Tuesday, March 16, 2010

16 March 2010 ဒိုင္ယာရီ

http://ifile.it/7nbkdzi
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28474840/16-March2010-Yeyintnge-Diary16 March2010 Yeyintnge Diary

စစ္အာဏာရွင္လက္ခုပ္ထဲက ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲနဲ႔ လႊတ္ေတာ္

စစ္အာဏာရွင္လက္ခုပ္ထဲက ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲနဲ႔ လႊတ္ေတာ္
ဟံသာ၀တီဦး၀င္းတင္နဲ႔ စကားလက္ဆုံ
မိုးမခ
မတ္ ၁၅၊ ၂၀၁၀
မတ္လ ၈ ရက္ စစ္အစိုးရက သူ႔ရဲ့စိတ္တိုင္းက် ေရးဆြဲ ခ်ဳပ္ခ်ယ္ထားတဲ့ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲဥပေဒ အရပ္ရပ္နဲ႔ အခ်ိန္ဇယားကို ထုတ္ျပန္အျပီး မတ္လ ၁၂ ရက္ေန႔မွာ ဆရာဦး၀င္းတင္ရဲ့ ေထာင္စာအုပ္ ထြက္ရွိလာပါတယ္။ စစ္အာဏာရွင္ေတြက အမွန္တရားနဲ႔ ဒီမိုကေရစီဘက္ေတာ္သားေတြကို အက်ဥ္းစခန္း၊ ငရဲခန္းေတြနဲ႔ ဘယ္လိုမ်ဳိး နင္းေခ်ႏွိပ္စက္ ဖ်က္ဆီးႏွိမ္နင္းခဲ့တယ္၊ အဲသည္ ငရဲခန္းေတြကို ဆရာဦး၀င္းတင္နဲ႔တကြ ဒီမိုကေရစီဘက္ေတာ္သား ႏိုင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားေတြ ဘယ္ကဲ့သို႔ ရင္ဆိုင္ျဖတ္သန္း ေက်ာ္လႊားခဲ့ၾကရတယ္ ဆိုတာကို ရွင္းရွင္းလင္းလင္း ကြင္းကြင္းကြက္ကြက္ အမွန္အတိုင္း ရဲရဲၾကီး ေဖာ္ျပထားတာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
မတ္လ ၈ ရက္ေန႔ ေနာက္ပိုင္း စစ္အစုိးရထုတ္ျပန္တဲ့ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲဥပေဒေတြ၊ စည္းကမ္းနည္းလမ္းေတြကို အခ်ိန္အကုန္ခံ ဖတ္ရႈေလ့လာျပီး အေတြးသံသရာလည္ျပီး မ်က္စိသူငယ္ နားသူငယ္ ျဖစ္ေနၾကမယ့္သူေတြအတြက္ ဆရာဦး၀င္းတင္ရဲ့ ေထာင္တြင္းက လူ႔ငရဲခန္း အေၾကာင္းစာအုပ္ဟာ အျမင္မွန္ အေတြးမွန္ကို အလင္းထိုးျပလိုက္တဲ့ စာအုပ္ပဲ ျဖစ္တယ္လို႔ ဆရာၾကီး ဟံသာ၀တီဦး၀င္းတင္ကို ေျပာျပမိေတာ့ ဆရာက ျပဳံးရယ္လို႔သာ ေနပါတယ္။
မတ္လ ၁၄ ရက္ေန႔မွာ ဆရာနဲ႔ ေခတၱ ခဏ ေတြ႔ဆုံခိုက္ ေျပာဆိုမိသမွ်ကို ေကာက္ႏုတ္ေဖာ္ျပလိုက္ပါရေစ။

ေထာင္စာအုပ္ ဘာလို႔ ေရးရတာလဲ ဆိုေတာ့ …
ျမန္မာျပည္မွာ ေထာင္စာအုပ္ မရွိဘူး။ ေထာင္အေၾကာင္း၊ ေထာင္ထဲက အေတြ႔အၾကဳံေတြကို အျပင္ကလူေတြ အမွန္အတိုင္းသိေအာင္ ေရးရတာ ျဖစ္တယ္။ ျပီးေတာ့ ေထာင္ထဲကလူေတြကို အျပင္က မေမ့မေလ်ာ့ သတိရ အားေပးေနၾကတယ္ဆိုရင္ အတြင္းကလူေတြက အားရွိတယ္၊ ၀မ္းသာတယ္။ သူတို႔က အထဲမွာလည္း စိတ္ေတြ မနာဘဲ ျဖတ္သန္းၾကတဲ့အခါ အျပင္ေရာက္လာတဲ့အခါမွာလည္း ဆက္လက္ျပီး သတၱိရွိရွိ ရပ္တည္ေဆာင္ရြက္ၾကတယ္။

ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ ၀င္မွာလား …
အင္န္အယ္ဒီပါတီက ေရႊဂုံတိုင္ေၾကညာခ်က္ ထုတ္ျပန္ထားျပီး ျဖစ္တယ္။ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ ၀င္မယ္ဆိုရင္ ၂၀၀၈ အေျခခံဥပေဒကို ေထာက္ခံေၾကာင္း၊ သေဘာတူေၾကာင္း ခံ၀န္ခ်က္ ထုိးရမယ္။ အဲဒါဆိုရင္ စစ္အစုိးရရဲ့ အေျခခံဥပေဒကို ျပန္လည္ညွိႏႈိင္းဖို႔ ေတာင္းဆိုခြင့္ မရွိေတာ့ဘူး။

ပါတီက မွတ္ပုံျပန္တင္မွာလား …
ပါတီ ရွင္သန္ေရးက အဓိကက်တယ္လို႔ ေျပာၾကသလို၊ တခ်ဳိ႔ကက်ေတာ့ ပါတီက ဘာမွမလုပ္ႏိုင္ဘဲနဲ႔ေတာ့ ဆက္ရွိေနဖို႔ လိုေသးလား စသည္ျဖင့္ ေျပာၾကတယ္။ ပါတီကို မွတ္ပုံတင္မယ္ ဆိုရင္ အခုခ်ိန္ကစျပီး ေရတြက္မယ္ ဆိုရင္ ေဆြးေႏြးတိုင္ပင္ ျပင္ဆင္ဖို႔ ရက္ေပါင္း ၂၉ ရက္ပဲ ရွိတယ္။ ဧျပီလမွာ သၾကၤန္ရက္ေတြ၊ ပိတ္ရက္ေတြ ရွိေနတယ္။ အျခား ရုံးပိတ္ရက္ေတြကိုပါ ႏႈတ္လိုက္ရင္
အခုအခ်ိန္မွာ သည္ရက္ အခ်ိန္တိုတိုအကန္႔အသတ္အတြင္း လုပ္ရမွာက ျပသနာျဖစ္တယ္။

ပါတီက မွတ္ပုံျပန္တင္မယ္ဆိုရင္ ပါတီက ႏိုင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားေတြ၊ အက်ယ္ခ်ဳပ္ခံရသူေတြကို ထုတ္ပစ္မွာလား …
ယခင္တုန္းက (အမ်ဳိးသားညီလာခံ) ပါတီက အက်ဥ္းက်ေနသူေတြ၊ အက်ယ္ခ်ဳပ္ခံေနရသူေတြကို ေပးအပ္ထားတဲ့ တာ၀န္ေတြကေန ဖယ္ရွားခဲ့ရတယ္။ ျပီးေတာ့ ျပန္လည္လြတ္ေျမာက္လာခ်ိန္မွာ မူလတာ၀န္ ၀တၱရားေတြ ျပန္လည္ေပးအပ္ခဲ့တာပါပဲ။ က်ေနာ္သည္လည္း သည္လိုပဲ တာ၀န္ေတြ ျပန္လည္လက္ခံရရွိခဲ့တာ ျဖစ္တယ္။
ဒါေပမယ့္ ဒီထက္အေရးၾကီးတာက - ယခင္ကနဲ႔ မတူေတာ့တာက - ခုခ်ိန္မွာ ၁၉၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲနဲ႔ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားကိုပါ ပစ္ပယ္လိုက္ရေတာ့မွာ ျဖစ္တယ္။ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲအတြက္ ပါတီကို မွတ္ပုံျပန္တင္လိုက္တာနဲ႔ အဲသည္ ပစ္ပယ္မႈေတြကို ျပန္လည္ရယူလို႔ မရေတာ့ဘူး။ ျပည္သူလူထုရဲ့ ယုံၾကည္ကိုးစားမႈကိုပါ ပစ္ပယ္ရာ ေရာက္သြားမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

၁၉၉၀ နဲ႔ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ ၂ ခု က ဘာကြာလို႔လဲ …
ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲခ်င္းက မတူဘူး။ ၁၉၉၀ တုန္းက ၈၈ အေရးေတာ္ပုံရဲ့ အရွိန္အ၀ါ ရွိတယ္။ အဲသည္တုန္းက ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္တဦးတည္းကိုပဲ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲမွာ ကန္႔သတ္ခဲ့တာျဖစ္တယ္။ ပါတီတခုလုံးက ၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲမွာ တျပည္လုံး အတိုင္းအတာနဲ႔ ပါ၀င္ယွဥ္ျပိဳင္ခြင့္ရွိတယ္။ အျခားႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီ အမ်ားအျပားလည္း ၁၉၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲမွာ ပါ၀င္ခဲ့ၾကတယ္။
အခု ၂၀၁၀ မွာ လက္ရွိႏိုင္ငံေရးပါတီဆိုလို႔ အင္န္အယ္ဒီပါတီ တခုတည္းသာ ရွိေတာ့တယ္။ အခု ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲက ၈၈ အေရးေတာ္ပုံနဲ႔ ေ၀းသြားခဲ့ျပီ။ ပါတီအေနနဲ႔ကလည္း စစ္အစုိးရရဲ့ အကန္႔အသတ္ အတားအဆီးေတြ အဆင့္ဆင့္ေၾကာင့္ လူထုနဲ႔လည္း ေ၀းကြာေနရတဲ့ အေျခအေနမွာ ရွိတယ္။

ဘယ္လိုမ်ဳိးေၾကာင့္ လူထုနဲ႔ ေ၀းတယ္လို႔ ေျပာရတာလဲ …
အင္န္အယ္ဒီပါတီက ေက်းလက္ေတာရြာေတြကို လြတ္လြတ္လပ္လပ္ သြားလာခြင့္ မရွိဘူး။ ပါတီအေနနဲ႔ မဟုတ္ဘဲ အလည္အပတ္မ်ဳိးပဲ သြားႏိုင္တယ္။ ျမိဳ႔ေတြကို သြားေရာက္လည္ပတ္ဖို႔က အခြင့္အေရးနည္းနည္း ပိုရွိေသးတယ္။ သို႔ေသာ္ စစ္အစုိးရက သူတို႔ဖက္က အင္အားေတြ၊ စည္းရုံးေရးေတြနဲ႔ ေက်းလက္ေတာရြာ နယ္ေတြမွာ ဖိထား စုထားတယ္။ ၾကံ့ခိုင္ေရး၊ အမ်ဳိးသမီး၊ ၾကက္ေျခနီ၊ ျပည္သူ႔စစ္၊ အရန္မီးသတ္ … နည္းမ်ဳိးစုံပဲ။

