney announced that in 2009 between 240,000-265,000 new permanent residents will be accepted in Canada. This exact target was used three years in a row and hasn’t really deviated too much from the annual targets set over the previous decade or two. In setting this target, Kenney maintained that this number is necessary to respond to the diverse skill requirements “of an expanding and dynamic economy.”
In his report the minister also hailed the accomplishment of his government when it passed Bill C-50, which presumably gave the immigration minister “more flexibility in processing and managing applications.”
Logic dictates that the minister might now wish to avail himself of his newly acquired powers and adjust his immigration plan, given that the plan was premised upon “an expanding and dynamic economy” when, in fact, we are confronted by a shrinking and underperforming one.
The truth is that, in terms of immigrants coming here permanently, it is unlikely that the actual number that will be admitted in 2009 will be far different from the one forecasted. Even if it were, it would likely have little impact on the Canadian workforce.
The reason is that as a percentage of our population, 240,000-265,000 newcomers represent less than one per cent of our national population. This number is even less significant when we factor in people who will be leaving Canada permanently during the same period.
Furthermore, the minister doesn’t really have that much wiggle room. Up to 71,000 of these future immigrants will be coming to Canada under the family class as sponsored spouses, partners, parents, children, and grandparents. It would be unwise for the minister to tell Canadians that their close family members will not be coming to Canada this year due to a deterioration in our economic conditions. Another 27,200 permanent visas are reserved for protected persons who we are, more-or-less, bound to offer refuge or protection here. Then there is another 10,000 immigrants who we will be accepting for a wide range of humanitarian considerations. That will leave about 156,600 in the “economic class” of which a growing percentage is selected by the provinces and territories. Kenny is certainly not likely to take them on either.
There is no doubt that the economic downturn will be more severe in countries whose economies are not as diverse and mature as ours, thereby making Canada relatively more appealing. However, that will only increase the number of applications we are likely to receive, but not the number of permanent residents that we will accept.
As for those who will want to come to Canada on temporary work permits, it is likely that it will be more difficult for them to get a favourable labour market opinion from HRSDC whose job it is to make sure that Canadian workers are not overlooked when our jobs are offered to foreigners.
Canadian businesses are able and willing to change direction quickly when market conditions dictate. Although the legal mechanisms exist in our immigration program to effect changes, for practical and political reasons it is not an easy option to exercise.

Canada follows the Americans' lead in extending duration of work permits
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
December 28, 2008 06:42
In May, I wrote about an announcement by the U.S. immigration service whereby it would start to issue TN work permits to Canadian and Mexican professionals for a maximum duration of three years as opposed to the previous maximum of one year.
The purpose for this change was to make employment in the U.S. for Canadian and Mexican professionals “more attractive.” Specifically, the change would reduce the potential for interrupted employment caused by annual renewals and delays in processing. It would create a more stable and predictable work force and provide cost and resource savings to the foreign workers and to their American employers.
Although this initiative applied only to professionals admitted to the U.S. under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the action taken by the Americans was entirely unilateral. Although, neither Canada nor Mexico committed to reciprocity, it was expected that they would follow suit.

Canada has now done so.
On Dec. 15th Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced that American and Mexican professionals seeking to work temporarily in Canada under NAFTA can get work permits for up to three years at a time. This is a good thing since foreign workers have better things to do than run between their HR departments and their immigration lawyers every 12 months to renew their status and that of their accompanying family members.
Although there is no legal limit to the number of times a foreign worker can renew these NAFTA permits, they will only be renewed as long as the reviewing officer feels that the worker is still here “temporarily.”
This has always been a weird sort of concept for me because these workers are not always here for assignments that have a finite purpose (i.e. building a bridge or setting up a computer system). Often these positions (i.e. accountants, architects, lawyers etc.) are offered and accepted on a basis that is perceived to be open-ended. Someone coming to Canada to work for a year or more in one of these occupations will often give up a job in their home country to accept the one being offered here. They are also likely to give up their dwelling abroad and bring their family and belongings here with them. Rarely do they have fixed arrangements to return to their country. Yet they still need to show a “temporary intent” both at the time of their initial entry and again at the time of renewal. It will be interesting to see what our border officers will be looking for in the form of proof of a “temporary intent” when the person will be coming here for at least three years.
While I wholeheartedly support this development, it is nonetheless interesting to note the title of my Nov. 16th column, “To predict the future of Canadian immigration policy, look to the U.S.” In this case, the title seems very aptly named since we followed in lock-step with our American counterparts notwithstanding, perhaps, some very strong reasons not to do so.
In May 2008, it no doubt made perfect sense for the Americans to make a career in the U.S. “more attractive” to foreign professionals. However, since then the wheels have suddenly and completely fallen off the economic bus here and there. Without the American announcement in May, I doubt that a Canadian immigration minister would have ever agreed to a threefold increase in the duration of work permits offered to any class of foreign workers at the same time that we are witnessing record job losses and unprecedented government bailouts.
Not an objection, just a thought.

Changes to skilled worker program even worse than originally feared
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
December 07, 2008 11:45
Last week I wrote about the inherent unfairness in our immigration minister’s plan to restructure our Federal Skilled Worker program.
Unfortunately, there’s more.
I explained that those who applied after Feb. 28, 2008 would be given priority in terms of processing over those who filed before that date. Strange perhaps, but true.
In order to qualify for this preferential treatment, applicants would have to have arranged employment confirmed by HRSDC, one year of lawful residence in Canada as a foreign student or worker, or at least one year of experience in one of 38 designated occupations.
An obvious question arises: What happens to a person who meets all of these qualifications but who applied before Feb. 28, perhaps years before?
Logic suggests that his application would be processed ahead of those who applied later with the same qualifications. However, as remarkable as it may seem, the word from some of my colleagues is that this may not be the case at all. It seems that a strict reading of the minister’s instructions of Nov. 28 excludes these cases for the sole reason that they were received prior to Feb. 28.
It may be too early to tell if CIC will actually interpret the instructions in this manner. However, if it does, we will have a system that treats people who applied first in an inferior way to those with the same qualities who applied later. That would mean that those who have been waiting for years, but who incidentally have the very qualities we are now seeking, will have to submit a second application just so that it post-dates Feb. 28. Of course, a second processing fee will be expected.
We have come to expect a certain amount of inefficiency and unfairness in our immigration system. However, now we may need to learn to deal with sheer wackiness.
On another note, the minister has now, for the first time ever, placed the Federal Skilled Worker program beyond the reach of the humanitarian and compassionate provisions of Canada’s immigration legislation. These provisions have long applied to all categories of immigration to this country. If a person wished to live here permanently but could not, for whatever reason, comply with one of our many requirements, he/she could ask the minister for an exemption from that provision provided that sufficient humanitarian and compassionates grounds exist. The skilled worker category is now the first immigration category, and possibly not the last, that will have no such flexibility whatsoever regardless of how compelling the humanitarian considerations may be.
Not such a great start for our new immigration minister, Jason Kenney.

The 'effortless peace' of Canadian multiculturalism
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
December 21, 2008 08:21


Joseph and Alex have been best friends for many years.

Joseph was born here in Canada. His parents are of Christian-Lebanese descent.

Alex was born in India to traditional Sikh parents who immigrated here when he was just a boy.

Their backgrounds are as different as their personalities. Joe is the consummate professional… cool, calm, organized … and is always sporting an infectious smile. Alex on the other hand has a mind that simply races as if it were in Formula One. His ideas and words flow a mile a minute.

Joe and Alex worked together in a computer company that used to look after my law firm's computer network. When that company folded, they struck it out on their own as partners. I didn’t hesitate in being amongst the first to give them my business. Since launching Jolera in 2001, the guys grew their venture to become the 49th fastest-growing company in Canada.
As if these two didn’t do absolutely everything together, they both became engaged right at about the same time. I felt honoured to be invited, along with my wife, to Alex’s wedding last Saturday night.
Monica and I arrived at the festivities a bit late since we had to await the conclusion of the Jewish Sabbath. Although Joseph was busy with his duties as master of ceremonies he nonetheless made sure to guard our seats at his table. He and his sisters made every effort to find something kosher for my wife and me to eat.
Sitting next to us was a mixed race couple (he’s black, she’s white) who have been married for about 20 years, much like Monica and I. My wife, who is of Hungarian and Polish parents, spent the night chatting with them and sharing funny stories about the challenges of raising daughters into their teenage years.
The band was tremendous. They played some of my favourites; James Brown, Stevie Wonder and the like. When they put their instruments down, an Indian drummer leapt out in front of the stage beating both sides of the traditional drum hanging from his neck. Immediately, men and boys sporting turbans of every colour exploded onto the dance floor with their hands and wrists held high in a twitching rhythmic manner. I quickly jumped in with both Moroccan feet trying to catch the unfamiliar but beautiful beat of their traditional Indian music.
As for Alex and his beautiful bride, Aman, they just looked so much in love.
Of all the speeches given that night, I remember most that of Alex’s mom. She talked about how she and her husband decided to leave their birthplace, India, to come to Canada, not for their own sake but for that of their children. When I was young, I heard this sentiment from my own parents and more recently from many of my clients over the years.
Alex’s mom recounted that young Alex was embarrassed about her wearing a sari in public when she dropped him off at elementary school. He was afraid that his friends would think that they had just “gotten off the boat.” She said that she was proud that, as an adult, he chose a bride who, although modern, was sufficiently steeped in her own culture to wear a sari for her wedding ceremony.
As an immigration lawyer, I have never viewed my role as a pitchman for Canada. If people choose, on their own, to live here I will simply help them make it happen.
But as I looked at the scene around me I couldn’t help but feel so proud of my adopted country and the peace, joy, harmony, tolerance and prosperity that we have cultivated together in this vast and chilly piece of the planet.
While basking in the warmth of this celebration, I recalled how I spent the weekend before -- lighting candles at a memorial in Mississauga commemorating the victims of the recent terrorist attacks, a world away in Mumbai, which claimed more than 160 innocent lives.
While some of our world leaders wage wars to achieve peace, and while others draft lofty accords in hopes of achieving amity, at a banquet room last week in the lower level of the Wyndham Garden Hotel, there was no such struggle.
Wedding guests of every major faith, colour, and ethnicity gathered effortlessly on a peaceful, wintery Canadian night to celebrate the union of two young people in love.
I have no doubt that such scenes play themselves out every day all over this country. We hardly even take notice.
Yet, this is why this country is so great and why so many people simply want to live here.
May we Canadians enjoy this effortless peace during this holiday season, now and for always, and may we stand as a source of inspiration for our friends around the world who simply want to live in peace.
Happy holidays to all.

To predict the future of Canadian immigration policy, look to the U.S.
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
November 16, 2008 11:47
Whenever a new minister of immigration is appointed in Canada, the pundits pull out the tea leaves in search of a glimpse into the future of Canadian immigration policy.

I, on the other hand, don’t really bother much.