လူထုရဲ့ ဆႏၵမဲေတြကို မရႏိုင္ေတာ့ဘူးလား …
လြတ္လပ္သန္႔ရွင္းစြာ မဲေပးႏိုင္ခြင့္က အာမခံခ်က္ ရွိသလား။ ဒီလိုအေျခအန အၾကပ္အတည္းေတြ ဖန္တီးထားမွေတာ့ … ။ ျပီးေတာ့ ၀န္ထမ္းေတြ၊ ၀န္ထမ္းမိသားစုေတြကို စာရင္းေကာက္ယူျပီး ၾကိဳတင္မဲစာရင္း ေကာက္ယူထားတာ၊ ဒီလုိမ်ဳိးနဲ႔ အျခားအသိုင္းအ၀ိုင္းေတြဆီက ၾကိဳတင္မဲေတြကို စုေဆာင္းျပီး ထုတ္သုံးတာမ်ဳိးေတြလည္း ရွိႏိုင္တယ္။

အဲသည္ၾကားထဲက ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲမွာ အႏိုင္ရခဲ့မယ္ ဆိုရင္ေကာ …
ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲလြန္ကာလမွာ စစ္အစုိးရအေျခခံဥပေဒအရ အႏိုင္ရတဲ့ ပါတီက အစုိးရဖြဲ႔ခြင့္ မရွိဘူး။ ပါတီ၀င္တဦးက အစုိးရ၀န္ၾကီး (အစုိးရ၀န္ထမ္း) ျဖစ္လာရင္ေတာင္ ပါတီက ထြက္ျပီး တာ၀န္ထမ္းေဆာင္ရမယ္။ အေျခခံဥပေဒအရ အဲသည္မွာ ကန္႔သတ္တားဆီးထားမႈေတြ အမ်ားၾကီးကို ရင္ဆိုင္ေနရမွာ ျဖစ္တယ္။

အင္န္အယ္ဒီပါတီ ရွိေနဖို႔ …
ပါတီက ခုခ်ိန္မွာ လုပ္စရာေတြ၊ ရင္ဆိုင္စရာေတြ အမ်ားၾကီး ရွိျပီးသားျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကိုယ္တိုင္က ေျပာလိုက္သလို ပါတီ၀င္ေတြက တရားဥပေဒေတြနဲ႔ အညီ ရင္ဆုိင္ၾကမယ္။ ညီညီညြတ္ညြတ္ ရင္ဆိုင္ၾကမယ္။ စစ္အစုိးရဖက္က ပ်က္ကြက္ခဲ့တာ၊ လူ႔အခြင့္အေရးဆိုင္ရာ ျပစ္မႈေတြ က်ဳးလြန္ခဲ့တာ၊ ၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို က်င္းပခဲ့ျပီးေနာက္ အႏွစ္ ၂၀ ၾကာတဲ့အထိ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ့ အခ်ိန္ေတြနဲ႔ ျပည္သူ႔ဘ႑ာေတြကို ျဖဳံးတီးပစ္ခဲ့တာေတြ ဒါေတြကို စစ္အစုိးရကို ရင္ဆိုင္ျပီး ေမးခြန္းထုတ္သင့္တယ္။ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ မွာၾကားလိုက္သလို ပါတီရုံးခန္းေတြမွာ အေျခခံဥပေဒတို႔၊ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ ဥေပေဒတို႔ကို ၀ိုင္း၀န္းေဆြးေႏြးၾကပါ၊ တရားမွ်တမႈ မရွိဘူးဆိုတာ ထင္ရွားသည္ထက္ ထင္ရွားလာမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

ပါတီရဲ့ အင္အား၊ လူထုရဲ့ အင္အားေတြက ဘယ္လိုလဲ၊ ဘာလဲ …
အခ်ိန္က အခု စကားေျပာေနခ်ိန္မွာေတာင္ ရုံးဖြင့္ရက္အားျဖင့္ ၂၉ ရက္ပဲ ရွိေတာ့တယ္။ အခ်ိန္က လုံး၀ မရွိေတာ့ဘူး။ ဘာပဲျဖစ္ျဖစ္ အင္န္အယ္ဒီဟာ လူထုနဲ႔ တသားတည္း ရပ္တည္ရမွာ ျဖစ္တယ္။ အခုအခ်ိန္ဟာ ေသေရး ရွင္ေရး ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ သူေသကိုယ္ေသ လို႔ ဆိုတာထက္၊ သူေသ ကိုယ္ရွင္ ျဖစ္ရမွာေပါ့။ တတ္ႏိုင္ရင္ေတာ့ သူေသ ကိုယ္ေသ မလုပ္ခ်င္ပါဘူး။ အခုခ်ိန္မွာ အင္န္အယ္ဒီနဲ႔ ျပည္သူလူထုဟာ အဖက္ဖက္က ကန္႔သတ္ခ်ဳပ္ခ်ယ္ျခင္း ခံထားရတဲ့ၾကားက၊ အစစအရာရာ ဖိႏွိပ္မႈေတြ ၾကားထဲကေနျပီး စိတ္ဓာတ္ခြန္အားတခုတည္းနဲ႔ ရင္ဆိုင္ၾကရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

အင္န္အယ္ဒီက ဘယ္လိုမ်ဳိး ဆုံးျဖတ္ခ်က္ ခ်ၾကမွာလဲ …
ယခင္တုံးကဆိုရင္ေတာ့ CEC က ဆုံးျဖတ္ခ်က္ခ်ျပီးေတာ့ ေအာက္ေျခကို ဦးေဆာင္မႈ ေပးရုံျဖစ္တယ္။ သို႔ေသာ္ အခုခ်ိန္မွာ CC အဖြဲ႔ကို ဖြဲ႔စည္းျပီးျပီ ျဖစ္တဲ့အတြက္ ဗဟိုဦးစီးအဖြဲ႔ (CC) နဲ႔ ေဆြးေႏြးရမယ္။ အဲသည္လို အားလုံးပါ၀င္တဲ့ ေဆြးေႏြးမႈ၊ ဆုံးျဖတ္မႈေတြကို လုပ္ကိုင္ရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ မွတ္ပုံတင္မယ္ ဗ်ာ တို႔၊ ဘာတို႔ ဇြတ္လုပ္လို႔ မရပါဘူး။

အင္န္အယ္ဒီပါတီရဲ့ လက္ရွိအေျခအေနကို သုံးသပ္ရရင္ …
လူငယ္ေတြရဲ့ အခန္းက႑ကို အခုထက္ပိုျပီး ျမွင့္တင္ဖိ္ု႔လိုပါတယ္။ အခုအခ်ိန္မွာ သူတို႔ေတြရဲ့ အရည္အခ်င္းေတြ တိုးတက္လာေအာင္ အစြမ္းကုန္လုပ္ေနၾကျပီ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ သင္တန္းေတြ၊ စာဖတ္၀ိုင္းေတြ၊ ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲေတြနဲ႔ ေဆာင္ရြက္ေနဆဲ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ လူငယ္ေတြရဲ့ စြန္႔လႊတ္စြန္႔စားမႈေတြကိုလည္း ထုတ္ေဖာ္ေျပာဆိုေနရမယ္။ အခုဆိုရင္ ေထာင္က်ေနတဲ့ အင္န္အယ္ဒီပါတီ၀င္ လူဦးေရေတြထဲက ထက္၀က္ေက်ာ္ဟာ လူငယ္ေတြ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ေနာက္တခုကေတာ့ အင္န္အယ္ဒီကေနျပီးေတာ့ လူထုလူတန္းစားအသီးသီး၊ အလႊာအသီးသီးအေပၚမွာ ဘယ္လိုမ်ဳိး သေဘာထားတယ္၊ ဘယ္လိုမ်ဳိး ရပ္တည္တယ္ ဆိုတာေတြကို အမ်ားသိရွိေအာင္၊ အင္န္အယ္ဒီပါတီ၀င္ေတြအခ်င္းခ်င္းမွာလည္း သိရွိနားလည္မႈရွိေအာင္ ပိုမိုျပီး ေဆာင္ရြက္ဖို႔ လိုပါတယ္။ ဥပမာအားျဖင့္ - အလုပ္သမားလူတန္းစားေတြအေပၚမွာ ေက်ာင္းသားလူငယ္ေတြ၊ ရဟန္းသံဃာေတြ အေပၚမွာ စသည္ျဖင့္ သေဘာထားေတြ၊ ရပ္တည္ခ်က္ေတြ ရွင္းရွင္းလင္းလင္း ထုတ္ေဖာ္ျပသထားဖို႔ ေဆာင္ရြက္ရမယ္။
ျပန္ျပီး ရွင္းျပရရင္ - ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကို ၂၀၀၉က အင္းစိန္ေထာင္မွာ ခ်ဳပ္ေႏွာင္ျပီး တရားစြဲဆိုေနစဥ္ကဆိုရင္ အင္န္အယ္ဒီက လူထုနဲ႔အတူ အင္းစိန္ေထာင္ေရွ႔မွာ သြားေရာက္ျပီး ဆႏၵထုတ္ေဖာ္ဖို႔ လုပ္ကိုင္ခဲ့တာ ျဖစ္တယ္။ ဆႏၵျပဖို႔ ဆူပူဖို႔ သြားခဲ့တာ မဟုတ္ဘူး။ လူထုနဲ႔အတူ၊ လူထုကိုယ္စား ဆႏၵထုတ္ေဖာ္ၾကမယ္လို႔ ၾကိဳးစားခဲ့တာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ေၾကာက္စိတ္ကို ထုတ္ေဖာ္ျပသခဲ့တာ မဟုတ္ပါဘူး။ ကိုယ့္အခ်င္းခ်င္းမွာကိုယ္တိုင္ ဒါကို ရွင္းရွင္း သိဖို႔လိုပါတယ္။
အခုအခ်ိန္မွာ ပါတီတြင္းျပန္ၾကားေရးအတြက္ကိုေတာင္ ပါတီျပန္ၾကားေရးစာေစာင္ ထုတ္ႏိုင္ဖို႔ အခက္အခဲေတြ အမ်ားၾကီး ရွိေနတယ္။ အတားအဆီးေတြ ရင္ဆိုင္ေနၾကရတယ္။ အဲသည္ေတာ့ က်ေနာ္နဲ႔ စကားေျပာလာတဲ့၊ ေမးျမန္းလာတဲ့ မီဒီယာေတြနဲ႔ပဲ စကားေျပာဆိုေနရတယ္။ အမ်ားသိရွိၾကရေအာင္ သူတို႔ကေနတဆင့္ ေဆြးေႏြးျပန္ၾကားေနရတဲ့ အေျခအေန ျဖစ္ေနပါတယ္။