The truth is that Canadian immigration ministers rarely exercise any significant personal influence on our immigration policy. They rarely have any immigration experience whatsoever or any publicly known positions on immigration policy prior to assuming responsibility for this portfolio.
Even if they did, they are not free to exercise their own will. They are but one voice in cabinet and take their direction, not from their conscience, but from the prime minister's office. In any event, they are rarely around long enough to actually do anything of substance before the revolving door to CIC’s national headquarters spins around and smacks them on the behind in the opposite direction.
Since February 2006, when Stephen Harper became prime minister of Canada, he has named not one, not two, but three immigration ministers. Monte Solberg lasted 11 months, and Diane Finley lasted 22 months before being replaced on Oct. 30th by Jason Kenney.
Both Solberg and Finley were tightly managed by the PMO and neither articulated anything remotely bold or creative in respect of an immigration program, which just about everybody agrees is sorely in need of major repair.
This past week, Kenney offered no profound insight into where we may be headed. All he said was “I look forward to the privilege of serving as Canada’s Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism as we continue our commitment to reuniting families, to maintaining our humanitarian obligations to refugees, and to supporting Canada’s economy.”
As Jerry Seinfeld might have said “Yadda, yadda, yadda”.
What exactly does Kenney plan to do, if anything, about a backlog of close to 900,000 applications for permanent residence? What about the 500,000 to 1,000,000 undocumented workers in Canada? What are we going to do with them? What are we going to do about our selection system in the face of a looming worldwide recession? Are we going to continue importing the worlds “best and brightest” so that we can seat them behind the wheel of a downtown Toronto cab?
I doubt we will catch any real insight from Kenney, who will be reading closely from his prime minister’s unpublished script.
As for me, I will be looking south of the border for some glimpse of our immigration future.
Since 9/11, the U.S. administration has expressed little stomach for the adoption of any progressive immigration reforms of any kind notwithstanding many objective reasons to act. The White House needed to be seen as "tough" – and not necessarily “smart” - on immigration. Under these circumstances, Canada would not dare risk being seen as “soft” on immigration.
But now our American friends have elected a bold, creative and smart new leader in Barack Obama.
He has a huge mandate, an unprecedented approval rating for any president-elect, and the “ethnic vote."
With respect to immigration he has articulated three basic principles.
First, he wants to secure the U.S. borders to stem the 500,000 or so new illegal immigrants to his country each year.
Second, he intends to crack down on employers who hire illegals.
Third, he intends to create “a pathway to citizenship” for the approximately 12 million people that are already in the United States. Obama concluded wisely that “the notion that we are going to round up 12 million people is unrealistic”.
In the post-9/11 world, Canada could not even dream of an amnesty program for its own illegals even if it was felt to be in our national interest.
If under Obama’s leadership, the U.S. goes in that direction, it will pave the way for our own government to do the same. Perhaps we will follow up on some other much needed immigration reforms.
In my view, if you want to see where Canada might be headed, follow Obama…not Kenney.

Plenty of questions when sponsoring a common-law partner
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
November 09, 2008 11:50

Q. I am a Canadian citizen residing in Toronto and am engaged to a person who doesn't have legal status in Canada. He's never been convicted of a crime and he doesn't have any medical problems. We've been in this relationship for about three years. Now it's been a year that we have shared the same bank account and the same apartment. We intend to get married and start a family together since we love and respect each other.
I read on www.cic.gc.ca that “you can apply as a sponsor if your spouse, common-law or conjugal partner, or accompanying dependent children live with you in Canada, even if they do not have legal status in Canada. However, all the other requirements must be met.”
Can I sponsor him and complete the sponsorship process while he's in Canada without him having to return to his country of origin?
Thanks a lot and God bless.

A. You definitely can sponsor him from within Canada and without him having to leave the country. However, there are a few factors to consider.
Firstly, you can’t sponsor a “fiancée,” but you can sponsor a common law partner with whom you have cohabited in a conjugal relationship for at least one year. (See my most recent column in which I described what you will have to prove to qualify as such.) Since you have lived together in your apartment for one year, you may qualify if you meet all the other conditions.
Secondly, since your fiancée is here illegally, he has shown a strong willingness to stay in Canada since he is willing to break Canadian law in order to remain here. This will definitely be a factor in the mind of the officer who will have to decide whether he is staying in Canada to be with you or whether he is with you so he can stay in Canada.
Thirdly, cases processed in Canada can be quick (i.e. one of our clients who we filed for in April, 2008 is scheduled to be landed next week). However, if CIC decides to interview your fiancée, then it will definitely take longer -- more than a year depending on how busy your local CIC is.
Your fiancé is more likely to be referred to an interview due to his unlawful status here. If an interview is scheduled, your application may take longer inland than it would take overseas, again depending on the processing timeframes of the visa post responsible for your fiancée’s country of nationality.
Finally, there is always a chance, usually small, that your fiancé could be detained by immigration authorities. This is not likely if your fiancé merely overstayed his status here.
However, if he was known to be here by immigration authorities and was asked to leave but didn’t, the chances of arrest are higher. Immigration officials will have to decide if he is a “flight risk” even though he has come forward and identified himself and his whereabouts.
I would recommend that you see an experienced immigration professional for a consultation so that you can determine whether or not you want to go at it on your own or with hired help.

Living together is not enough for “common law” status
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
October 27, 2008 03:56

Q: I just heard today, that getting landed immigration status within Canada through marriage is not really necessary anymore. I heard that if the couple just lives together for a year, they would be considered as “common-law” and immigration (officials) would accept this for landed immigrant status. Is this really true?

A: This is true…sort of.
It is true that in June 2002 Canadian citizens and permanent residents were granted the right to sponsor their “common law partners”. It is also true that these cases can now be processed from within Canada.
However, where you might be going wrong is when you say that they “just” have to live together for a year. If this were true that would mean that we can sponsor someone who is nothing more to us than a roommate. This is not so.
In order for two people to be considered common law partners they must be in a “conjugal relationship”. The fact that they are having “conjugal” i.e. sexual relations is also not enough. It doesn’t matter if they are in a same-sex or opposite-sex relationship.
CIC expects to see sufficient proof that they have a mutual commitment to a shared life… i.e. “trying out” a life together is not enough. Each must already be committed to a life together. Accordingly, they can’t be simultaneously committed to someone else. They must be committed to sexual exclusivity. They must be physically, emotionally, financially and socially interdependent on one another. The relationship must be permanent, genuine and continuing. They must present themselves as a couple and be perceived by others as such.
In other words it’s like they’re married…but without a certificate.
You may be surprised to know that people can qualify as common law partners even when they are still married to someone else. However, they must prove that their marriage has broken down and that they have lived separate and apart from their spouse for a sufficient enough time to establish a one-year common-law relationship with their current partner.
In certain circumstances, after the one year period of cohabitation has been established, the partners may live apart for some time without legally breaking their cohabitation. If they are separated due to armed conflict, illness of a family member, or for employment or education-related reasons etc, they can still be viewed as living common law. However, one would expect to see evidence that they remain together through visits, correspondence, and telephone calls.
Finally, it’s possible to be considered “common law” even where the couple has not cohabited. If they are committed to each other as described above but are unable to cohabit due to persecution or any form of penal control, then they will be considered to be “common law partners” nonetheless.
So you see, living together may not be enough to qualify as a common law partner whereas the absence of a shared roof may not disqualify a couple from being viewed as such.
Interesting, huh?

Fourteen year old sister not “family”
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
October 19, 2008 08:50

Q: My question is regarding my 14 year old sister and my ability to sponsor her. I am a Canadian citizen but my sister was born abroad. We do not share the same father. I have been living in Toronto for the past several years and I would like to give her the same opportunity. Am I able to sponsor her if we share different fathers? How do I go about this process?

A: Canadian citizens and permanent residents can sponsor their relatives from abroad if they are included in our definition of the “family class”.
We can sponsor our parents and our grandparents.
We can sponsor our same-sex or opposite-sex spouses, common law partners, and conjugal partners.
We can sponsor our children, as long as they are considered “dependent children” (i.e. under 22, or over 22 if still in school, etc). We can even sponsor a child we intend to adopt.
We cannot, however, sponsor our brothers or sisters unless they are under 18, orphaned, unmarried, and not in a common law relationship.
I assume that one of your sister’s parents is still alive since you didn’t say that she was alone abroad. If she is not orphaned, you cannot sponsor her regardless of whether or not you share the same father.
If you adopt her the application could be refused if the reviewing officer were to conclude that the adoption was primarily intended to get her immigration status here. A humanitarian application is unlikely to be successful unless there is some unique hardship that is being suffered by you or your sister beyond that which everyone else in these circumstances might face.
Nonetheless, there may be two possible ways to become reunited with your sister here.
First, if your mom is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, then you can sponsor your mom and she can include your sister as her dependent child. This route will likely take about 33-44 months or more to complete.
Second, if your mom or your sister’s dad is a Canadian citizen or permanent citizen, either of them can sponsor her as a dependent child. This will take about 6-15 months.
I find it interesting that a man or a woman with whom I might be living with in a committed relationship for one year is considered a member of the “family” class even if we do not get married or intend to do so. Whereas, a child who is my natural brother or sister with whom I share the same blood is not considered part of the “family” class regardless of my ability and willingness to support them.
For most people, blood is considered thicker than water. For better or for worse, our immigration laws define our collective Canadian family values differently.

Proper documentation is required to prove pre-removal risk claims
Immigration by Guidy Mamann
October 05, 2008 09:59

To believe, or not to believe?
In this week’s column…that is the question.
Michelle Ferguson was a permanent resident who was convicted in Canada of drug trafficking and then ordered deported to Jamaica after spending about 20 years here.
Prior to being scheduled for removal, she applied to a pre-removal risk assessment officer for protection on the grounds that she would face harm back home on account of her sexual orientation.
The officer agreed, without reservation, that lesbians in Jamaica are at risk of “severe physical abuse” on account of their sexual orientation. However, while the officer never said that Ferguson was lying, the officer nonetheless found that there was “insufficient evidence” to support her claim that she was, in fact, a lesbian.
Accordingly, the officer rejected her claim for protection which then allowed her removal to be scheduled.
What evidence did Ferguson offer to prove that she was a lesbian? A letter from her counsel which merely referred to her as such.
The federal court reviewed this case last month and upheld the officer’s decision.
The court held that although a statement of fact made by counsel on their client’s behalf can sometimes constitute evidence, in these circumstances, it could not be given any more or less weight than if it were given in an unsworn statement by the client.
The court said that it would have given more weight to the assertion if the client’s statement was contained in a sworn affidavit. Even more weight might have been afforded if it were corroborated by a lesbian partner or by public statements.
It is for this reason that I encourage young lawyers to include, whenever possible, all of their clients’ statements of fact in an affidavit rather than in the lawyer’s submissions. They should also, whenever possible, include as much corroborating evidence as possible.
This advice also applies in other hard-to-document situations i.e. those involving sexual assault, unreported spousal abuse, anonymous threats, etc.
The Federal Court will not receive any new or better evidence from the applicant to prove a case at the judicial review stage even if it would possibly save the applicant from what an officer acknowledges might amount to “severe physical abuse.” Therefore, all of the available evidence should be included at the time of the application since “later” will be too late.
The court in Ferguson’s case concluded as follows: “Based on the treatment homosexuals receive in Jamaica…it is truly unfortunate if the Applicant is lesbian that she will be returned to Jamaica. However, every applicant … and their counsel must take responsibility to ensure that all of the relevant evidence is before the officer and, of equal importance, that they present the best evidence in support of the application. Where that is not done, the consequences of a failed application rest with the Applicant and counsel.”
Cold perhaps, but that is how the immigration game is played.

Voice weekly



၀၉၀၃၂၀၀၉ ဒိုင္ယာရီ

“ရယက လာေခၚတာကေတာ့ အစည္းအေဝးတက္ဖုိ႕ပဲ၊ ဘာအတြက္လဲဆုိတာေတာ့ ေျပာမသြားဘူး၊ ဟုိေရာက္ေတာ့မွ မီးစက္ဝယ္ခုိင္းတယ္၊ သူတုိ႕ေျပာေတာ့ တစ္ပတ္အတြင္းဝယ္ရမယ္၊ အေဆာင္မွာ မီးစက္မ႐ွိလုိ႕ ေက်ာင္းသားေတြ အခက္အခဲျဖစ္တာ၊ ေက်ာင္းသားဆႏၵျပတဲ့ အေၾကာင္းက အေဆာင္ပုိင္႐ွင္ကုိ ပုံခ်ၿပီးေျပာတယ္၊ ဒါေၾကာင့္ ရပ္ကြက္လူႀကီးက အတင္းအဓမၼဝယ္ခုိင္းတယ္” ဟု အမ်ဳိးသား အေဆာင္ပုိင္႐ွင္တဦးက ေျပာသည္။

file ရယူရန္

\ျပည္တြင္းမွအီးေမးလ္မ်ားသို႕တဆင့္ပို႕ေပးျခင္းျဖင့္သတင္းအေမွာင္က်ေနေသာျပည္သူမ်ားကုိကူညီၾကပါ။

ျပည္သူလူထုတစ္ရပ္လုံး လွ်ပ္စစ္မီး ရရွိေရး။

ဖိုင္ရယူရန္


ရွင္သန္ေနသည့္ သမုိင္းထဲမွ ‘သူတို႔တေတြ’


ေလာအယ္စုိး
မတ္ ၉၊ ၂၀၀၉

က်ေနာ္ အေမရိကန္ႏုိင္ငံကို ေရာက္တ့ဲအခါ၊ အစစအရာရာမွာ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံထက္ အဆင္ေျပတာေတြကုိ ၾကံဳေတြ႔၊ ခံစားရပါတယ္။ သာမန္ အေျခခံကိစၥေလးေတြျဖစ္တ့ဲ စားေရး ေသာက္ေရး၊ သြားေရး၊ လာေရးေတြပါ။

အစားအေသာက္ဆိုရင္လည္း ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံနဲ႔ စာရင္ တကယ့္ကုိ အလ်ံအပယ္။ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ မစားရခဲ့သမွ် ပုဇြန္ထုပ္ႀကီးေတြကုိ ဒီမွာ အတုိးခ်ၿပီးေတာ့ကို စားပစ္လိုက္တယ္။

ခရစ္ယာန္တုိ႔ရဲ႕ သမၼာက်မ္းစာထဲက အဆိုျဖစ္တ့ဲ “ႏို႔ႏွင့္ပ်ားရည္၊ စီးဆင္းေသာႏုိင္ငံ” လုိ႔ေတာင္ ေခၚရမလို။

ဒါေပမယ့္ ဒီ အေမရိကန္ကန္ႏိုင္ငံမွာလည္း အခက္အခဲ၊ လူမႈဒုကၡ၊ စိန္ေခၚမႈ အသစ္ေတြ ကလည္း အမ်ားႀကီး ရိွပါတယ္။ ျပႆနာအသစ္ေတြကလည္း သမၼတအသစ္ မစၥတာအုိဘားမား ေျဖရွင္းေပးဖုိ႔ တသီတတန္းႀကီး ေစာင့္ေနတယ္။

အလုပ္လက္မဲ့ ျပႆနာ၊ ေလာင္စာဆီ ျပႆနာ၊ အီရတ္၊ အာဖဂန္နစၥတန္ တုိ႔မွာ စစ္မ်က္ႏွာ ဖြင့္ထားတာေတြကို ဘယ္လုိ အေျဖရွာၾကမလဲ။

အင္အားႀကီးႏုိင္ငံျဖစ္လုိ႔ တျခားႏုိင္ငံငယ္ေလးေတြရဲ႕ ဒုကၡေတြကုိ လူအင္အား၊ ေငြေၾကးအင္အားေတြနဲ႔ ပံုေအာၿပီး ကူညီ ေနေပမယ့္ ကုိယ့္အိမ္တြင္းေရး ဒါမွမဟုတ္ ျပည္တြင္းေရးကိစၥကိုလည္း အေလးထားၿပီး ေျဖရွင္းေပးဖို႔ အတိုက္ခံေတြ၊ မီဒီယာေတြက တစာစာေအာ္ေနတဲ့အခ်ိန္။

ဒီလုိ အခါသမယမွာ က်ေနာ္ အေမရိကန္ႏုိင္ငံကို ေရာက္ရွိျခင္းပါ။ အေကာင္းဘက္က တြက္ၾကည့္ေတာ့ ဆင္ပိန္ရင္လည္း ကြၽဲေလာက္ေတာ့ရွိပါေသးတယ္ေပါ့။

အေသအခ်ာ၊ ေျပာႏုိင္တာတခုကေတာ့၊ စားေရး ေသာက္ေရး၊ ေနေရး၊ ထုိင္ေရးမွာ က်ေနာ့့္လုိ ႏိုင္ငံေရး ခုိလႈံခြင့္ ရရွိထားသူအတြက္ အရမ္းကို အဆင္ေျပပါတယ္။ ဒီကုိေရာက္ၿပီး သံုးလအၾကာမွာ က်ေနာ္ အလုပ္ တခု ရပါတယ္။

ေၾကာ္ျငာပစၥည္းေတြ၊ ဆုိင္းဘုတ္ေတြကို စုသိမ္းၿပီး ထုပ္ပိုးရတ့ဲ အလုပ္ပါ။ ကုမၸဏီလူႀကီးေတြက က်ေနာ္ အပါအဝင္ အလုပ္ခန္႔လုိက္တ့ဲ လူသစ္ ငါးဦးကုိ စားေသာက္ဆုိင္တဆိုင္မွာ ေန႔လည္စာ လုိက္ေကြၽးပါတယ္။

အေမရိကန္ေတြရဲ႕ ၾကားထဲမွာ အာရွသား၊ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံ ဇာတိက က်ေနာ္တေယာက္သာ။ စားေသာက္ဆိုင္အတြင္း စားဖြယ္ရာမ်ား အမ်ိဳးစံုစံုလင္လင္ကုိ တည္ခင္းထားတာကို ျမင္ၿပီး ရင္ထဲက လႈိက္ကာ လႈိက္ကာ ဝမ္းနည္း ဆို႔နင့္မႈတခုကို ရုတ္ခ်ည္းဆုိသလုိ၊ ခံစားလုိက္ရပါတယ္။

“ေၾသာ္ ငါ့မွာေတာ့ အခု အလုပ္ရေတာ့မယ္၊ လုပ္ခ ရမယ္၊ ၿပီးေတာ့ အစားအေသာက္ေကာင္းေတြလည္း စားေသာက္လုိ႔ သူတုိ႔တေတြမွာေတာ့ အခ်ဳပ္အေႏွာင္ အကာအရံ ေတြရဲ႕ အလယ္ အက်ဥ္းေထာင္ထဲမွာ ရွိေနဆဲပါလား” လုိ႔ ေတြးၿပီး၊ ဝမ္းနည္းမိျခင္းပါ။

“သူတုိတေတြဆိုတာကေတာ့” ကိုမင္းကုိႏိုင္၊ ကိုက္ုိႀကီး၊ ကုိျမေအး၊ ကုိဂ်င္မီ၊ ကိုၿပံဳးခ်ိဳ၊ ကိုမာကီး တုိ႔ အပါအဝင္ ရွစ္ဆယ့္ရွစ္ မ်ိဳးဆက္က က်ေနာ့္ရဲ႕ မိတ္ေဆြေတြပါ။

၂ဝဝ၄ခုႏွစ္ ႏိုဝင္ဘာလမွာ ကုိမင္းကိုႏိုင္ ၁၆ႏွစ္လံုးလံုး အထိန္းသိမ္းခံထားရၿပီး ေထာင္ထဲကေန ျပန္လႊတ္လာတုန္းက က်ေနာ္ သူ႔ကို သတင္းဓာတ္ပံု ရုိက္ခဲ့တာပါ။ ကိုကုိႀကီးတုန္းကလည္း က်ေနာ္။သူတုိ႔တေတြကို ၂ဝဝ၇ ခုႏွစ္၊ ၾသဂုတ္လအတြင္း ျပန္လည္ မထိမ္းသိမ္းမီ ကာလအထိ၊ ရွစ္ဆယ့္ရွစ္မ်ိဳးဆက္ေတြရဲ႕ ႏိုင္ငံေရး လႈပ္ရွားမႈေတြကို ေတာက္ေလွ်ာက္ ဓာတ္ပံု သတင္း မွတ္တမ္း ရုိက္ခဲ့တာကလည္း က်ေနာ္။

ျပင္သစ္သတင္းဌာန AFP နဲ႔ ဥေရာပ ဓာတ္ပံုသတင္း ဌာန EPA တုိ႔အတြက္ က်ေနာ္ ဓာတ္ပံုသတင္းေထာက္ အျဖစ္ လုပ္ကိုင္ေနစဥ္ ေလးႏွစ္ေက်ာ္ေက်ာ္ကာလအတြင္း ဒီရွစ္ဆယ့္ရွစ္ မ်ိဳးဆက္က ရဲေဘာ္ေတြနဲ႔ ပါဝင္ပတ္သက္ရျခင္းပါ။

အမွန္အတိုင္းဝန္ခံရရင္ သူတို႔တေတြကို ဓာတ္ပံု သတင္းေထာက္ တေယာက္အေနနဲ႔ အလုပ္သေဘာအရ ပတ္သက္ျခင္းထက္ သူတုိ႔ရဲ႕ စြန္႔လႊတ္ အနစ္နာခံမႈမ်ားကို ေလးစားၿပီး သံေယာဇဥ္ တြယ္မိခဲ့ျခင္းပါပဲ။

သတင္းေထာက္ေတြရဲ ့ က်င့္ဝတ္အရ ဘက္မလုိက္ရဘဲ တတိယလူ သတင္းယူသူတေယာက္ အျဖစ္ပဲ ရပ္တည္ရမယ္ဆိုတာ က်ေနာ္သိပါတယ္။

သူတုိ႔တေတြရဲ႕ ဒီမုိကေရစီရရွိေရး လႈပ္ရွားမႈ၊ ႏိုင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားမ်ား လြတ္ေျမာက္ေရး လႈပ္ရွားမႈမ်ားကို က်ေနာ့္ရဲ႕သတင္း ဓာတ္ပံုကေနတဆင့္ ကမၻာက သိေအာင္ ႀကိဳးစားၿပီး အတတ္ႏုိင္ဆံုး က်ေနာ္လုပ္ေဆာင္ႏုိင္သေလာက္ လုပ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ ၿပီးေတာ့လည္း “သူတုိ႔တေတြ” ကုိ “သတင္းထဲက လူေတြထက္ သမုိင္းထဲကလူေတြ” ဆုိၿပီး ရင္ထဲက အသိအမွတ္ျပဳခဲ့ျခင္းပါ။