အမ်ားျပည္သူကို ဘာေျပာခ်င္တာလဲ …
နံပါတ္ ၁ ကေတာ့ “မေၾကာက္တရား” ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ဟာ မတရားတဲ့စနစ္တခုျဖစ္တယ္။ အဲသည္ မတရားမႈေတြကို မၾကိဳက္ဘူး၊ လက္မခံႏိုင္ဘူး ဆိုရင္ အဲဒါကို “အေၾကာက္” န႔ဲ မရင္ဆိုင္ဘဲ “မေၾကာက္တရား” နဲ႔ ရင္ဆိုင္ရမွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကိုယ္တိုင္ ေျပာၾကားခဲ့သလို လူေတြ မေၾကာက္ၾကပါနဲ႔၊ မေၾကာက္တဲ့ အေနအထားကေန ရင္ဆိုင္ပါ။ မရဘူး … ေၾကာက္တာပဲ ဆိုရင္လဲ ေၾကာက္ေၾကာက္နဲ႔ပဲ လုပ္ၾကပါ။ က်ေနာ္ကိုယ္တိုင္လည္း သူမ်ားကို မေၾကာက္နဲ႔ မေၾကာက္ၾကနဲ႔လို႔ ေျပာေနရုံတင္ မဟုတ္ဘဲနဲ႔ မေၾကာက္တရားကို ကိုင္စြဲျပီး အခုလိုမ်ဴိး လုပ္ကိုင္ ရင္ဆိုင္ေနရတာပဲလို႔ ေျပာခ်င္ပါတယ္။
နံပါတ္ ၂ ကေတာ့ “ေသြးစည္းညီညြတ္ေရး” ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ က်ေနာ္တို႔ျပည္သူေတြအားလုံးမွာ စား၀တ္ေနေရးေတြ အလြန္ၾကပ္တည္းလာတယ္။ ဆင္းရဲဒုကၡနဲ႔ ရင္ဆိုင္ေနရတယ္။ ေရွ႔ကို သည္အတိုင္း ၾကပ္တည္းဆင္းရဲတဲ့အတုိင္းသြားၾကရင္ စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ကပဲ ဆက္လက္ေအာင္ပြဲခံသြားမွာ ျဖစ္တယ္။ အခုခ်ိန္မွာ နည္းမ်ဳိးစုံနဲ႔ လွည့္ဖ်ားတာေတြ၊ ခ်ိန္းေျခာက္တာေတြ၊ အခ်ဳိသတ္တာေတြ၊ ေက်ာသတ္တာေတြ စတဲ့ ေသြးခြဲမႈေတြ၊ ခြဲျခားမႈေတြ လုပ္လာေနပါတယ္။ အဲသည္အတြက္ က်ေနာ္တို႔အားလုံးက တေသြးတည္း တသားတည္း တသံတည္းျဖစ္မွသာ အဲသည္လက္နက္နဲ႔ ရင္ဆိုင္ေက်ာ္ျဖတ္ႏိုင္မွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
နံပါတ္ ၃ ကေတာ့ “စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ ခ်ဳပ္ျငိမ္းေရး” ဆိုတဲ့ တခုတည္းေသာ ပန္းတိုင္ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ခုခ်ိန္မွာ ျဖစ္ပ်က္ေနတဲ့ အေရးအခင္းေတြ၊ အျဖစ္အပ်က္ေတြကို က်ေနာ္ကေတာ့ ၁၉၈၈ အေရးေတာ္ပုံရဲ့ သမိုင္းမွတ္တမ္းေတြ၊ မွတ္တိုင္ေတြ၊ ေၾကြးေၾကာ္သံေတြနဲ႔ ႏိႈင္းယွဥ္ျပီး မီးေမာင္းထိုးျပပါတယ္။ ဒါဟာ က်ေနာ္တုိ႔အားလုံးနဲ႔ မေ၀းေသးတဲ့ နီးစပ္တဲ့ အျဖစ္အပ်က္ေတြ၊ အေၾကာင္းအရာေတြ ျဖစ္္ပါတယ္။
အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ဆိုတာ ဟိုးအေပၚဆုံးကေနျပီးေတာ့ ေအာက္ေျခအဆုံးက အလႊာအထိ ဘာမွ အစအန မက်န္ရစ္ေအာင္ ခ်ဳပ္ျငိမ္းဖို႔ လိုအပ္ေနျပီဆိုတာ သေဘာေပါက္ရေတာ့မယ္။ မဆလေခတ္က အာဏာရွင္ေတြဆိုတာ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္သူလူတန္းစားအလႊာထဲမွာသာ ရွိခဲ့တာေလ။ အလယ္အလတ္တန္းလႊာမွာ၊ ေအာက္ေျခလူတန္းစားမွာ အာဏာရွင္ေတြ မရွိပါဘူး။ ေန႔စဥ္ ေန႔တဓူ၀ သြားလာလႈပ္ရွားေနလို႔ ရေသးတယ္။ အာဏာရွင္ေတြနဲ႔ မပတ္သက္ေအာင္ ေနလို႔ ရခဲ့ေသးတယ္။
အခုကေတာ့ လူထု လူတန္းစားအလႊာအသီးသီးမွာ အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ရဲ့ စိတ္ဓာတ္ေတြ အက်င့္စရိုက္ဆိုးေတြက တိုးပြား အျမစ္တြယ္လာေနျပီ ျဖစ္တယ္။ ဟိုးေအာက္ေျခက ေထာင္၀န္ထမ္းကလည္း အာဏာရွင္ပဲ။ ရပ္ကြက္ထဲက သာမန္လူတဦးကလည္း စစ္အစုိးရ ေသြးထိုးမႈ၊ ဖ်က္ဆီးမႈေၾကာင့္ သူလည္းပဲ အာဏာရွင္ပဲ။ အဲသလို အေျခခံနဲ႔ ျမန္မာျပည္တ၀ွမ္းလုံးမွာ အာဏာရွင္ေပါက္စေတြ တိုးပြားလာေနျပီ။ သူတလူ ငါတမင္းနဲ႔ မင္းမဲ့စရုိက္ျဖစ္ျပီး မည္းမည္းျမင္ရာ အႏိုင္က်င့္ေန ေစာ္ကားေနၾကျပီ။ အဲဒါေၾကာင့္ ခုခ်ိန္မွာ “အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ ခ်ဳပ္ျငိမ္းေရး” ဆိုတာ အားလုံးက ၀ိုင္း၀န္းေဆာင္ရြက္ၾကမွ ျဖစ္ေတာ့မယ္ဆိုတာ သေဘာေပါက္ၾကရပါမယ္။
အဲဒါေၾကာင့္ က်ေနာ္တို႔ အပါအ၀င္ အားလုံးေသာ ျပည္သူလူထုက မေၾကာက္တရားလက္နက္ကို ကိုင္စြဲျပီး အားလုံး ေသြးစည္းညီညြတ္စြာန႔ဲ တစုတစည္း တသံတည္း - အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ ခ်ဳပ္ျငိမ္းေအာင္ တခုတည္းေသာ ပန္းတိုင္အျဖစ္ ရင္ဆိုင္ၾကဖို႔ ခ်ီတက္ၾကဖို႔ ေျပာလိုက္ခ်င္ပါတယ္။
http://moemaka.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6051&Itemid=1

ဦးဝင္းတင္ႏွင့္ ဗြီအိုေအ အင္တာဗ်ဴး

ဦးဝင္းတင္ႏွင့္ ဗြီအိုေအ အင္တာဗ်ဴး (မတ္လ ၁၅ ရက္ ၂၀၁၀ ျပည့္ႏွစ္)
မတ္ ၁၅၊ ၂၀၁၀
“ပါတီမရွိလည္း ႏိုင္ငံေရးရွိေနဖို႔က အေရးႀကီးတယ္။ ပါတီကို သံေျခက်ဥ္းခတ္တဲ့ လုပ္ငန္းမ်ဳိးကို က်ေနာ္ လက္မခံႏိုင္ဘူး”
ဒီကေန႔ ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕ အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္မွာ က်င္းပခဲ့တဲ့ ဗဟိုအလုပ္အမႈေဆာင္ေကာ္မတီ စီအီးစီ အစည္းအေဝးကေနၿပီးေတာ့ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲက်င္းပေရးေကာ္မရွင္မွာ အန္အယ္လ္ဒီပါတီ မွတ္ပံုတင္ေရး မတင္ေရး အဆံုးအျဖတ္ကို မခ်မွတ္ေသးဘဲ လာမယ့္မတ္လ ၂၉ ရက္ေန႔မွာမွ စီအီးစီ အဖြဲ႔တင္မက တႏိုင္ငံလံုးမွာရွိတဲ့ ဗဟိုဦးစီး အဖြဲ႔ဝင္ စီစီေတြကိုပါ အစည္းအေဝးဖိတ္ေခၚၿပီး သေဘာထားေတြကို ေဆြးေႏြးျခင္း၊ ခ်ျပျခင္းေတြလုပ္ၿပီးမွ အားလံုး လွ်ဳိ႕ဝွက္မဲေပးၿပီး ဆံုးျဖတ္မွာျဖစ္တယ္လို႔ ဗဟိုအလုပ္အမႈေဆာင္ေကာ္မတီဝင္ ဦးဝင္းတင္က ဗြီအိုေအကို ေျပာၾကားခဲ့ပါတယ္။
မတ္လ ၂၉ ရက္ေန႔ အစည္းအေဝးမွာ ပါတီရပ္တည္ေရးအတြက္ ဦးစားေပးၿပီး ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ရဲ႕ အေနအထားကိုပါ ထည့္သြင္းေဆြးေႏြးၾကရင္ ဦးဝင္းတင္က သူ႔ရဲ႕သေဘာထားကေတာ့ ပါတီမရွိလည္း ႏိုင္ငံေရးရွိေနဖို႔က အေရးႀကီးတယ္လို႔ ေျပာၾကားပါတယ္။ ဦးဝင္းတင္နဲ႔ ဗြီအိုေအ ဝိုင္းေတာ္သား ကိုေရာ္နီညိမ္းတို႔ရဲ႕ ဆက္သြယ္ေမးျမန္းခ်က္ကို တင္ဆက္ေပးလိုက္ပါတယ္။
ဗြီအိုေအ။ ။ လာမယ့္မတ္လ ၂၉ ရက္ေန႔အစည္းအေဝးဟာ အကယ္၍မ်ား ဆရာ၊ ပါတီရပ္တည္ေရးကို ဦးစားေပးၿပီးေတာ့ အမ်ားက ေရြးခ်ယ္လိုက္တယ္ဆိုရင္ ဆရာ့အေနနဲ႔ ဘယ္လိုသေဘာထားရွိပါသလဲ ဆရာ။
ဦးဝင္းတင္။ ။ က်ေနာ္ကေတာ့ ဒီလိုရွိပါတယ္။ က်ေနာ္တို႔ ဒီအဖြဲ႔အစည္းကို တည္ေထာင္တဲ့သူထဲမွာ က်ေနာ္လည္း တေယာက္ အပါအဝင္ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ က်ေနာ္ပါတီအေပၚမွာ သံေယာဇဥ္ရွိပါတယ္။ ဒီပါတီရဲ႕ အရွည္တည္တံ့ေရး၊ ခိုင္ျမဲေရးကို လိုလားပါတယ္။ သို႔ေသာ္ က်ေနာ္ကေတာ့ ဘယ္လိုတြက္လဲဆိုေတာ့ ဘာပဲေျပာေျပာ ဒီစစ္အစိုးရက အခုလုပ္ေနတာက က်ေနာ္တို႔ရဲ႕ ပါတီတြင္းကိစၥကို ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္လိုပုဂၢိဳလ္မ်ဳိးကို ေမာင္းထုတ္ဖို႔ လုပ္တယ္။ ဘာျပလဲဆိုလို႔ရွိရင္ က်ေနာ္တို႔မွာ ဘာမွကို ႏိုင္ငံေရးမရွိေလာက္ေအာင္ လုပ္တာ။ က်ေနာ့္သေဘာက ဘာလဲဆိုေတာ့ ပါတီတရပ္ဟာ ႏိုင္ငံေရးရွိရမယ္။ ႏိုင္ငံေရးမရွိရင္ ဒီပါတီဟာ ဘာမွအသံုးမက်ဘူးလို႔ ယူဆတယ္။ က်ေနာ့္ ပုဂိၢဳလ္သေဘာခံယူခ်က္။ အဲေတာ့ ႏိုင္ငံေရးရွိၿပီးေတာ့ ပါတီမရွိရင္ေတာင္မွ လႈပ္ရွားလို႔ရတယ္လို႔ က်ေနာ္ယံုတယ္။ ႏိုင္ငံေရးမရွိဘဲနဲ႔ ပါတီရွိေနလို႔ အလကားပဲ။ ပါတီသာရွိၿပီးေတာ့ ႏိုင္ငံေရးမရွိရင္လည္း ေခါင္းမရွိတဲ့လူလိုပဲျဖစ္မွာပဲ လို႔ က်ေနာ္ ေျပာခဲ့တယ္။ အဲဒါေၾကာင့္ ပါတီကို သံေျခက်ဥ္းခတ္တဲ့ လုပ္ငန္းမ်ဳိးကို က်ေနာ္ လက္မခံႏိုင္ပါဘူး။ က်ေနာ့္သေဘာထားက ဒါပါပဲ။
ဗြီအိုေအ။ ။ ဆရာ ဒီကေန႔အစည္းအေဝးအေျခအေန က်ေနာ္တို႔ကို နည္းနည္းေျပာျပေပးပါလား ခင္ဗ်။
ဦးဝင္းတင္။ ။ CEC ကေန ဆံုးျဖတ္တာမဟုတ္ဘဲနဲ႔ တျပည္လံုးမွာရွိတဲ့ မၾကာခင္တုန္းကဖြဲ႔လိုက္တဲ့ CC ေတြနဲ႔ အကုန္လံုးေပါင္းၿပီးေတာ့ CC ရယ္၊ CEC ရယ္ အားလံုးစုစုေပါင္း ၁၂၈ ေယာက္ရွိမွာေပါ့၊ အဲဒီပုဂၢိဳလ္ေတြ အကုန္လံုး စုေပါင္းေဆြးေႏြးၿပီးေတာ့ က်ေနာ္တို႔ မွတ္ပံုတင္မယ္ သို႔မဟုတ္ရင္လည္း မတင္ဘူးေပါ့ဗ်ာ၊ အဲဒါကို ဆံုးျဖတ္မယ္ဆိုၿပီးေတာ့ က်ေနာ္တို႔ စီမံတယ္၊ အဲရက္က မတ္လ ၂၉ ရက္ေန႔ေပါ့။ ၂၉ ရက္ေန႔ ၃၀ ေပါ့။
ဗြီအိုေအ။ ။ အဲေတာ့ ဆရာ မတ္လ ၂၉ ရက္ေန႔ကို ခုနဆရာေျပာသလို တျပည္လံုးမွာရွိတဲ့ NLD၊ က်န္တဲ့ CC အဖြဲ႔ဝင္ေတြေကာ အစံုအညီ လာေရာက္ႏိုင္မယ့္ အေနအထားရွိပါသလား ဆရာ။
ဦးဝင္းတင္။ ။ စစ္အစိုးရကလည္း သူတြက္မွာေပါ့ဗ်ာ၊ ဒီဟာက က်ေနာ္တို႔ကေနၿပီးေတာ့ မွတ္ပံုမတင္ဘူးဆိုၿပီးေတာ့ ဆံုးျဖတ္မယ့္ပြဲမ်ဳိး ျဖစ္မယ္လို႔ထင္ရင္ သူတို႔ မေပးဘဲ ေနေကာင္းေနမယ္ေပါ့ဗ်ာ။ အဲ သို႔မဟုတ္ရင္လည္း မွတ္ပံုတင္မယ့္ အေနအထားရွိမယ္ဆိုရင္ မွတ္ပံုမတင္ခ်င္တဲ့သူက နည္းနည္းပဲရွိမယ္ထင္ရင္လည္း လြတ္ေပးရင္ ေပးမွာေပါ့၊ ဒါကေတာ့ စစ္အစိုးရရဲ႕ လုပ္ထံုးလုပ္နည္းပံုသ႑ာန္ပဲ ျဖစ္မွာပဲ။ သို႔ေသာ္ က်ေနာ္တို႔ကေတာ့ စစ္အစိုးရရဲ႕ စ႐ိုက္လကၡဏာေတြ၊ အက်င့္ေတြကိုေတာ့ ထည့္မတြက္ေတာ့ဘူး။ က်ေနာ္တို႔တြက္ေနတာက ဘာလည္းဆိုရင္ ဒီဟာက ဘာပဲေျပာေျပာ ဒီမိုကေရစီနည္းက် လုပ္ရမယ္။ က်ေနာ္တို႔အဖြဲ႔က ဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔အစည္း။ အဲေတာ့ ဒီကိစၥကလည္း အခုဟာ ဒီမွတ္ပံုတင္ ဥပေဒတို႔ ဘာတို႔ဆိုတာႀကီးက ဒီမိုကေရစီနည္းကို လံုးဝ မက်ဘဲနဲ႔ ဘယ္လိုမွ လက္ခံႏိုင္ျခင္း မရွိဘူး၊ ဒါေၾကာင့္ က်ေနာ္တို႔က ဒီဟာကုိ ဒီမိုကေရစီနည္းက် ပါတီေအာက္ေျခက အခုဖြဲ႔လိုက္တဲ့ CC ေတြနဲ႔ ဆံုးျဖတ္မယ္ဆိုၿပီးေတာ့ က်ေနာ္တု႔ိက ေခၚျခင္းပဲဗ်။ ဒါပဲ။ အဓိကက ဒါပဲ။
ဗြီအိုေအ။ ။ ဟုတ္ကဲ့ပါဆရာ၊ အဲ့ေတာ့ ျပန္ၿပီးေတာ့ မတ္လ ၂၉ ရက္ေန႔ကိစၥကို ျပန္ၿပီးေကာက္မယ္ဆိုလို႔ရွိရင္ အဲဒီမတိုင္ခင္ေကာ ဆရာတို႔ CEC အေနနဲ႔က်ေတာ့ေရာ ဘယ္လိုမ်ားျပင္ဆင္ထားမယ္လို႔ CEC မွာ စိတ္ကူးထားပါသလဲ ဆရာ။
ဦးဝင္းတင္။ ။ ဒီလိုရွိတယ္ဗ်၊ က်ေနာ္တို႔ ေဆြးေႏြးမွာကေတာ့ ဒီအေတာအတြင္းမွာ က်ေနာ္တို႔ CEC ေတြၾကားထဲမွာ အထပ္ထပ္ေဆြးေႏြးရမယ့္ အေၾကာင္းကိစၥကေတာ့ ဒီဥပေဒေတြဟာ လက္ခံႏိုင္တဲ့ဥပေဒေတြလား၊ လက္မခံႏိုင္တဲ့ ဥပေဒေတြလား၊ အဲ လက္မခံႏိုင္ရင္ ဘာေၾကာင့္လဲ။ လက္ခံႏိုင္ရင္ ဘာလဲဆိုတာ ဒါ က်ေနာ္တို႔လုပ္မွာပဲ။ သို႔ေသာ္ က်ေနာ္တို႔ CEC ေတြကေနၿပီးေတာ့ ဟာ … မွတ္ပံုတင္မယ္၊ မတင္ဘူးဆိုတာကို ဆံုးျဖတ္ၿပီးေတာ့ ေအာက္ေျခထုကို ခ်ျပမွာ မဟုတ္ဘူး။ ေအာက္ေျခထုကလည္း သူတို႔သေဘာထားေတြ သူတို႔ တက္လာခဲ့၊ ကိုင္စြဲၿပီး တက္လာခဲ့။ က်ေနာ္တို႔ CEC ေတြကလည္း က်ေနာ္တုိ႔ရဲ႕ သေဘာထားေတြကို က်ေနာ္တုိ႔ ညွိႏႈိင္းၿပီးသား လုပ္ထားမယ္၊ အဲဒါေတြ အကုန္လံုးနဲ႔ ေပါင္းစည္းၿပီးေတာ့ ဒီ ၁၂၀ ေသာ ပုဂၢိဳလ္မ်ား ဒါ မဲခြဲဆံုးျဖတ္မွာပဲဗ်။ လွ်ဳိ႕ဝွက္မဲနဲ႔ ဆံုးျဖတ္မွာပဲ။
ဒီကေန႔ ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕ အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ ႐ံုးခ်ဳပ္မွာ က်င္းပခဲ့တဲ့ အစည္းအေဝးတက္ေရာက္ခဲ့တဲ့ ဗဟိုအလုပ္အမႈေဆာင္ ေကာ္မတီဝင္ ဦးဝင္းတင္ကို ဗြီအိုေကက ဆက္သြယ္ေမးျမန္းခဲ့တာျဖစ္ပါတယ္ ခင္ဗ်ာ။
http://moemaka.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6053&Itemid=1

၂၂ ႏွစ္ေျမာက္ ဖုန္းေမာ္ေန႕ ဆံုးျဖတ္ခ်က္မ်ား

၂၂ ႏွစ္ေျမာက္ ဖုန္းေမာ္ေန႕ ဆံုးျဖတ္ခ်က္မ်ား

13 .3.2010

ရန္ကုန္ စက္မႈတကၠသိုလ္ ေက်ာင္းသားမ်ားမွ ဦးေဆာင္၍ ထုိင္းျမန္မာ နယ္စပ္တေနရာတြင္ ၁၉၈၈ ခုႏွစ္ မတ္လ ၁၃ ရက္ေန႕ ရန္ကုန္စက္မႈတကၠသုိလ္တြင္ မဆလ တပါတီအစိုးရ၏ အၾကမ္းဖက္ ပစ္ခတ္သတ္ျဖတ္မႈေၾကာင့္ က်ဆံုးခဲ့သည့္ ကိုဖုန္းေမာ္ႏွင့္ ကိုစိုးႏုိင္တုိ႕အတြက္ ၂၂ ႏွစ္ေျမာက္ ဖုန္းေမာ္ေန႕ ဆြမ္းေကၽြးတရားနာ အခမ္းအနားႏွင့္ အမွတ္တရ ႏုိင္ငံေရး ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲကို က်င္းပခဲ့ၾကပါသည္။ ဤအစည္းအေ၀းသို႕ အဖြဲ႕အစည္းအသီးသီးမွ ႏုိင္ငံေရးေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ား ၊ ေက်ာင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ား ၊ သံဃာေတာ္မ်ား ၊ စာနယ္ဇင္းသမားမ်ား ၊ ပညာေရး ႏွင့္ အလုပ္သမားအဖြဲ႕အစည္းမ်ား စုစုေပါင္း အေယာက္ ၆၀ ခန္႕ တက္ေရာက္လာပါသည္။ အစည္းအေ၀းတြင္ လတ္တေလာ ျမန္မာျပည္ ႏိုင္ငံေရးအေျခအေန အရပ္ရပ္ကို သံုးသပ္၍ ေအာက္ပါဆံုးျဖတ္ခ်က္မ်ားကို ခ်မွတ္ႏုိင္ခဲ့ပါသည္။