ကိုမင္းကိုႏုိင္၊ ကုိကုိႀကီး၊ ကုိၿပံဳးခ်ိဳတုိ႔ ဒုတိယအႀကိမ္ ျပန္လႊတ္လာေတာ့ မနက္ အေစာႀကီး ႏွစ္နာရီခြဲေလာက္ က်ေနာ္ဆီကို ရွစ္ဆယ့္ရွစ္ မ်ိဳးဆက္က ကိုမာကီး တယ္လီဖုန္း ဆက္လာပါတယ္၊ “သူတုိ႔တေတြ ျပန္လႊတ္ၿပီ” ဆုိတာေပါ့။ ကိုမင္းကိုႏုိင္ရဲ႕ သဃၤန္းကြၽန္းအိမ္ကုိ ေရာက္ေတာ့ မနက္သံုးနာရီ ေက်ာ္ေနပါၿပီ၊ ကုိမင္းကိုႏုိင္တေယာက္ ျပည္ပ သတင္းဌာနေတြကို တယ္လီဖုန္းနဲ႔ စကားေျပာေနတုန္း အဲဒီပံုရိပ္ကုိ က်ေနာ္ မွတ္တမ္းတင္ႏုိင္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။

ကုိေပၚဦး (သို႔မဟုတ္) ကိုမင္းကိုႏိုင္က က်ေနာ့္ကို “အယ္စုိး ငါတုိ႔တေတြရဲ႕ သန္းေခါင္ယံ လြတ္လပ္ျခင္းကြ” လုိ႔ အားမာန္အျပည့္ ၿပံဳးၿပီး ေျပာခဲ့ပါေသးတယ္။ က်ေနာ္ရုိက္ေပးခဲ့တဲ့ အဲဒီဓာတ္ပံုကုိလည္း ကုိေပၚဦးက အိမ္ဧည့္ခန္းမွာ ခ်ိတ္ဆဲြထားလုိက္တာကိုလည္း က်ေနာ္အရမ္းကို ဂုဏ္ယူၿပီး၊ စိတ္ခ်မ္းသာမိတာ အမွန္ပါ။

အခုလည္း တတိယ အႀကိမ္ “သူတုိ႔တေတြကို” ျပန္ၿပီး၊ ထိန္းသိမ္းလုိက္ျပန္ပါၿပီ။ ဘယ္ေန႔မွာ ျပန္ၿပီး လြတ္ေျမာက္မလဲဆိုတာ က်ေနာ္မသိပါ။ ဒါေပမယ့္ “သူတို႔တေတြ” ျပန္ကို လြတ္လာလိမ့္မယ္ ဆိုတာကို က်ေနာ္ သံသယမရွိ အျပည့္အဝကုိ ယံုၾကည္ပါတယ္။ ဘာေၾကာင့္လဲဆိုေတာ့ က်ေနာ္ အခုိင္အမာ ယံုၾကည္ထားတာ တခု ရွိပါတယ္၊ အဲဒါကေတာ့ တရားမမွ်တျခင္းကုိ တရားမွ်တျခင္းက တေန႔မွာ မလြဲမေသြ အႏုိင္ရစၿမဲ ဆုိတာပါပဲ။

ကုိမင္းကိုႏုိင္တုိ႔ တေန႔မွာ အႏုိင္ရပါလိမ့္မယ္။ သူတုိ႔တေတြ အႏုိင္ရရွိျခင္းဟာ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံက အဖိႏွိပ္ခံျပည္သူ ျပည္သား မ်ားရဲ႕ လြတ္ေျမာက္ျခင္း (သုိ႔) အႏုိင္ရရွိျခင္းပဲ မဟုတ္ပါလား။ သတင္းေတြမွာထက္၊ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံရဲ႕ သမိုင္းမွာ သူတို႔ တေတြ အျမဲ ထာဝစဥ္ ရွင္သန္ေနၿပီး ေနရာယူေနမွာပါ။ ။



စစ္အစိုးရ၏ စိတ္ေနသေဘာထား

Monday, 09 March 2009 12:38 ေစာထြန္း
ဂရစ္ဖစ္တကၠသိုလ္ ဂရစ္ဖစ္ အာရွ အင္စတီက်ဳ (Griffith Asia Institute) မွ အင္ဒရူးဆဲလ္သ္ -Andrew Selth က ေဖေဖာ္ဝါရီလ ဆန္းပိုင္း နယူးေဒလီတြင္ က်င္းပခဲ့သည့္ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးႏွင့္ ပဋိပကၡေလ့လာေရး အင္စတီက်ဳ (Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies) ၌ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံႏွင့္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ ၾသဇာ၏ အကန္႔အသတ္မ်ား (Burma and the limits of International Influence) ဆိုသည့္ ေခါင္းစဥ္ႏွင့္ ေဆြးေႏြးရာတြင္ စစ္အစိုးရႏွင့္ ဆက္ဆံရာတြင္ စစ္အစိုးရ၏ စိတ္သေဘာထားကို ႏိုင္ငံတကာ အသိုင္းအဝိုင္း က နားလည္ရန္ လိုအပ္ေၾကာင္းျဖင့္ ေျပာၾကားခဲ့သည္ ကို မဇၩိမသတင္းစာမ်က္ႏွာတြင္ဖတ္ရပါသည္။

ဤတြင္ စစ္အစိုးရ၏စိတ္သေဘာထားမွာ ဘာလဲဟူေသာေမးခြန္းေပၚလာပါသည္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕အားလံုးသိထားၾကသည့္ သတင္းေမွာင္ခ်ျခင္း၊ ေျပာင္ျငင္းကြယ္ျခင္း၊ တရားမဲ့ဥပေဒမ်ားျဖင့္ အေရးယူေဆာင္ရြက္ျခင္း၊ ယံုၾကည္မႈအတြက္ သာမာန္လူမ်ား၊ ေက်ာင္းသားငယ္မ်ားသာမက သံဃာမ်ားကို ပါညွင္းဆဲသတ္ျဖတ္ျခင္းတို႕ကို မာခီးယားဗယ္လီ၏အယူအဆအတိုင္း (ၾကားေနအဖြဲ႕ဆိုသည့္ ေက်ာင္းေတာ္သား ႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီမွေျပာသလို) ရပ္တည္ခ်က္ထိပါးလာ၍ ျပတ္ျပတ္သားသား ေဆာင္ရြက္ျခင္း ဟုသာထားမည္ဆိုလွ်င္၊ မတရားစီးပြားအခြင့္အေရးယူျခင္းမ်ားကို သူလည္းေလေလာကီသားေပမို႕ဟု နားလည္မႈ ေပးၾကမည္ဆိုလွ်င္၊ စစ္အစိုးရ၏ ပင္မရပ္တည္ခ်က္မွာ (အစဥ္အာဏာတည္ျမဲေရးသာ ဟု လည္း မေျပာလိုဘူးဆိုလွ်င္) ဘာလဲဟု စဥ္းစားၾကရန္ရွိပါသည္။ ယခုေဆာင္းပါးတြင္ ကၽြန္ေတာ္သိနားလည္သေလာက္ သူတို႕ သေဘာထားမွန္ကို ရွင္းျပလိုပါသည္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္သည္ စစ္သား သားသမီးတစ္ဦးျဖစ္ၿပီး ၈၈ ေခတ္ ေက်ာင္းသားလႈပ္ရွားသူ တစ္ဦးလည္းျဖစ္ပါ၍ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ အတိုက္အခံ ႏိုင္ငံေရးေခါင္းေဆာင္တိုင္း မသိရွိေသးသည့္ အခ်က္မ်ားကို သိရွိသည္ဟု ထင္ပါသည္။ မည္သို႕ပင္ဆိုေစ ေဆြးေႏြးစရာ အခ်က္မ်ားေတာ့ရႏိုင္ပါလိမ့္မည္။

ယေန႕တပ္မေတာ္၏ ယံုၾကည္ရပ္တည္ခ်က္က ဘာပါလဲ။ ၈၈ ေခတ္အထိေတာ့ ရွင္းလင္းစြာပင္ ဦးေန၀င္း၏ ရပ္တည္ခ်က္အတိုင္း ျဖစ္ ပါသည္။ ကြန္ျမဴနစ္ႏွင့္ ဓနရွင္ပါလီမာန္ဒီမိုကေရစီကို မယံုၾကည္။ ယင္းတို႕ ႏွစ္မ်ဳိးၾကား အလည္အလတ္ သြားႏိုင္မည့္ လမ္းစဥ္ တစ္ရပ္ကို တစ္ခ်ိန္က ထူးခၽြန္ေသာ ႏိုင္ငံေရးသေဘာတရားဆရာမ်ားအား ေရးဆြဲေစကာ စမ္းသပ္က်င့္သံုးၾကည့္ခဲ့သည္။ ၁၉၇၇ တြင္ အေရးေပၚပါတီညီလာခံေခၚရသည္အထိျဖစ္သြားကာ ယင္းလမ္းေၾကာင္းမွ သိသိသာသာခြဲကာ မိမိသေဘာက်စနစ္ကို က်င့္သံုးခဲ့ေတာ့သည္။ ေနာက္ဆံုး ၁၉၈၅ တြင္ စီးပြားေရးက်ဆံုးမႈေၾကာင့္ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ႀကီးတိန္႕ေရွာင္ဖိန္ကို အားက်ကာ ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲဖို႕ စ စဥ္းစားသည္။


သို႕ေသာ္ ကိုယ္တိုင္ဖ်က္စီးခဲ့ၿပီးေသာ ျဗဴရိုကေရစီယႏၲရားကို မထိန္းႏိုင္ျဖစ္ကာ ၈၈ တြင္ ၿပဳိက်ခဲ့ရသည္။ ၈၈ ခုႏွစ္က ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕၏လႈပ္ရွားမႈသည္ အင္အားျပင္းထန္တာမွန္ေသာ္လည္း အဆိုပါ ပ်က္စီးၿပီး ျဗဴရိုကေရစီ အဖြဲ႕အစည္းႀကီး လြယ္လြယ္ႏွင့္ ၿပဳိမက်လ်င္ ထိုမွ် ခရီးမေရာက္ႏိုင္သည္မွာ ေသခ်ာပါသည္။ ထုိအခါ ဦးေန၀င္းက သူ႕သေဘာ အတိုင္း ေနာက္ဖဲတစ္မ်ဳိးခ်ဳိးၿပီး စစ္တပ္ကို အာဏာျပန္သိမ္းေစခဲ့သည္။ ထိုအခ်ိန္က တပ္တြင္း အရာရွိမ်ားျဖစ္ေနေသာ၊ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ တို႕ႏွင့္ေက်ာင္းေနဖက္မွ စစ္ထဲေရာက္သြားၾကေသာ သူတို႕ကို မည္သို႕လမ္းညႊန္ခဲ့သနည္း။ ထိုစဥ္က ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ခင္ညြန္႕တို႕ ရွင္းလင္းပြဲေတြမွာ ေပၚလြင္ပါသည္။ စစ္တပ္၏ရန္သူျဖစ္ေသာ ကြန္ျမဴနစ္မ်ားႀကဳိးကိုင္မႈ ႏွင့္ ကိုလိုနီလက္သစ္လုပ္လိုေသာ (မွတ္ခ်က္။ အဆိုပါစကားမွာ ကြန္ျမဴနစ္စကားျဖစ္ပါသည္) နယ္ခ်ဲ႕ႏိုင္ငံႀကီးမ်ား၏ ႀကဳိးကိုင္မႈျဖစ္သည္ဟု သူတို႕ရဲေဘာ္ေတြကို သင္ျပခဲ့ပါသည္။ ယေန႕အထိလည္း သည္အတိုင္း သင္ၾကားပို႕ခ်ဆဲျဖစ္ပါသည္။