၁) စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္သက္ဆုိးရွည္ေရးအတြက္ ေရးဆြဲထားသည့္ ၂၀၀၈ ဖြဲ႕စည္းပံုအေျခခံဥပေဒႏွင့္ ထို အေျခခံဥပေဒကို အသက္သြင္းမည့္ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ ကို နည္းလမ္းေပါင္းစံုျဖင့္ ဆန္႕က်င္ကန္႕ကြက္ သပိတ္ေမွာက္မည္။

၂) အမ်ိဳးသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္ အမ်ိဳးသားဒီမုိကေရစီအဖြဲ႕ခ်ဳပ္အား ေထာက္ခံ ၀ိုင္းရံပံ့ပိုးသြားမည္။

၃) အမ်ိဳးသားဒီမုိကေရစီအဖဲြ ့ခ်ဳပ္ အေနျဖင့္ ေရႊဂုံတုိင္ ေၾကျငာခ်က္ကို ဆက္လက္ကိုင္စဲြ၍ နအဖ စစ္အုပ္စု၏ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပဲြကို ဆန္ ့က်င္သြားရန္ တုိက္တြန္းအပ္ပါသည္။

၄) နအဖ စစ္အစိုးရျပဳလုပ္မည့္ ၂၀၁၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲတြင္ ႏုိင္ငံေရးပါတီမ်ားအေနျဖင့္ ေရြး ေကာက္ ပြဲ၀င္ေရာက္ျခင္း မျပဳရန္ အျပင္းအထန္ တုိက္တြန္း အပ္ပါသည္။

၅) ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕တြင္ ျဖစ္ေပၚေနသည့္ အလုပ္သမားသပိတ္မ်ားကို ၀ိုင္း၀န္းေထာက္ခံပံ့ပိုးရန္ႏွင့္ အျခားေသာ လူထုလူတန္းစားသပိတ္တုိက္ပြဲမ်ား ဆက္လက္ေပၚေပါက္ၿပီး အေထြေထြ လူထု သပိတ္ႀကီး ျဖစ္ေပၚလာသည္ထိ ေဖာ္ေဆာင္ တိုက္ပြဲ၀င္ၾကမည္။

၆) ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္တကြ ႏုိင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားအားလုံး အျမန္ဆုံး လြတ္ေျမာက္ေရး မွာ ျမန္မာျပည္ နုိင္ငံေရးျဖစ္ေပၚေျပာင္းလဲမႈတြင္ အလြန္အေရးၾကီး္သည္။

၇) အမ်ိဳးသားဒီမိုကေရစီအဖြဲ႕ခ်ဳပ္အပါအ၀င္ ၁၉၉၀ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲအႏုိင္ရ တုိင္းရင္းသား ပါတီမ်ားႏွင့္ ဖြဲ႕စည္းထားေသာ ျပည္သူ႕လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားျပဳ ေကာ္မတီက ေသာ္လည္းေကာင္း၊ တာ၀န္သိသိ တာ၀န္ရွိရွိျဖင့္ ျပည္သူ႕လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုယ္စားလွယ္မ်ားက ေသာ္လည္းေကာင္း ျပည္သူ႕အစိုးရကို အျမန္ဆံုး ဦးေဆာင္ဖြဲ႕စည္းရန္ႏွင့္ ေပၚေပါက္လာမည္႕ ျပည္သူ ့အစိုးရကို အျပည့္အ၀ ေထာက္ခံသြားမည္။

၂၂ႏွစ္ေျမာက္ ဖုန္းေမာ္ေန ့ေဆြးေႏြးပဲြ

ထုိင္း - ျမန္မာနယ္စပ္

Contact – Than Doke -0861198091, Min Zaw -0857351457 ,

Canadian official intervention at UN Human Rights Council on Burma.

CANADIAN INTERVENTION

Interactive Dialogue with

Special Rapporteur on Myanmar

March 2010

Canada would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Tomás Ojea Quintana, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar for his report and also for his dogged efforts to visit Burma, meet its people, and influence the path that human rights take in that country. We know his task is neither easy nor straightforward.

We urge the government of Burma to continue to engage with the Special Rapporteur, particularly on the four core human rights elements identified by him, namely: the release of all prisoners of conscience; review and reform of specific national legislation, in compliance with international human rights standards; reform of the judiciary to assure independence and impartiality; and specific measures by the military and police including respecting international human rights and humanitarian law and establishing a permanent and meaningful training programme on human rights.

In the interests of an election that supports a genuine democratic process, based on principles of transparency, fairness and inclusion we call upon the Burmese regime to free all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and to engage in a genuine dialogue with members of the democratic opposition and different ethnic groups in Burma.

The Special Rapporteur has noted the launch of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human rights.

It is unfortunate that the Burmese regime did not seize the opportunity of the Special Rapporteur’s visit to ensure that the electoral laws they were planning to pass would meet international standards.

Human Rights Council considers Human Rights situations in Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Myanmar

Human Rights Council considers Human Rights
situations in Democratic People's Republic of Korea
and Myanmar
Human Rights Council
MIDDAY 15 March 2010
The Human Rights Council during a midday meeting undertook a review of human
rights situations that required its attention, hearing presentations of reports by
Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea and in Myanmar.
Vitit Muntarbhorn, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, introducing his report, regretted that
throughout his mandate the country concerned had declined to cooperate. From
witnessing the human rights situation in the country for the past six years, one
finding was glaring: the abuses against the general population, for which the
authorities should be responsible, were both egregious and endemic. There had been
some constructive developments, but the general scenario was bleak. Logically, if the
authorities were not able to satisfy the basic needs of the people the people should
be able to participate in activities that could help generate income to enable them to
produce or buy their own food; however, there had been a clamp down on the
market system. Moreover, at the end of 2009, the authorities had imposed a
currency revaluation, and there was now huge inflation, particularly affecting the
price of food, with widespread suffering as a consequence. The Government should
immediately ensure effective provision of and access to food and other basic
necessities for those in need of assistance; adopt a moratorium on capital
punishment; and end the punishment of those who sought asylum abroad. The
United Nations system had a special challenge to ensure that the people of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea were protected from the violence and
violations – latent, patent and blatant – which had been so widespread and
systematic for so long.
Speaking as a concerned country, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
categorically rejected the “Special Rapporteur” and his report. That Special
Rapporteur originated and existed as a result of “resolutions” that had been enforced
every year by the United States, Japan and the European Union, as part of attempts
to eliminate the State and social system of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea on the pretext of human rights. The anachronistic Special Rapporteur had to
be eliminated once and for all.
In the interactive dialogue, many countries also regretted the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea’s lack of cooperation. A speaker observed that by not engaging
with the Special Rapporteur, the Government had missed an opportunity to show the
world community a direct view of the real situation on the ground and the claimed
improvements. Several countries also expressed deep concern over the continuing
food shortages and difficulties experienced by the World Food Programme and others
in rendering assistance. Others underscored their position in opposition to all county
mandates. A speaker was astonished that the Council was returning to the practice
of targeting certain countries, as that was clearly politicized. These countries also
highlighted that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had also constructively
participated in the Council’s Universal Periodic Review mechanism.
Speaking in the debate on the human rights situation in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea were the European Union, Japan, Belgium, Canada, Syria, the
United States, Cuba, the United Kingdom, China, Thailand, Angola, the Republic of
Korea, Switzerland, Sudan, Norway, Myanmar, Chile, Pakistan on behalf of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference and Australia. Human Rights Watch also
made a statement.
Tomas Ojea Quintana, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Myanmar, introducing his progress report, said that Myanmar was at a critical
moment in its history: for the first time in 20 years, elections had been planned.
That should represent an important opportunity for the Government to address a
range of human rights issues and to initiate the much-needed reforms towards the
building of democratic institutions. He was, however, concerned that that opportunity
was not being seized. He had just returned from his third mission to Myanmar last
February. He had not come away with a clear sense of progress on the four core
elements he had put forward to the Government in August 2008. The same large
numbers of prisoners of conscience were to be found in prisons across the country,
while new arrests and sentences continued. Those people were now explicitly banned
from becoming members of political parties that wished to contest the elections and
their parties were required to expel them in order to be registered for the elections.
Of the current 2,100 prisoners of conscience, some 430 party members of the
National League for Democracy – including its Secretary-General Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi – had been rejected. He also drew attention to concerns on the situation of the
Muslim population in the northern Rakine State, where an estimated 1 million people
were excluded from citizenship on the basis of their ethnicity and were perceived as
illegal immigrants.
Myanmar, speaking as a concerned country, said the report lacked objectivity.
Myanmar was holding free and fair elections. The transition towards democracy was
proceeding accordingly. Myanmar’s judiciary was independent and impartial and
there were no prisoners of conscience. Accusations in the report were an attempt to
frame the country. There was no discrimination on grounds of religion and race.
In the ensuing debate on the situation in Myanmar, several speakers welcomed the
cooperation extended to the Special Rapporteur, who had made three country visits,
while it was regretted that he had not been able to meet with Aung San Su Kyi
during those visits. Many expressed concern about the new electoral laws. A new law
banning all political prisoners from belonging to a political party before the election
only served to erode the already highly restricted right to political participation. A
few countries reverted to the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation that the United
Nations consider the possibility of establishing a commission of inquiry into human
rights violations in Myanmar and said they would support it. A number of countries
again reiterated their position with regard to country-specific Special Procedures; all
countries should follow the work approach that had been adopted in the context of
the Council’s creation, they said.
Speaking in the discussion on Myanmar were Italy, Canada, the Philippines, Japan,
the European Union, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, Cuba, Belgium,
Argentina, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, China, the United States, the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Viet Nam, Switzerland, Norway, Australia,
Thailand, Malaysia and Bangladesh. The following non-governmental organizations
also took the floor: the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development; Reporters
without Borders International; International Federation for Human Rights Leagues;
Human Rights Watch; Asian Legal Resource Centre; and Amnesty International.
The Council is meeting today without interruption. Starting at around 3 p.m. it will
consider the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on
the violations of human rights in Honduras since the coup d'état, following which it
will begin its general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s
attention.
Report on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Vitit Muntarbhorn (A/HRC/13/47) is the final
report of this Rapporteur for the Human Rights Council. It reflects on the work of the
Special Rapporteur for the past six years and provides an update of the human rights
situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from the middle of 2009 until
the beginning of 2010. It also identifies preferred steps towards the future.
Presentation of Report
VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that, throughout the past six years, in
his endeavour to be fair, independent and objective, he had written all of his own
reports and the work had been done pro bono. He had based his findings on a
variety of sources of information – some governmental, some inter-governmental,
some non-governmental. Those were supplemented by country visits, particularly to
neighbouring countries affected by the human rights situation in the country in
question. Regrettably, throughout the mandate, the country concerned had declined
to cooperate. From witnessing the human rights situation in the country for the past
six years, one finding was glaring: the abuses against the general population, for
which the authorities should be responsible, were both egregious and endemic. There
had been some constructive developments, but the general scenario was bleak for a
variety of reasons. The non-democratic nature of the power base had created a
pervasive state of fear for the mass base, with inordinate constraints imposed on the
rights and freedoms of the people. Logically, it would seem that if the authorities
were not able to satisfy the basic needs of the people the people should be able to
participate in activities that could help generate income so as to enable them to
produce or buy their own food and sustain their livelihood; however, there had been
a clamp down on the market system.
Last year (2009) had witnessed other draconian measures with negative impacts on
the general population seeking to make ends meet, Mr. Muntarbhorn noted. The
authorities had started to prohibit small-plot farming and had closed markets where
people had previously traded their wares. At the end of the year, the authorities had
imposed a currency revaluation, much to the distress of the population. There was
now huge inflation, particularly affecting the price of food, with widespread suffering
as a consequence of the misconceived currency revaluation. With regard to health
care and education, there had been a general decline of the infrastructure behind the
health and education systems. Given the oppressive nature of the power base, it was
not difficult to surmise the range of abuses which happened on a daily basis and
which threatened the personal security of individuals and families, compounded by
other infringements of their rights and freedoms. While the authorities claimed at the
Universal Periodic Review that human rights were respected in the country, different
sources had indicated the existence of a conglomeration of huge camps for political
prisoners and their families, often held there in perpetuity. The justice system was
subservient to the State, and there was a systemic issue of human rights violations
caused by the power base in the name of the State.
Various sources had suggested a number of ways of making the powers-that-be
accountable internationally, given that the national setting was unable or unwilling to
press for such accountability. The human rights situation in the country could be
described as sui generis, given the multiple particularities and anomalies that
abounded. There were very many instances of human rights violations which were
both harrowing and horrific. While the prospects seemed dim at one level, a beacon
of light could be offered at both the national and international levels if certain
measures were concretized and well implemented. It was thus incumbent on both
the national and international environments to propel constructive and tangible
actions based on international standards to address the human rights situation in the
country. Mr. Muntarbhorn urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
immediately to, among other things, ensure effective provision of and access to food
and other basic necessities for those in need of assistance; adopt a moratorium on
capital punishment; end the punishment of those who sought asylum abroad;
respond constructively to the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur; and open
the door to country visits by other mandates. There was also a need for a range of
longer-term measures. The international community was also invited to take into
account the various recommendations from the report for effective follow-up. The
United Nations system had a special challenge to impel constructive challenges and
accountability: to ensure that the people of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea were protected from the violence and violations – latent, patent and blatant –
which had been so widespread and systematic for so long.
Statement by Concerned Country
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking as a
concerned country, categorically rejected the “Special Rapporteur” on the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea and his report. That Special Rapporteur was a product of
political confrontation that had no relevance to human rights. That Special
Rapporteur originated and existed as a result of “resolutions” that had been enforced
every year by the United States, Japan and the European Union, as part of attempts
to eliminate the State and social system of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea on the pretext of human rights. The United States, Japan and the European
Union had always been talking about their uncompromising stance on human rights
violations no matter when, where or by whom those were committed. Unfortunately,
however, they were silent on the gross human rights violations for which they and
their allies were responsible. As long as there existed politicized country mandates,
the Council would be sure to repeat the same bitter and shameful failure as that of
the Commission on Human Rights. The Special Rapporteur on the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea meant confrontation, which was not compatible with the
spirit of human rights. The anachronistic Special Rapporteur had to be eliminated
once and for all.
Interactive Dialogue on the Human Rights Situation in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea
NICOLE RECKINGER (European Union) said that the fact that the Government of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea had not yet allowed the Special Rapporteur to
enter the country remained a serious challenge to the fulfilment of the mandate. At
the same time, the European Union welcomed an increasing engagement of the
Government with the international community, in particular, its participation in the
Universal Periodic Review. The European Union remained extremely concerned about
the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and was
particularly troubled by the Special Rapporteur’s mention in his report of rampant
torture, public executions, collective punishments resulting from the stratification of
the population into different classes, slave labour and mistreatment of women and
children. The European Union was also concerned about shortage of food and
medicines. The Special Rapporteur had considered the possibility of the International
Criminal Court Prosecutor taking up the case of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea. In the Special Rapporteur’s opinion, what were the prospects of that
happening?
SHINICHI KITAJIMA (Japan) highly commended the sincere activities the Special
Rapporteur had undertaken over the last six years, and believed that his reports
were objective, well-balanced and highly credible. As indicated by his reports, it was
evident that serious human rights violations were prevailing in the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, including torture in detention facilities, public executions,
severe restrictions on freedom of movement and freedom of expression and child
malnutrition. Also, the issue of abduction of Japanese nationals had not been
resolved. It was regrettable that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had
never let the Special Rapporteur into the country nor extended any cooperation to
him. The Government should respond to the recommendations of the Special
Rapporteur with objective and concrete evidence, and make clear the real situation
through dialogue. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should not avoid
specific discussion on the serious situation of human rights in the country, and
should open its eyes to how free the outside world was, and how freedom was
lacking in the country. The situation of human rights was still very serious, and
required the Council's continuous attention. Where grave human rights violations
continued, the Special Rapporteur mechanism complemented the Universal Periodic
Review mechanism. How did the Special Rapporteur think he and the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights could follow-up on the outcome of the
Universal Periodic Review of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
XAVIER BAERT (Belgium) regretted that the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had not been able to
count on the full cooperation of the authorities of that country in discharging his
mandate. Belgium reiterated its desire that in the future the authorities engaged in a
dialogue with the Council and cooperated with its Special Procedures. Belgium
underscored the non-respect of almost all human rights and economic, social and
cultural rights in that country. It had taken note of the recommendations of the
Special Rapporteur, and noted that those were not only addressed to the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea but also to the international community. However, it was
clear that the human rights situation in that country could only be improved if the
authorities truly committed themselves to human rights and opened the territory to
the outside world. The work ahead was enormous, but the sooner all concerned
parties tackled that task, the better.
ALISON LECLAIRE CHRISTIE (Canada) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report,
as well as for his dedication and commitment during the six years of his mandate.
The situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea remained
a matter of grave concern for Canada. It was particularly disturbed by continuing
reports of collective punishments, public executions, torture and arbitrary detentions,
as well as by the harsh treatment of those who had left the country and had
subsequently been repatriated. Canada also remained deeply concerned by the
continuing food shortages and the issue of food security in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, and noted the difficulties experienced by the World Food
Programme in adequately monitoring food distribution. What course of action should
the international community take to best ensure the equal provision of food aid?
FAYSAL KHABBAS HAMOUI (Syria) said Syria was astonished to see the lacunae and
disadvantages highlighted in the report, which contained nothing positive, and was
therefore not objective. It was astonishing that the Council was returning to the