ေနာက္ပိုင္း ဦးေန၀င္းကို သူတို႕ရွင္းထုတ္ပစ္ႏိုင္ခဲ့ေသာ္လည္း ယေန႕ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားသည္ ဦးေန၀င္းကဲ့သို႕ လြတ္လပ္ေရးတိုက္ပြဲ ႏွင့္ စစ္ေအးကာလ ကမာၻ႕ႏိုင္ငံေရး အေတြ႕အၾကံဳရွိသူမ်ား မဟုတ္ပါ။ စစ္ေအးကာလအတြင္း ဦးေန၀င္းကဲ့သို႕ အမ်ဳိးသားေရးႏွင့္ ဘက္မလိုက္ေရး၀ါဒမ်ားျဖင့္ ရပ္တည္ႏိုင္ေအာင္ မစြမ္းႏိုင္ၾကပါ။ ႏိုင္ငံေရးကစားသည့္ သီအိုရီလည္း မကၽြမ္းက်င္ၾကပါ။ သို႕ေသာ္ သူတို႕အတြက္ နည္းလမ္းရွိလာခဲ့ၿပီး ယေန႕ကာလ အခ်ိဳ႕ ကမာၻ႕ပညာရွင္ဆိုသူမ်ား၊ သတင္းစာဆရာႀကီးဆိုသူမ်ားပင္ ခ်ီးမြန္းရေလာက္ေအာင္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးကို ပိုင္ႏိုင္သည္၊ အာဏာႏိုင္ငံေရးကို ကၽြမ္းက်င္သည္ ဟု သံုးသပ္လာရသည့္ အေျခအေနသို႕ ေရာက္ စြမ္းေဆာင္ခဲ့သည္မွာ အဓိက အေၾကာင္းတရား ၂ မ်ဳိးျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ပထမအေၾကာင္းတရားသည္ သူတို႕အား တြန္းပို႕ေပးႏိုင္သည့္ တြန္းအားျဖစ္ၿပီး ဒုတိယ အေၾကာင္းတရားသည္ နည္းပရိယာယ္ျဖစ္ပါသည္။

ပထမအေၾကာင္းတရား (သို႕မဟုတ္) စစ္တပ္၀ါဒ

စစ္တပ္၀ါဒ ဟု အမည္တတ္သျဖင့္ ၾကမ္းတမ္းစြာသံုးႏႈန္းလိုျခင္း မဟုတ္ပါ။ ယေန႕ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲအထိမွန္းလာသည့္ အယူအဆကို ျဖစ္ေစသည့္ ၀ါဒတရားျဖစ္ပါသည္။ (မွတ္ခ်က္၊ ဦးေန၀င္း သည္ ၁၁ ႏွစ္အၾကာတြင္ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲလုပ္ခဲ့ၿပီး ယခု ဦးသန္းေရႊက ၂၂ ႏွစ္ၾကာမွ လုပ္ႏိုင္ျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။) ဦးေန၀င္း၏ စစ္သည္ေတာ္က်င့္၀တ္တြင္ စတင္ခဲ့ေသာ ၀ါဒျဖစ္ပါသည္။ စစ္တပ္အတြင္း မည္သည့္ပံုစံျဖင့္ ၀င္လာသည္ျဖစ္ေစ စည္းကမ္း (ဤတြင္ အမိန္႕နာခံမႈကို ၄င္းတို႕က စည္းကမ္းဟုေခၚပါသည္) က်နေအာင္ ပံုသြင္းေပးလိုက္ ပါသည္။ ငယ္စဥ္က လမ္းစဥ္လူငယ္ စစ္ေရးျပ သင္တန္းဆင္း ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ကို အကို၀မ္းကြဲ စစ္ဗိုလ္က ေမးဘူးပါသည္။ “ညီေလး စစ္ေရးျပဆိုတာ ဘာလုပ္တာလဲ မင္းသိလား” ကၽြန္ေတာ္က စည္းကမ္းက်ေအာင္သင္ေပးတာ ထင္ေၾကာင္း ေျပာေသာအခါ “မဟုတ္ဘူးကြ၊ အဲဒါ အမိန္႕ကို မစဥ္းစားပဲနာခံတတ္ေအာင္ ပံုသြင္းေပးတာ။ သတိ သက္သာ ေအးေစ ေျပာတဲ့အခါ မင္းက မစဥ္းစားပဲ ခ်က္ျခင္း လုပ္လိုက္တယ္မဟုတ္လား။ ဒီ လို ဘာမွမဟုတ္တဲ့ အျပဳအမူေလးကစၿပီး မစဥ္းစားတဲ့အက်င့္ သြင္းေပးတဲ့အခါ ေရွ႕တန္းမွာ “တက္” လို႕ အမိန္႕ေပးတဲ့အခါ မစဥ္းစားပဲ တက္တဲ့အက်င့္ရသြားတာေပါ့” စာဖတ္နာေသာ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ အကိုသည္ စစ္တပ္ထဲမွာ ရာထူးသိပ္ႀကီးႀကီးမရပါ။ ရွင္းပါသည္။ သို႕ေသာ္ ထိုစဥ္က ၁၈ ႏွစ္သား ေက်ာင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ ျဖစ္လာသည့္ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္အတြက္ ပညာရပါသည္။

စစ္ေရးျပျဖင့္ ပံုသြင္းၿပီးေနာက္ပိုင္း ပင္ပန္းမႈ၊ အနားမေနရမႈတို႕ကို ဆက္လက္ပို႕ခ်ပါသည္။ fatigue ေခၚ အားလတ္ခ်ိန္မရေအာင္ ထားေသာ အလုပ္မ်ားကို ဆက္တိုက္ခိုင္းပါသည္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ မိခင္ျဖစ္သူသည္ အိမ္ေဖာ္ အပ်ဳိရြယ္ေလးမ်ား ထားသည့္အခါ တစ္မ်ဳိးၿပီး တစ္မ်ဳိးခိုင္းေသာေၾကာင့္ ကၽြန္ေတာ္က ေမးဘူးပါသည္။ အေမက “ဒီအရြယ္ အားေနရင္ ေတာင္စိတ္ ေျမာက္စိတ္ေတြ ၀င္တတ္တယ္ သားရဲ႕ ဒါေၾကာင့္ မအားေအာင္ တမင္ရွာခိုင္းရတာ” ဟုေျပာျပပါသည္။ တနည္းအားျဖင့္ စိတ္ေရာလူပါ မလြတ္လတ္ ေအာင္ ထားျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။ သည္ေနာက္မွာေတာ့ ေရွ႕တန္းထြက္ျခင္း၊ (မည္သည့္အေၾကာင္းေၾကာင့္မသိပဲ) စစ္ပြဲဆင္ႏႊဲျခင္း၊ တို႕တြင္ မိမိရဲေဘာ္မ်ား မိုင္းထိ၍ ေျချပတ္လက္ျပတ္ျဖစ္ရျခင္း၊ ေသဆံုးရျခင္း၊ ရန္သူက သတ္ျဖတ္ျခင္း တို႕ျဖင့္ ဆက္လက္ သင္ၾကားပို႕ခ်ေပးျပန္ပါသည္။ ေနာက္ဆံုးအေျဖတစ္ခုသို႕တြန္းပို႕ပါသည္။ ယင္းသည္ ဆိုခဲ့ေသာ “စစ္တပ္၀ါဒ” ျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ရွင္းေအာင္ဆိုရလွ်င္

မိမိတို႕သည္ (တိုင္းျပည္အတြက္) သူမ်ားထက္ အပင္ပန္းခံအလုပ္လုပ္ရသည္။
မိမိတို႕သည္ (တိုင္းျပည္အတြက္) သက္စြန္႕ဆံဖ်ား အလုပ္လုပ္ရသည္။
(ဘာေၾကာင့္မွန္းမသိပဲ ျဖစ္သြားေသာ) ရန္သူေၾကာင့္ မိမိတို႕ ရဲေဘာ္ရဲဘက္ေတြ ထိခိုက္ေသဆံုးရသည္။
မိမိတို႕ကို ႏွိပ္စက္ခဲ့ေသာ ယင္း ရန္သူကို ျပည္သူတခ်ဳိ႕ ေထာက္ခံေနသည္။
မိမိတို႕သည္ အမိန္႕နာခံရသည္။ စစ္စည္းကမ္းျဖင့္ အခ်ိန္ျပည့္ ေနရသည္။ ညအိပ္ေနစဥ္ လာႏႈိးလ်င္ သက္စြန္႕ဆံဖ်ား ခရီး စတင္ရသည္အထိ ၂၄ နာရီထမ္းေဆာင္ရသူမ်ားျဖစ္သည္။

ထိုအခ်ိန္တြင္ သာမာန္ျပည္သူမ်ား၊ ၀န္ထမ္းမ်ား (ယင္းတို႕စကားအရ “အရပ္သားမ်ား”) သည္ သက္သက္သာသာ ေနရသည္။ အသက္စြန္႕ရန္မလို၊ စည္းကမ္းမရွိ၊ အားလတ္ခ်ိန္ေတြ အျပည့္ရွိေနသည္ ။ စီးပြားေရးလုပ္ၿပီး ခ်မ္းသာေနသည္ … ဟူေသာ အေတြးကို ဆက္တိုက္ ပို႕ခ်ေပးပါသည္။ ထိုသို႕ေသာ အနစ္နာခံမႈမ်ားေၾကာင့္ သူတို႕တြင္ “ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အာဏာ” ကို သံုးပိုင္ခြင့္ရွိသည္ ဟု အေျဖထုတ္ေပးပါသည္။

ျပည္သူလူထုႏွင့္ စစ္တပ္အတြင္းအႀကီးမားဆံုး အတားအဆီးသည္ အဆိုပါအေတြးအျမင္ျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ ပညာရွင္ဘ၀ စစ္တပ္ႏွင့္ တြဲ၍ ေတာထဲေတာင္ထဲသြားရသည့္အခါ စစ္ဗိုလ္ေတြ အင္မတန္အံ့ၾသၾကပါသည္။ သူတို႕မွလြဲ၍ ၿမဳိ႕ေပၚတြင္ တိုက္ပံု ၀တ္ေနေသာ လူေပ်ာ့မ်ား ဤသို႕ အပင္ပန္းခံႏိုင္မည္၊ အပင္ပန္းခံအလုပ္လုပ္လိမ့္မည္ဟု မထင္ခဲ့ၾကပါ။ အဂၤလန္မွ ဘြဲ႕ထူးေတြ ရလာသည့္ ဆရာ၀န္ႀကီးသည္လည္း ညလာႏႈိးလွ်င္ ထလိုက္ရမွန္း ဂ်ဴတီယူရမွန္းသူတို႕မသိၾကပါ။ (အစပိုင္းတြင္ မသိၾကပါ၊ ေနာက္ပိုင္းရာထူးရလာေတာ့လည္း မသိခ်င္ၾကေတာ့ပါ)။ တစ္ႏွစ္က တကၠသိုလ္ဆရာမေလးတစ္ဦး ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားႏွင့္ ကြင္းဆင္း ခရီးထြက္လာစဥ္ လက္နက္ကိုင္လက္ခ်က္ႏွင့္ ကြယ္လြန္ပါသည္။ ၀န္ထမ္းတိုင္း၊ ျပည္သူတိုင္း မွာ လက္နက္မဲ့ သက္စြန္႕ဆံဖ်ား မႈေတြ ျပည့္ေနေၾကာင္း သတိမထားမိၾကပါ။

ေနာင္တစ္ခ်ိန္တြင္ ျငိမ္းခ်မ္းစြာဆႏၵျပသူမ်ားအားႏွိမ္နင္းသည့္အခါ ႏိုင္ငံတကာက ယံုၾကည္ခ်က္ေၾကာင့္အက်ဥ္းခ်ခံရျခင္း ဟုျမင္ေသာ္လည္း သူတို႕လို ပင္ပန္းစြာအလုပ္မလုပ္ရပဲ အခြင့္အေရးေတာင္းသူမ်ားဟု ဆက္လက္ျမင္လာပါေတာ့သည္။

သည္ထက္ ပိုႀကီးသည့္ စစ္တပ္၀ါဒတစ္ရပ္မွာ ႏိုင္ငံျခားသားကို အထင္ႀကီးျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ႏိုင္ငံျခားသားမုန္းတီးျခင္း (xenophoebia) သည္ အထင္ႀကီးရာမွ ေၾကာက္လန္႕မုန္းတီးျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ယင္းသည္ မိမိတို႕ ႀကဳိးစားေသာ္လည္း တိုးတက္မႈ မရလာသည့္အခါ ႀကီးေသာအေၾကာင္းျပခ်က္ျဖစ္လာပါသည္။ ႏိုင္ငံျခားသားကို ပိုမို အလုပ္လုပ္သူ၊ ပိုမို ဥာဏ္ႀကီးသူ ဟုျမင္ပါသည္။ ျပည္ပတြင္ တိုးတက္ျခင္းသည္ ယင္းလူမ်ဳိးမ်ား အလုပ္လုပ္၊ ဥာဏ္ျမင့္ေသာေၾကာင့္ျဖစ္ၿပီး ျမန္မာျပည္ မတိုးတက္ျခင္း မွာ စစ္တပ္တစ္တပ္လံုး အလုပ္လုပ္ေသာ္လည္း ျပည္သူေတြ၊ ၀န္ထမ္းေတြ အလုပ္မလုပ္ေသာေၾကာင့္ မတိုးတက္ျခင္းဟုျမင္လာပါသည္။ သည္အတိုင္းလည္း သင္ၾကားေပးပါသည္။ သာမာန္ျပည္သူေတြမွာေတာ့ ႏိုင္ငံျခားသြားအလုပ္ လုပ္ၾကသည့္အခါ ႏိုင္ငံျခားသားကို သူလိုကိုယ္လို ဟုသာျမင္ပါသည္။ အလုပ္လုပ္သေလာက္အခြင့္အေရးရသျဖင့္ အလုပ္လုပ္ၾက သည္။ စည္းကမ္းရွိသေလာက္ စည္းကမ္း၏အက်ဳိးကို ခံစားရသျဖင့္ စည္းကမ္းႏွင့္ေနၾကသည္။ သူတို႕လို ကိုယ္လည္း အခြင့္အေရး ရရင္ ကိုယ့္တိုင္းျပည္လည္း ျဖစ္ႏိုင္ေၾကာင္းနားလည္ၾကသည္။ ႀကီးမားေသာ အေတြးအေခၚကြာဟမႈႀကီးျဖစ္ပါသည္။

ထိုမွတစ္ဆင့္တိုးေသာအခါ စစ္တပ္က ပိုအလုပ္လုပ္ အနစ္နာခံရတဲ့အတြက္ အခြင့္အေရးယူထိုက္သည္ဟု ျမင္လာပါေတာ့သည္။ ႏိုင္ငံေရးသမားမ်ားအား ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အာဏာကို ျဖတ္လမ္းနည္းျဖင့္ ရယူလိုသည္ဟု စြတ္စြဲေပးလိုက္ပါသည္။ တပ္ထဲတြင္ ေနခဲ့ေသာ ငယ္စဥ္က ကၽြန္ေတာ္ကိုယ္တိုင္သည္ အမိန္႕ႏွင့္ အာဏာကို ယံုၾကည္ပါသည္။ ေနာင္ ၈၈ ေခတ္ကိုေက်ာ္မွ စည္းရံုးေရးကို ယံုၾကည္ လာပါသည္။ ပတ္၀န္းက်င္က ပံုသြင္းေပးျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းသည္ စည္းရံုးေရးကို ယံုၾကည္ၿပီး ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေန၀င္း သည္ အမိန္႕ႏွင့္ အာဏာကို ယံုၾကည္ခဲ့ျခင္း၏ ေနာက္ဆက္တြဲ အေမြျဖစ္ပါသည္။

အထက္ပါ စစ္တပ္၀ါဒ သည္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ၊ ဘာသာတရားႏွင့္၊ ႏိုင္ငံေရးသေဘာတရားမ်ား သိရွိနားလည္လာသည့္ အရာရွိႀကီး မ်ားျဖစ္လာသည့္အခါ မိမိတို႕၏ အထက္ပါ က်င့္ထံုးမ်ားႏွင့္ ဆန္႕က်င္ဆံုးျဖတ္မႈတိုင္း၊ အေျဖတိုင္းအတြက္ စိတ္ေျဖစရာ ေဆးေကာင္း ႀကီး တစ္ခြက္ျဖစ္လာပါေတာ့သည္။ ယေန႕ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီးမ်ားအားလံုး ဤအတိုင္း ယံုၾကည္ၾကသည္မွာ မွားယြင္းဖြယ္ မရွိပါ။

ဒုတိယအေၾကာင္းတရား (သို႕မဟုတ္) ပံုတူကူးျခင္း

ဦးေန၀င္းအားဖယ္ရွားၿပီးသည့္အခါ စစ္ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီးမ်ားအတြက္ လမ္းေၾကာင္းခ်ေပးမည့္သူမရွိေတာ့သေလာက္ျဖစ္ပါသည္။ (ထိုမတိုင္ခင္ အာဏာသိမ္းၿပီးကာလက ေဒါက္တာေမာင္ေမာင္ႏွင့္တကြ ပါတီေခတ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ား Policy ႏွင့္ လမ္းညႊန္မႈမ်ား ခ်ေပးခဲ့ပါသည္။) သို႕ရာတြင္ အတန္အသင့္ အျမင္က်ယ္သူ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ခင္ညြန္႕သည္ မဟာဗ်ဴဟာေလ့လာေရးဌာနကို (အေမရိကန္ပံုစံအတိုင္း) ထူးေထာင္ကာ ပညာေတာ္ေသာ စစ္ဗိုလ္ငယ္မ်ားမွအစ ေခါင္းေခါက္ေရြးယူ၍ ေထာက္လွမ္းေရးဌာနခ်ဳပ္ တြင္ ကမာၻ႕ႏိုင္ငံေရးအလိုက္ အထူးျပဳတာ၀န္အမ်ဳိးမ်ဳိးျဖင့္ ေလ့လာ ေလ့က်င့္ေစခဲ့သည္။ အေမရိကန္ႏွင့္ အီးယူ၊ ဂ်ပန္ တို႕သို႕ ႏိုင္ငံေရးေအာက္လမ္းနည္းမ်ားျဖင့္ ခ်ဥ္းကပ္ခဲ့သည္။ စစ္အစိုးရ၏ လမ္းျပေျမပံု ႏွင့္ ေနျပည္ေတာ္စီမံကိန္း၊ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ကာကြယ္ေရး တကၠသိုလ္ေခၚ ေပၚလစီ စီမံကိန္းမ်ားကို သူ၏ ဦးေခါင္းမ်ားျဖင့္ ဆြဲယူခဲ့သည္။

ေနာင္တစ္ခ်ိန္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ခင္ညြန္႕မရွိေသာအခါ စစ္တပ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားအတြက္ နမူနာေပါင္းမ်ားစြာ၊ စကားလံုးေပါင္းမ်ားစြာ (ယေန႕ေနာက္ဆံုးေပၚ - ရိုဟင္ဂ်ာမဟုတ္၊ ဘဂၤ ါလီ ဆိုသည့္ စကားလံုးမ်ဳိးအထိ) အရန္သင့္ရွိထားၿပီျဖစ္သည္။ ကာကြယ္ေရးတကၠသိုလ္တြင္ အရည္အခ်င္းရွိေသာ ပညာတတ္ဗိုလ္မွဴးႀကီးမ်ား၏ သုေတသနက်မ္းမ်ား ရွိေနသည္။ ဒီပဲယင္း အေရးအခင္းကို “ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္အႏၲရာယ္ကာကြယ္ေရး” ဟူေသာ သုေတသနစာတမ္းအတိုင္း ဖန္တီးခဲ့သည္။ UN ကိုယ္စားလွယ္ ဂန္ဘာရီမလာမွီ ျပည္တြင္းတာ၀န္ခံကို ေမာင္းထုတ္ျပျခင္း၊ ယင္းမွတစ္ဆင့္ခ်င္းေရွ႕တိုးလာျပျခင္း၊ အေမရိကန္ စစ္ေရယာဥ္မ၀င္ႏိုင္မွီ အာဆီယံ၊ UN တို႕ႏွင့္ အစည္းအေ၀းလုပ္ျပျခင္း စသည္ျဖင့္ နည္းဗ်ဴဟာမ်ဳိးစံုကို အသစ္ဖန္တီးယူျခင္း ထက္ ဦးေန၀င္းလုပ္ခဲ့သည့္ ေျခလွမ္းမ်ားကို အနီးစပ္ဆံုး ပံုတူကူးခ်ျခင္းမ်ားျဖစ္သည္။ ကြန္ျမဴနစ္၊ ဆိုရွယ္လစ္တို႕ကို မယံုၾကည္ ေသာ္လည္း ထို ၀ါဒက်င့္သံုးသူ တို႕၏ နည္းပရိယာယ္ လုပ္နည္းလုပ္ဟန္မ်ားကို ေလ့လာၾကသည္။ ဤသည္မွာလည္းမဆန္း၊ မဆလေခတ္တြင္သူတို႕ ႀကီးျပင္းလာၾကေပရာ (တစ္နည္းအားျဖင့္ လူရာ၀င္လာရေပရာ) ထိုေခတ္က သင္ၾကားခဲ့ေသာ ႏိုင္ငံေရးသမား မုန္းတီးေရးတရားမ်ား၊ ဦးႏု မေကာင္းေၾကာင္းမ်ား၊ ပါတီစံုႏွင့္ ဖက္ဒရယ္မူ မေကာင္းေၾကာင္းမ်ား သည္ အသည္းတြင္ စြဲထင္ေနေပျပီ။ ထိုေခတ္တေလွ်ာက္လံုး ဖတ္စရာႏိုင္ငံေရးစာအုပ္ဆို၍ လက္၀ဲစာေပသာရွိရာ ထို စာေပတို႕မွ လက္၀ဲ၀ါဒ ေတာ္လွန္ေရးသမားတို႕၏ ေကာင္းကြက္မ်ား အယူအဆေကာင္းမ်ားကို အရမယူႏိုင္ေသာအခါ မေကာင္းေသာ လုပ္နည္းလုပ္ဟန္မ်ားကိုသာ ကူးယူရေပေတာ့သည္။ “ဆန္႕က်င္ၾက၊ ဆန္႕က်င္ၾက” ဆိုသည့္ လက္ေမာင္းတန္းေအာ္ဟစ္မႈ မ်ားကို သူတို႕ရိုက္ေသာရုပ္ရွင္ထဲမွ အလံနီတို႕ထံမွအရယူသည္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္နားထဲတြင္ “သတ္ပစ္၊ သတ္ပစ္” ဆိုသည့္အသံမ်ား ၾကားေယာင္ မိရသည္။