practice of targeting certain countries, as that was clearly politicized. The Council
should be engaging constructively with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to
help it encourage human rights. The country was increasingly open and open to
cooperating with human rights mechanisms. Methods that included sanctions were
useless, and the current work of the Council would harm its reputation. Syria
rejected selective methods as used by some delegations, while all the while ignoring
flagrant human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and finding
excuses to defend a State that was in violation of those rights, as well as ignoring
means to encourage that country to refrain. The Council should prioritize dialogue.
ROBERT KING (United States) found it lamentable that the Government of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea had not allowed the Special Rapporteur to
visit the country. The United States agreed with the Special Rapporteur that the
people of that country suffered under a pervasive state of fear, imposed by the State
through its extensive surveillance and informant system. The United States also
shared the Rapporteur’s concern that resource distribution was used as a means of
State control and was skewed towards the ruling elite. What more could the donor
community do to help resources reach the most vulnerable parts of the population?
The treatment of people who returned to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
had also long troubled the United States, and it urged countries which had refugees
and asylum-seekers from that country to afford them the protection required by
international law. The United States was interested in further insights from the
Special Rapporteur on how countries could utilize their bilateral relationships in an
integrated manner to advance human rights issues in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that selective Special Procedures
mandates against countries of the South were solely based on political motivations
and did not stem from a genuine interest in human rights. The mandate on the
human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea went back to
Item 9 of the agenda of the old Commission on Human Rights. That item had been at
the heart of the failure of the Commission. The move by former United States
President Bush’s Administration to include the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
into the “Axis of Evil” and the establishment of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate had
coincided with the heightening of sanctions against that country. The situation of
human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had already been
reviewed by the Universal Periodic Review Working Group, whose report would be
considered during this very same session. Cuba would vote against the resolution to
renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom) said the Special Rapporteur had to have
found his efforts particularly difficult when having to deal with consistent and
harrowing details of human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea while being refused the opportunity to engage with the authorities there on
them. There had been legal changes reported over the last few years, but there was
little evidence of practical improvement. By not engaging with the Special
Rapporteur, and especially by refusing him access to the country, the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea had missed an opportunity to show the world community,
through an objective observer, a direct view of the real situation on the ground and
the claimed improvements. How should the international community react in the face
of those contradictions? It was disappointing that the Special Rapporteur had had to
draw attention to the same issues throughout his mandate, with inadequate access
to food continuing to threaten the lives of the people. There was a need to increase
the space for discourse and action on human rights, and the country's active
engagement with the Universal Periodic Review should mark the start of that. The
United Kingdom wished to put on record its sincere appreciation for everything the
Special Rapporteur had done both to highlight the human rights situation in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and to offer constructive suggestions for
improvement.
LUO CHENG (China) said the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea had made positive efforts to improve the livelihood of the people in recent
years, but the global financial crisis, as well as other events, had negatively
impacted the situation of human rights in that country. The Democratic People's
Republic of Korea had also constructively participated in the Council’s Universal
Periodic Review mechanism, which highlighted its collaboration with the international
community. China urged States to avoid double standards and to respect the road of
development the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had chosen. As a friendly
neighbour, China would play a responsible and constructive role in the debate, as
always.
SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW (Thailand) urged the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea to maintain its constructive dialogue and engagement with the international
community and wished to see further positive developments in the country. In his
report, the Special Rapporteur had noted that the words “human rights” had been
included in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s Constitution. That was a
positive step. Thailand also welcomed the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s
engagement in the Universal Periodic Review process. While Thailand appreciated the
cooperation between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the international
community to address the food shortages, it regretted that the situation remained
grave. Thailand also recognized that the country had had to face a number of
challenges and sincerely believed that the best way to meet those challenges was by
working with the international community.
ARCANSO DO NASCIMIENTO (Angola) said the analysis of the situation of human
rights should not be considered as selective nor as a critical act, but as a way of
fostering dialogue between the concerned country and the Human Rights Council. It
was important to safeguard the impartiality, credibility and non-selectivity of the
human rights review, and that process should not only be focused on criticism, but
should also aim to make the necessary adjustments to improve the human rights
situation. There was time to exchange views and cooperation in an open and
transparent way. A constructive policy could have true results in the field. The
Council had to work against things that undermined cooperation, and to improve the
human rights situation it was necessary for a cooperative and inclusive approach in
order to help the concerned country to meet its challenges, and arrive at a situation
to overcome the differences of the past and pave a new way forward based on
cooperation and constructive dialogue.
LEE SUNG-JOO (Republic of Korea) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his hard work
during the last six years in discharging his mandate; the efforts made by the Special
Rapporteur merited the Council’s recognition. The Republic of Korea shared the
Rapporteur’s deep concern over the human rights conditions in the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, which showed no particular signs of improvement. Those
attempting to cross the border had also been sanctioned severely, and the
delegation called on the international community to respect the rights of asylumseekers
from that country. The human rights situation in that country remained
serious and required the continued attention of the Council; the Republic of Korea
therefore supported the renewal of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. In questions,
it was asked what had been the major challenges the Special Rapporteur had faced
in fulfilling his mandate, and what advice could he give on how the Council could
address those challenges?
MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) wanted to ask the Government of the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea to show by tangible acts its will to change the situation of
human rights in the country, inter alia, by allowing the Special Rapporteur to visit
the country. Switzerland also agreed with the assessment of the Special Rapporteur
with regard to food security. Food security was a fundamental human right and could
not be met with food aid alone; it had to be based on suitable agriculture. On the
possibility for the International Criminal Court to take up this case, even if that State
had not ratified the Rome Statute, could the Special Rapporteur elaborate on the
tangible benefits for the population of such a move?
HAMZA OMER AHMED (Sudan) wished to draw attention to the fact that the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea was the only State forced to live in a state of
cold war by the presence of international fleets on its borders, ensuring that it was
forced to live in preparation for a state of war. The Special Rapporteur had not made
any reference in his report to the impact of the embargo on the human rights
conditions in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. What was the impact of the
seizure and embargo and international sanctions on the practice of the right to food,
to movement, and other civil and economic rights?
GEIR SJOBERG (Norway) shared the Special Rapporteur’s concerns that fundamental
rights and freedoms continued to be violated in the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea and underscored that its people had serious needs. Norway was particularly
concerned about food shortages and the significant reductions in the capabilities of
the World Food Programmes, as noted in the report. It also shared the Special
Rapporteur’s concern on food distribution and transparency, and appreciated that he
had particularly reported on the situation of vulnerable groups, such as women and
children, who were the main victims of food shortages. Norway underscored that
collaboration between all United Nations agencies was key to best assist the
population of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It also acknowledged that
country’s participation in the Universal Periodic Review and encouraged its
Government to follow up, in cooperation with partners, the recommendations it had
received in that context.
WUNNA MAUNG LWIN (Myanmar) said that Myanmar believed that the current
process of the Universal Periodic Review was the most constructive mechanism to
assess the situation and improve the protection and promotion of human rights in a
country. Country-specific approaches would never be accepted by Myanmar. It was
unfortunate to witness politically motivated approaches and measures from some
quarters of the Council since its inception in 2006. In most cases, developing
countries were the subjects of those measures. They were unhelpful to the cause of
the promotion and protection of human rights. It was time to put an end to such
practices.
CARLOS PORTALES (Chile) said that, at certain times, it could be seen that the
Human Rights Council forgot its main objectives and principles – to protect human
rights and the obligation of States to live up to those expectations. It was a two-way
street between the international community and the concerned country; the former
should seek formulae to remedy the human rights situation and the latter to act
positively and respond. Resolution 60/151 and the institution-building package said
that the Human Rights Council had to make use of certain tools such as the Special
Rapporteurs, which were extraordinary tools, and therefore cooperation between
States and the Special Rapporteurs was of fundamental importance. Chile viewed
with concern and alarm many of the elements contained in the report of the Special
Rapporteur, and wished for the view of the concerned State vis-à-vis its substantive
points. The Council should not discard a tool in its hand to make progress on human
rights. That was a tool which the international community and the Council had to
make use of. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should comply with its
international human rights obligations and cooperate with all instruments available to
the Council.
MUHAMMAD SAEED SARWAR (Pakistan), speaking on the behalf of the Organization
of the Islamic Conference, said as a matter of principle the Organization of the
Islamic Conference opposed all county mandates. It believed that such mandates
politicized the debate and were in fact counterproductive. The Islamic Conference
firmly believed that cooperative mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review,
provided the right space for addressing all human rights concerns in an objective and
impartial manner. The participation of almost every country from all regional and
political divides in that process bore testimony to the belief that discussing human
rights concerns in a non-politicized manner was the best way to attain cooperation
and addressing specific concerns. The acceptance of a number of recommendations
by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea during its Universal Periodic Review
reflected that country’s openness to address different human rights concerns
expressed by the international community. It also confirmed that the best approach
to address human rights concerns was the one of engagement rather than one of
estrangement.
ANGELA ROBINSON (Australia) applauded the work of the Special Rapporteur in
helping to bring international attention to the appalling state of human rights in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Australia welcomed indications in the Special
Rapporteur’s report that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had, at least in
form if not in substance, taken constructive steps internally, such as law reforms,
and in its engagements with the international community on its human rights
situation. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s positive engagement with the
United Nations Children's Fund on child immunization and its willingness to cooperate
with the Universal Periodic Review were noted. While those were positive
developments, Australia was also mindful of the Special Rapporteur’s caution that it
remained to be seen to what extent the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would
accept and act on recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review.
JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said the mandate should be extended, as
the Special Rapporteur had played an important role in highlighting the serious
violations of basic human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The
Special Rapporteur had advised the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to ensure
its citizens' right to food, to adopt a moratorium on the death penalty, and to resolve
the issue of foreign abductees, among others. The Special Rapporteur should explain
how the international community could insert a human rights agenda into the socalled
Six Party talks and other security discussions involving the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea. The latter country had refused to acknowledge the
mandate established by the Council, which should strongly condemn that stance,
contrary to the spirit of cooperation of the Council. The mandate reflected the grave
concern of Member States about the human rights situation in the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea.
Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in concluding remarks, said it was
undoubtedly best to have an independent mandate holder rather than one that was
politicized, and for that reason he always written and even typed his reports himself.
The Universal Periodic Review of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been
very useful. Nevertheless, some rethinking of what had been expressed in that
context by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for example with regard to
public executions, would be appreciated. The Universal Periodic Review should be
seen as complementary to other mechanisms and there were three angles in that
regard: ratification of treaties, implementation of treaties, and cooperation. In that
regard, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been particular encouraged to
ratify the Convention against Torture.
Mr. Muntarbhorn further underscored that he believed impunity had to be combated
by using the United Nations system as a whole. Some non-governmental
organizations had sent cases to the International Criminal Court to ensure
accountability, and it remained to be seen what happened with those. There had
been some developments in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in recent
years. While the situation remained very difficult, he noted with satisfaction the
legislative reforms that integrated human rights into laws.
As for comments made on a lack of cooperation, Mr. Muntarbohorn underscored that
his door had always been open. He also acknowledged that multiple information
sources were an important issue and he had attempted to access different sources to
ensure checks and balances on his work. While access to the country would have
been greatly appreciated so that he could see for himself, that had not significantly
undermined the checks and balances. He was also conscious of the need to deal with
the consequences of the cold war and the Korean War, as highlighted by Sudan.
Progress Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar
The progress report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Myanmar, Tomas Ojea Quintana (A/HRC/13/48) notes that a pattern of gross and
systematic violation of human rights has been in place for many years. Given the
extent and persistence of the problem, and the lack of accountability, there is an
indication that those human rights violations are the result of a State policy,
originating from decisions by authorities in the executive, military and judiciary at all
levels. The Government needs to take prompt and effective measures to investigate
these facts.
Presentation of Report
TOMAS OJEA QUINTANA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Myanmar, said that Myanmar was at a critical moment in its history: for the first
time in 20 years, elections had been planned. The organization of elections should
represent an important opportunity for the Government to address a range of human
rights issues and to initiate the much-needed reforms towards the building of
democratic institutions. He was, however, concerned that that opportunity was not
being seized. He had just returned from his third mission to Myanmar last February,
during which he had been given access to three prisons, as he had requested. He
had also met with local and central authorities in those places, as well as