အေရးအခင္းၿပီးကာစက အားလံုးသပိတ္ေမွာက္ၿပီး ျဖစ္ေနသည့္ ၀န္ထမ္းမ်ားျဖင့္ မည္သို႕ဆက္လက္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္မည္နည္းဟု ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ေတြးခဲ့ဘူးသည္။ တစ္ျပည္လံုးသပိတ္ေမွာက္လ်င္ တိုင္းျပည္ကို အုတ္တံတိုင္းခတ္ရံုေပါ့ဟု ေျပာခဲ့ၾကသည္။ သို႕ေသာ္ အာဏာမသိမ္းမီတြင္ ေမာ္စီတုန္း၏ နည္းလမ္းတစ္ခုကို ကၽြန္ေတာ္ဖတ္မိသည္။ ယင္းမွာ “အစြန္းေရာက္လူနည္းစု ကို တိုက္ရိုက္ႏွိမ္နင္းျခင္း၊ အလတ္တန္းစားလူမ်ားကို ေတြေ၀ယိမ္းယုိင္ေစျခင္း ႏွင့္ ေနာက္တန္းက လူုထုႀကီးကို မိမိ လူဟု အမည္တတ္ျခင္းျဖင့္ တျဖည္းျဖည္းေျပာင္းလဲယူျခင္း” လုပ္ငန္းစဥ္ျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ကူးယူတတ္ေသာ စစ္အုပ္စုသည္ ထုိအတိုင္း တသေ၀မတိမ္းက်င့္သံုး ပါသည္။ ယေန႕တိုင္လည္း ျပည္တြင္းသာမက ျပည္ပႏိုင္ငံမ်ားအထိပါ တိုးခ်ဲ႕ယူလာရာ အာဆီယံသည္ ထိုလမ္းစဥ္မွ အလယ္အလတ္တန္း စားအုပ္စုျဖစ္လာပါသည္။ အတိုက္အခံထဲမွလည္း အဆိုပါ အလယ္အလတ္တန္းအုပ္စုကို ဆြဲယူေနပါၿပီ။ ေတြေ၀ေသာ (ကြန္ျမဴနစ္စကားျဖင့္ ဆက္ေျပာလွ်င္ ပညာတတ္မ်ား) လူတခ်ဳိ႕သည္ ပါတီဖြဲ႕အေရြးခံရန္၊ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို ေထာက္ခံရန္ လမ္းစဥ္ကို ေရြးေနၾကေလၿပီ။ စစ္တပ္သည္ သာမာန္အားျဖင့္ ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားကို မထလာေအာင္ ႏွိပ္ကြက္ ထားလိုသည္မွအပ ႏိုင္ငံေရးသမားမ်ား ေလာက္ အျမင္မၾကည္မႈမရွိသည္ျဖစ္ရာ (သူတို႕သင္ခဲ့ေသာ ဦးေန၀င္းေခတ္ သမိုင္းစာအုပ္မ်ားတြင္လည္း ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ား အျမင္မွား၍သာ ႏိုင္ငံေရးလုပ္ၾကေၾကာင္း သင္ခဲ့ရရာ) ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ ၈၈ ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားကိုလည္း အလယ္အလတ္ လူစုတြင္ပါ၀င္မည္လားဟု ထင္ကာ လႊတ္ေပးထားခဲ့သည္။ ၂၀၀၇ တြင္မွ အစြန္းေရာက္စာရင္း သို႕ ထည့္သြင္းခဲ့ ျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။

ျခဳံငံု၍ဆိုရလွ်င္ စစ္တပ္၏ မေကာင္းမႈမ်ားကို နားလည္မႈေပးသည့္တိုင္ ယင္းတို႕၏ ရပ္တည္ခ်က္ သေဘာထားသည္ မွားယြင္းစြာ သင္ၾကားလာေသာ အေျခခံအေပၚမွ ျဖစ္ေပၚလာျခင္းသာျဖစ္ပါသည္။ တိုင္းသူျပည္သားမ်ား အမွန္တကယ္ခံစားမႈ၊ အမွန္တကယ္ အလုပ္လုပ္ကိုင္ေနၾကၿပီး အက်ဳိးမရၾကမႈ၊ ယင္းတို႕ အထင္ႀကီးေသာ ျပည္ပႏိုင္ငံသားမ်ားကဲ့သို႕ အရည္အခ်င္းရွိသူမ်ားစြာ ရွိေနမႈ၊ ယင္းတို႕ကဲ့သို႕ ပင္ပန္းႏြမ္းႏြယ္စြာ၊ သက္စြန္႕ဆံျဖား တိုင္းျပည္အတြက္ အလုပ္လုပ္ေနသူမ်ားရွိေနမႈတို႕ကို ယေန႕တိုင္ သိျမင္လာၾကျခင္း မရွိေသးပါ။ ျပည္သူလူထုႏွင့္ အမွန္တကယ္ နီးနီးစပ္စပ္ ေနထိုင္လိုစိတ္၊ နားလည္ေအာင္လုပ္လိုစိတ္ နည္းပါးေအာင္ ႀကဳိတင္ ေလ့က်င့္ေပးထားျခင္းျဖင့္ အရပ္ဖက္တာ၀န္ယူရသည့္တိုင္ အစဥ္ကင္းကြာ ေနေလ့ရွိသည္။ နားလည္သြားေသာ အရာရွိမ်ားသည္လည္း ေဘးဖယ္ျခင္း ခံသြားၾကရသည္။ ထို႕ေၾကာင့္လည္း ယေန႕ေခတ္ ပင္စင္ယူသြားေသာ စစ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္အားလံုးသည္ လက္ရွိစစ္တပ္၏ ေဘးဖယ္ျခင္းကို ခံၾကရသည္ျဖစ္ရာ လက္ရွိေခါင္းေဆာင္ႀကီး မ်ား တသက္တာ မည္သည့္အခါမွ် အျငိမ္းစားမယူရဲေတာ့သည့္အျဖစ္သို႕ေရာက္ရွိကုန္ၾကျခင္းျဖစ္ေပသည္။

ကမၻာ့ ဆိုးရြားယုတ္မာ ရက္စက္ဆံုး မုဒိမ္းမႈႏွင့္ လူကုန္ကူးမႈဒဏ္ကို


၇ရက္ဇူလိုင္ ၂၀၀၇ မနက္၃နာရီမွာ ပင္လယ္စာ စက္ရံုမွ အခ်ိန္ပို အလုပ္ဆင္းၿပီး အတူတူ ျပန္လာတဲ့ ျမန္မာမိန္းကေလး
၅ေယာက္ကို ေဒသခံ ရဲကပါမႏိုင္လို႕ လက္ေလွ်ာ့ထားရတဲ့ ထိုင္းမာဖီယား ဂိုဏ္း၀င္ ၁၀ ေယာက္က လိုက္
လံဖမ္းဆီး ရာမွာ ၄ေယာက္ထြက္ေျပး လြတ္ေျမာက္ သြားၿပီး အလုပ္သမားလက္မွတ္တရား၀င္ လက္၀ယ္ ရွိသူ အသက္
၂၂ႏွစ္ အရြယ္ မိန္းကေလး တစ္ေယာက္ အဖမ္းခံခဲ့ရပါတယ္။ သူမကို ဖမ္း မိရာ လယ္ကြင္း ထဲမွာပင္ အဓမျပဳက်င့္ ခဲ့ၾက
ၿပီးေနာက္ သူတို႕ဂိုဏ္း တည္ရွိရာ တိုက္သို႕ ေခၚေဆာင္ သြားကာ က်န္ဂိုဏ္သားေလးေယာက္ က ထပ္မံ ေစာ္ကားၾကျပန္
သည္။သူမသည္ ၈ရက္ ဇူလိုင္တြင္ အားကုန္ ႀကိဳးစားၿပီး ၄ထပ္တိုက္ေပၚမွ ခုန္ခ်ၿပီးထြက္ေျပး လြတ္ေျမာက္ လာခဲ့ရာ မ
ဟာခ်ိဳင္ ခရိုင္ရွိ ဇီ၀ိခ်ိဳင္ေဆးရံုတြင္တက္ေရာက္ ေဆးကုသ ခံေနခဲ့ ရသည္။ သူမကို ဖမ္းဆီး ေခၚေဆာင္ခဲ့ရာ တိုက္ ခန္း
တြင္ မိန္းကေလး အေယာက္ ၂၀ ခန္႕လည္း ဖမ္းဆီးခံ ထားရ ေၾကာင္း၊ သူမအဖမ္းခံထားရ ခ်ိန္ တိုေတာင္း ေသာေၾကာင့္
ထိုမိန္းကေလးမ်ား မည္သည့္လူမ်ိဳးမ်ားျဖစ္သည္ကို မသိခဲ့ေသာ္လည္း အ မ်ားစု မွာ မြန္ႏွင့္ ျမန္မာမ ေလးမ်ားျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း၊ ထိုမိန္းကေလးမ်ား အားလံုးကို အ၀တ္ဆင္ မေပး ထား ေၾကာင္း၊ထိုမိန္းကေလးမ်ားႏွင့္ သူမကို လိင္စိတ္ၾကြေဆးမ်ား
အတင္း တိုက္ေကၽြးၿပီးလူမဆန္စြာ အႏိုင္က်င့္ခဲ့ေၾကာင္း၊ အႏိုင္က်င့္ရင္းလည္း နင္တို႕ ေခြးမေတြငါတို႕က နင္တို႕ မြန္နဲ႕
ျမန္မာေတြကို ေခြးေလာက္ပဲ သေဘာထားတယ္ စသည္ျဖင့္ရိုင္းစိုင္းလြန္းစြာ ေျပာဆို ၾကိမ္းေမာင္း ခဲ့ေၾကာင္း၊ နင္ တို႕ကိုေလ့က်င့္ေပးၿပီးရင္ ေလွေတြဆီ ေရာင္းစားမွာ ဟုလည္း ေျပာခဲ့ေသးေၾကာင္းရဲသို႕အေၾကာင္း ၾကား ခဲ့ေသာ္လည္း
မည္သည့္ အေရးယူမႈမွ မျပဳလုပ္ ခဲ့ေၾကာင္းသတင္းၾကား သိရပါသည္။

မဟာခ်ိဳင္ေဒသသည္ ပင္လယ္စာ ထုပ္ပိုးျပင္ဆင္ေသာ စက္ရံုမ်ား ထြန္း ကား ၿပီးစက္ရံုပိုင္ရွင္ သူေဌး မ်ားသည္ ကိုယ္
ပိုင္ ငါးဖမ္း စက္ေလွ မ်ားလည္းရွိေလ့ရွိၾကၿပီး ငါးခိုးဖမ္းေလွလည္း မ်ားစြာ ပိုင္ဆိုင္ ေလ့ရွိၾက သည္။
ထပ္မံ စံုစမ္းခ်က္မ်ားအရ ထိုမိန္းကေလးမ်ားကို ပင္လယ္တြင္း ငါးဖမ္းစက္ေလွမ်ား တြင္ ေလွသားမ်ား ပိုမို အလုပ္လုပ္
ခ်င္ေစရန္ ေပ်ာ္ပါးရန္ အျပီးေရာင္းစား ေပးေလ့ ရွိၿပီး ထို ေလွ သား မ်ားကလည္း စိတ္တိုင္းက်ေပ်ာ္ပါးၿပီးေသာအခါ ၀န္
ေဆာင္မႈ မေပးႏိုင္ ေတာ့ေသာ ထို မိန္းက ေလး မ်ားကိုကိစၥ လက္စေဖ်ာက္ ပင္လယ္တြင္း ပစ္ခ်ခဲ့ ေလ့ရွိ ေၾကာင္း၊ အ
ဆိုပါ လူမဆန္ ေသာအၾကမ္းဖက္ လူ ကုန္ကူးမႈ တြင္ ထိုင္း ရဲမ်ား ကိုယ္တိုင္ တရားမ၀င္ ပါ၀င္ပတ္သက္ ေနေၾကာင္း
သိရွိ ရသျဖင့္ မခံမရပ္ႏိုင္ ျဖစ္ၿပီး ထိုကိစၥမ်ားကိုအဓိကထား ကူညီေသာ Pavena foundation သို႕ အေၾကာင္းၾကားျခင္း၊
ထိုင္းစစ္ေထာက္လွမ္းေရးသို႕ တိုင္ၾကားျခင္း၊ ထိုင္းႏိုင္ငံျခားေရး၀န္ႀကီးဌာန သို႕ တိုင္ၾကားျခင္း၊ ထိုင္း လူ၀င္မႈ ႀကီးၾကပ္
ေရး ရဲဌာနသို႕တိုင္ၾကားျခင္း အစရွိသည္ တို႕ကို ဆက္ တိုက္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ရာ အေရးယူမႈစတင္ခဲ့ပါသည္။ လူဆိုးမ်ား
ထြက္မေျပး ႏိုင္ရန္ ၊ ထိုမာဖီးယားဂိုဏ္းတည္ရွိရာ ဌာနခ်ဳပ္ကို ရဲမ်ားက ၀န္းရံထား ေန စဥ္ ဘီဘီစီ သတင္း ဌာနမွ
သတင္းေၾကညာ ခဲ့သျဖင့္ ဓားစာခံ ထိုမိန္းက ေလး မ်ား၏ အသက္ အႏၲရာယ္ စိုးရိမ္ရမႈအတြက္ေရာ၊ မာဖီးယား ဂိုဏ္း
ခ်ဳပ္နဲ႕ ဂိုဏ္းသားမ်ားကို ထြက္ေျပးခြင့္ရေအာင္ သတင္းေပးသလို ျဖစ္ခဲ့ သည့္ အတြက္ ေၾကာင့္ပါ သက္ဆိုင္ ရာလႈပ္
ရွားသူမ်ား က အလြန္စိတ္ ဆိုး ေနခဲ့ၾက ပါသည္။

ထို႕ျပင္ နာမည္သာလိုခ်င္ၿပီး ေခါင္းေရွာင္တတ္ေသာ တာ၀န္ရွိသူမ်ား ေၾကာင့္ဇူလိုင္ ၁၃ရက္ ထိ ထို မာဖီးယား ဂိုဏ္းကို
သူစီးႏိုး ငါစီးႏိုး ႏွင့္၀င္မဖမ္းရဲဘဲ ျဖစ္ေနရာ မေနႏိုင္ေသာ ျမန္မာအခ်ိဳ႕ေၾကာင့္ ဂိုဏ္း၀င္၃ေယာက္ကို လိုက္လံဖမ္းဆီးရာ
ထို၃ေယာက္ကို ေဒသခံရဲတစ္ဦး၏ ေနအိမ္ေဟာင္းအတြင္း တြင္ ဖမ္းဆီးရမိခဲ့ၿပီး ထိုအေရးကို လိုက္လံေဖာ္ထုတ္ကူညီ
သူ ျမန္မာတစ္ဦး၏ ေနအိမ္ကိုေဖာက္ထြင္း ခံခဲ့ရၿပီး ေနာက္တစ္ဦး၏ေခၽြးမျဖစ္သူ အသတ္ခံခဲ့ရပါသည္။

ေဖာက္ထြင္းသူသည္ တအိမ္လံုး အ ေျပာင္ သိမ္းသြားရာ လက္ကိုင္ဖုန္းပါပါသြားၿပီး ထိုလက္ကိုင္ဖုန္း နံပါတ္ ကို ဆက္
သြယ္ရာတြင္ ေဖာက္တာငါပဲ..ဘာလုပ္ခ်င္လဲ.. ဘာျဖစ္ခ်င္လဲ စသည္ျဖင့္ ျပန္လွန္ ျခိမ္းေျခာက္သြားေၾကာင္း သတင္း
ရရွိပါသည္။ ထို႕ျပင္ ဆက္ေၾကးေငြ ေပးထားေသာေၾကာင့္ဖမ္းရိုးမရွိေသာ နယ္တြင္ လက္ မွတ္ မရွိဘဲ တရားမ၀င္အ
လုပ္လုပ္သူမ်ားကိုဖမ္းသည္ ဟုဆိုကာ အိမ္ခန္းမ်ားအတြင္း ဓာတ္ေငြ႕သံုး ၿပီး အတင္းဖမ္းဆီးမႈကိုထူးျခား တိုက္ဆိုင္
စြာ ပထမဆံုး ဖမ္းဆီးမႈ ျပဳခဲ့ရာ တမင္ လက္စားေခ်ဖမ္းဆီးျခင္းဟု ျမန္မာမ်ားက သတ္မွတ္ အခဲမေၾက ျဖစ္ေနၾကပါ
သည္။

ထို႕ေၾကာင့္ ျမန္မာ့အေရး ေဆာင္ရြက္သူမ်ားက ေနာက္ဆံုး ၾကိဳးစားသည့္အေနျဖင့္ Pavena foundation သို႕ဆက္
သြယ္တိုင္ၾကားခဲ့ရာ ထိုအသင္း မွတည္ေထာင္သူ ကိုယ္တိုင္ ထိုင္းရဲခ်ဳပ္သို႕ တိုက္ရိုက္စာတင္အေရးယူမႈျပဳလုပ္ေပး
ျခင္း၊ ထြက္ေျပးလြတ္ေျမာက္ တုိင္ၾကားသူ ျမန္မာမိန္းကေလးကိုလည္း အႏၲရာယ္ ကင္းေစရန္ ေခၚယူေစာင့္ေရွာက္
ေပးထားျခင္းမ်ား ျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့ပါသည္။ ထိုအသင္းရဲ႕ ေခါင္းေဆာင္မႈေၾကာင့္ ေနာက္ထပ္ မာဖီးယားဂိုဏ္းသား ၄ ေယာက္
ကို ထပ္မံဖမ္းဆီးရမိခဲ့ေၾကာင္း ေနာက္ထပ္လည္းလိုက္လံဖမ္းဆီးမႈမ်ားကို ထိထိေရာက္ေရာက္ ျပဳလုပ္ေပးေနေၾကာင္း
ရုပ္ျမင္သံၾကား မွ ထုတ္လႊင့္ေၾကညာခဲ့ရာ သတင္းၾကားသိရသျဖင့္ ပါဗီးနား အသင္းႀကီးကိုလြန္စြာ ေက်းဇူး တင္ဖြယ္ရ
ွိေလသည္။

သို႕ေသာ္ ေစ့စပ္ေသခ်ာလိုသူ ျမန္မာပညာတတ္ အလုပ္သမားမ်ားကကိုယ့္အားကိုယ္ကိုး ဆက္လက္ စံုစမ္းရာ
ထိုအဖမ္းခံထားရေသာ ၄ေယာက္မွာထိုးေကၽြးခံ ဘာအဆင့္မွ မရွိေသာ သူမ်ားျဖစ္ၿပီး ထို မာဖီးယားဂိုဏ္းတြင္အမွန္တ
ကယ္ ထိပ္ပိုင္းမွ လူမ်ားမွာ ထိုင္းႏိုင္ငံရွိထိုေဒသရွိထိပ္တန္းအာဏာပိုင္ မ်ား ျဖစ္ေနၿပီး ထိုဂိုဏ္းသည္ အေတာ္ကိုအင္
အားႀကီးမား သည္ကို ေတြ႕၇ေလသည္။ ထိုမွ်မကေသး ဘဲ မိန္းကေလးတစ္ဦးထြက္ေျပး လြတ္ေျမာက္ ခဲ့ရာ တိုက္ခန္း
တြင္ က်န္ရစ္ခဲ့သူ မိန္းကေလး ၂၀ေယာက္ မွာ လံုး၀ ေပ်ာက္ဆံုးသြားခဲ့ၿပီး က်န္ မာဖီးယားဂိုဏ္း သားမ်ားကိုလည္း
ရွာမေတြ႕ေတာ့ေပ။ ဖမ္းမိသူ ၄ေယာက္မွလည္း သူတို႕ေလးေယာက္သာထိုမိန္းကေလးကို ဖမ္းသည္ဟု ၀န္ခံၿပီး အမႈ
မွန္ ကို ကြယ္၀ွက္ေသးသိမ္ေစခဲ့သည္။ လာမည့္ ဇူလိုင္ ၁၄ရက္ေန႕တြင္ အဆိုပါ ေလးေယာက္ကိုရံုးထုတ္မည္ ျဖစ္ရာ
ထိုင္းမ်ား၏ ကူညီမႈသည္ ႏိုင္ငံေရး အျမတ္ထုတ္ရန္သက္သက္သာ ျဖစ္ၿပီး အမႈမွန္ကို ေသးသိမ္ ကြယ္၀ွက္ သလို
ျဖစ္ေနခဲ့ေလသည္။

ပင္လယ္စာ လုပ္ငန္းသည္ ထိုင္း ႏိုင္ငံ၏ အဓိက ႏိုင္ငံျခားပို႕ကုန္ ျဖစ္ၿပီးထိုင္းႏိုင္ငံ၏ ျပည္တြင္း ထုတ္ကုန္ကို ေဒၚလာ
သန္းေထာင္ခ်ီ ေထာက္ပံ့ေနေသာလုပ္ငန္းျဖစ္ရာ ထို လုပ္ငန္းအတြက္ ျမန္မာမိန္းကေလးမ်ားကို သည္လို လူမဆန္
လြန္းစြာ အသံုးခ်ၿပီး ေလွသမားမ်ားကို ေပ်ာ္ေတာ္ ဆက္ေစၿပီး သက္ဆိုင္ရာအစိုးရ ကိုယ္တိုင္က တိုင္ၾကားမႈကို ဂရုမ
ျပဳဘဲ သည္လို မသိခ်င္ ဟန္ေဆာင္ကာဖံုးဖိမႈကို ကန္႕ကြက္သည့္ အေနျဖင့္ ထိုင္းႏိုင္ငံမွ တာ၀န္ရွိသူမ်ားကိုတြန္းအား
ေပးရန္ အတြက္သက္ဆိုင္ရာ လူ႕အခြင့္အေရး လႈပ္ရွားသူ မ်ား၊အဖြဲ႕အစည္းမ်ားမွ လည္းေကာင္း ျမန္မာ့လူမ်ိဳးေရးကို
စိတ္၀င္စား စာနာေသာျပည္ပေရာက္ ျမန္မာမ်ားမွလည္းေကာင္း online petition မ်ားကိုျပင္ဆင္ကန္႕ကြက္
တြန္းအားေပး ေတာင္းဆို ေပးၾကပါရန္ ပန္ၾကားအပ္ပါသည္ ။


ရည္ညႊန္းခ်က္ ။

http://burmesemigrantwatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-post_1880.html

From http://anti786.blogspot.com/2009/02/blog-post_23.html