representatives from political parties, ethnic minority groups and judges and
lawyers. The duration allowed for the mission had, however, been too short and
access had been limited.
While he thanked the Government for the cooperation extended to him, Mr. Ojea
Quintana had not come away from his mission with a clear sense of progress on the
four core elements he had put forward to the Government in August 2008. The same
large numbers of prisoners of conscience were to be found in prisons across the
country, while new arrests and sentences continued. Those people had a legitimate
role to play in the important upcoming elections; however, they were now explicitly
banned from becoming members of political parties that wished to contest the
elections and their parties were required to expel them in order to be registered for
the elections. Of the current 2,100 prisoners of conscience, some 430 party
members of the National League for Democracy – including some 10 Central
Committee members and its Secretary-General Daw Aung San Suu Kyi – had been
rejected. He reiterated his call for her release without delay. Another key human
rights issue particularly relevant in the context of elections was freedom of
expression, association and assembly. There could be no freedom of expression
when all printed material had to be submitted to the Press Scrutiny Board for vetting
prior to publication. In the context of the upcoming elections, he saw no indication
that the Government was willing to release all prisoners of conscience and that
fundamental freedoms would be granted.
Last year, he had raised his concerns on the situation of the Muslim population in the
northern Rakine State, where an estimated 1 million people were excluded from
citizenship on the basis of their ethnicity and were perceived as illegal immigrants.
He had had the opportunity to spend two days in that region. The discrimination
faced by that community was deep rooted and endemic. The response from the
authorities to the alarming situation for that community was a consistent denial of
the existence of any discrimination. The human rights challenges that the
Government had to deal with were daunting and accountability for past violations
had to be established, Mr. Ojea Quintana concluded.
Statement by Concerned Country
WUNNA MAUNG LWIN (Myanmar), speaking as a concerned country, said most facts
in the report had been missing and noted a lack of objectivity. Myanmar was holding
free and fair elections. The transition towards democracy was proceeding
accordingly. It had reached the most important step in the seven-step road map. The
country’s focus was not on the narrow interests of individuals but on the larger
interests of the country. The destiny of Myanmar was to be decided by its people. Its
judiciary was independent and impartial. There were no prisoners of conscience.
Accusations in the report were an attempt to frame the country. There was no
discrimination on grounds of religion and race. The Special Rapporteur made
inappropriate demands of the political process by linking it with human rights issues.
Issues mentioned in the report fell outside the mandate of the Human Rights
Council. Myanmar strongly condemned and rejected certain unfounded allegations.
Nonetheless, Myanmar remained committed to cooperating with the Council, while
preserving its integrity and sovereignty.
Interactive Dialogue on Human Rights Situation in Myanmar
LAURA MIRIACHIAN (Italy) said Italy had followed with concern the human rights
situation in Myanmar, noting some positive developments, but that the upcoming
elections still suffered from a lack of transparency and inclusiveness. Recent electoral
laws did not meet the expectations of the international community, and the
authorities should open an inclusive dialogue with all political parties and ethnic
groups and ensure a process of free and fair elections. The authorities should free all
political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and allow their participation.
There should be a comprehensive political reform; in that context, the Special
Rapporteur was asked what could be done to further that goal?
ALISON LECLAIRE CHRISTIE (Canada) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report
and his efforts to visit Myanmar. Canada urged the Government to engage with the
Special Rapporteur, particularly on the four core human rights elements identified by
him. In the interests of an election that supported a genuine democratic process,
based on principles of transparency, fairness and inclusion, Canada called upon
Myanmar to free all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and to engage in
a genuine dialogue with members of the democratic opposition and different ethnic
groups in the country. How did the Special Rapporteur suggest Myanmar should
interact with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Intergovernmental
Commission on Human Rights?
DENIS Y. LEPATAN (Philippines) commended Myanmar for its cooperation concerning
recent visits by the Special Rapporteur. The report had mentioned that Myanmar had
been ranked 138 out of 182 countries in the 2009 Human Development Index. It was
one of the least developed countries in the world. The Philippines had tried to verify
information that 25 per cent of the people there did not have access to safe drinking
water. Side by side data on health and water in the Human Development Report
2009 was data on adult illiteracy. Why had the Special Rapporteur not used that
data? Myanmar scored higher than average, with only a 10 per cent adult illiteracy
rate compared to 70 per cent worldwide. The socio-economic situation in Mynamar
was part of global trend. The Philippines thanked the Special Rapporteur for
acknowledging that and calling for international cooperation in that regard. That
should be based on the needs and requirements of the country concerned.
KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan) appreciated the positive steps taken by the
Government of Myanmar towards national reconciliation and democratization,
believing that it was important for the international community to acknowledge such
positive developments while encouraging and urging the Government to take further
steps. Myanmar should release all prisoners of conscience, including Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi, in advance of national elections so that the elections were held in a free and
fair manner with the participation of all parties concerned. The implementation of the
elections in an all-inclusive manner was indispensable to the success of the elections,
and essential to the realization of democratization. Japan supported the Special
Rapporteur's recommendations on the implementation of the four core human rights
elements, namely the release of all prisoners of conscience; review and revision of
national legislation in accordance with international human rights obligations; judicial
reform to establish an independent and impartial judiciary; and establishment of a
training programme on human rights for members of the armed forces and staff of
prisons.
LEONOR VIEIRA SOUSA (European Union) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his
comprehensive report and welcomed his recent visit to the country. The European
Union, however. regretted that the Special Rapporteur had not been able to meet
with Aung San Su Kyi and was deeply worried by the new electoral law. How did the
Special Rapporteur assess the possibilities for credible elections? The European Union
also welcomed the agreement to strengthen the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights’ presence in the country and strongly supported the Special
Rapporteur’s call for the Government to take strong investigative measures into
human rights violations. What steps should be taken by the Government in that
regard and what role could the international community play in that perspective?
TAE-ICK CHO (Republic of Korea) commended the continued efforts of the Special
Rapporteur and Myanmar’s cooperation in that regard. On prisoners of conscience,
the Republic of Korea urged the Government, among other things, to release long
serving prisoners and those with health issues in particular. For a transition towards
democracy, it would be necessary for Myanmar to take measures aimed at effectively
implementing core human rights elements. It was sincerely hoped that Myanmar
would carry out elections in a free and transparent manner. It was important now
more than ever before for the country to ensure freedom of opinion and expression,
which were preconditions for free and fair elections. The Republic of Korea would
appreciated it if the Special Rapporteur could comment on which actions had to be
taken first, in that regard.
BOB LAST (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom remained deeply concerned at
the widespread and systematic violations of human rights in Myanmar, and the
culture of impunity in which they were committed, and urged the authorities to take
prompt and effective measures to investigate and establish responsibility for those
abuses, as called for by the Special Rapporteur and in previous Council resolutions.
The United Kingdom was concerned, in the light of forthcoming elections, at the
continuing and severe restrictions to freedom of expression, assembly and
association, including further restrictions to participation indicated by the electoral
laws issued so far. Elections could not be credible or legitimate without the release
and participation of over 2,100 political prisoners, the creation of conditions for
genuine dialogue and a process of national reconciliation with the opposition and
ethnic groups. There had been some progress in the authorities' engagement with
the International Labour Organization to tackle forced labour and widespread child
recruitment. However, the United Kingdom also expressed grave concern over
reports of renewed fighting in Eastern Myanmar, and in particular further reports of
the targeting of civilians and medical facilities in violation of international
humanitarian law.
RESFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba) said that Cuba had a firm position of principles with
regard to country-specific Special Procedures. All countries should follow the work
approach that had been adopted in the context of the Council’s creation. Cuba took
note of Myanmar’s efforts for setting up the coming elections. It was through
dialogue and cooperation that the Council could fulfil its role of protection and
promotion of human rights. Those efforts should not serve as a vehicle for
politicization.
XAVIER BAERT (Belgium) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his detailed report and
for his excellent presentation. Belgium regretted that he had not been able to set up
the programme for his visit. Belgium appealed for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.
It shared concerns on the election process expressed by the United Nations, and
noted that several States and non-governmental organizations had already
expressed concerns over the new election laws. Belgium requested a specific date for
the pledged elections.
HECTOR RAUL PELAEZ (Argentina) said Argentina was greatly concerned by the
situation of religious groups, civil society organizations and the population of
Myanmar, and urged the Government to respect the fundamental human rights of its
inhabitants. Freedom of religion and the exercise of the right to expression through
peaceful protest and freedom of association were inalienable rights recognized in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which all States of the international
community had to respect. The report of the Special Rapporteur focused on the
issues of the protection of human rights, in particular the situation of prisoners of
conscience, their right to a fair trial and procedural guarantees, as well as the
freedom of expression, association and assembly. Argentina supported the view that
Myanmar’s national legislation should be reviewed to bring it into accord with its
international obligations, that it reform its armed forces in line with international
human rights, and that it train the judiciary. The deprivation of freedom experienced
by opposition members was an important impediment to democracy, liberty and
justice in the country.
KHONEPHENG THAMMAVONG (Lao People’s Democratic Republic) thanked the
Special Rapporteur for his report and Myanmar for having provided good cooperation
to the Special Rapporteur. It noted the significant progress made by Myanmar in
promoting economic, social and cultural rights and in assuring food security to its
people and efforts in promoting national reconsolidation by organizing a free and fair
election this year, as well as the Government’s commitment to follow the seven-step
road map. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic hoped that the Government of
Myanmar would continue and make every effort to fulfil its tasks to overcome the
challenges to eradicating poverty and improving food security.
LUO CHENG (China) appreciated Myanmar’s efforts to cooperate with the Special
Rapporteur. It noted human rights improvements that had taken place. As a friendly
neighbour, China respected the country’s choice of its own road to development. It
also appreciated the Government’s efforts for political reconciliation. China would
cooperate accordingly in that regard.
DOUGLAS M. GRIFFITHS (United States), welcomed the report of the Special
Rapporteur, which painted a grim picture of the continuing human rights tragedy in
Myanmar. The recommendation that the United Nations consider creating a
commission of inquiry was significant. That recommendation served to underscore
the seriousness of the human rights problems in the country, and the pressing need
for the international community to find an effective way to address challenges there.
Since the release of the report, the Government had promulgated its electoral laws,
and the United States was deeply disappointed in them, as they excluded all of the
country's more than 2,000 political prisoners from political participation, imposed
onerous restrictions on political activity, and limited the ability of political parties to
operate and organize. That was a serious step in the wrong direction. Had the
Special Rapporteur received any indication that the Government planned to review or
revoke those restrictive statutes? The United States also shared the Rapporteur's
concerns about reports of civilians being used as forced labour on military
construction projects, and about recruitment of child soldiers, and hoped the
Government would put into practice its commitments to eradicate forced labour.
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea remained invariable in its principle of rejecting
politicization and double standards, as manifested in country mandates. The purpose
of the Human Rights Council was to do away with politicization, but unfortunately
that still existed. As long as that was the case, the Council would follow the same
path as its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission. The Democratic People's
Republic of Korea therefore strongly advocated the abolition of country mandates, as
well as the unjust politicization and double standards applied to Myanmar.
TRAN CHI THANH (Viet Nam) congratulated Myanmar on its enhanced collaboration
with the Special Rapporteur. The Government had allowed the Special Rapporteur to
carry out three consecutive visits. The Special Rapporteur had had been able to visit
prisoners, community leaders and non-governmental organizations. That showed the
serious commitment of Myanmar to the national reconciliation process and should be
recognized by the Council. Myanmar was also meeting challenges to the full
enjoyment of social and economic rights. The country had been hard hit by the
economic crisis. Myanmar needed international aid to help it achieve the Millennium
Development Goals.
MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said the mandate on Myanmar was very important for
Switzerland. It asked Myanmar to translate into action its resolve to cooperate. The
forthcoming elections had to be free, transparent and inclusive. They had to ensure
and include freedom of expression and movement. The Special Rapporteur shared
Switzerland’s deep concern over systematic and endemic human rights violations of
the Muslim minority in Myanmar. Although it was aware that minorities should be
dealt with at the regional level, what approach could the Special Rapporteur propose
and what could the international community do in that regard?
GEIR SJOBERG (Norway) said the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation
in Myanmar had pointed to continued gross and systematic human rights violation in
that county. Norway was concerned about those violations and called on the
Government to take prompt and effective measures to tackle human rights abuses
and to remove restrictions on human rights. In order for the elections this year to be
free, it was crucial that people enjoyed their fundamental rights and freedoms. The
conditions of the present situation did not allow exercise of those rights. While the
elections were an opportunity for positive change, the Government needed to be
committed to that end. All prisoners of conscious had to be released. The Human
Rights Council had the obligation to address the human rights situation in Myanmar,
and the Government of Myanmar should therefore cooperate with the Council and
bring to responsibility those that were found to be involved in human rights
violations.
ANGELA ROBINSON (Australia) said the Special Rapporteur’s report to the Council
again confirmed the dire human rights situation in Myanmar and reaffirmed the need
for the international community to remain engaged in seeking to improve the
situation. Noting the steps under way towards elections in 2010, Australia supported
the Special Rapporteur’s call for the release of all political prisoners, including Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi. Australia noted the Special Rapporteur’s suggestion that United
Nations institutions might consider the possibility of establishing a commission of
inquiry to address the question of international crimes in Myanmar. Australia would
support investigating possible options for a United Nations commission of inquiry.
SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW (Thailand) welcomed the Myanmar’s decision to invite
the Special Rapporteur for a third visit to Myanmar. It urged the Government to
continue extending its welcome to the Special Rapporteur. The best way to enhance
human rights in the country was to encourage it to expedite the process towards
democratization. Recent weeks had shown some steps in that direction. Thailand
hoped more positive moves would be upcoming in the lead up to elections. It urged
Myanmar to take into account the concerns of the international community. Thailand
reiterated its hope to see credible and inclusive elections.
ADNIN SITI HAJJAR (Malaysia) said Malaysia continued to believe that national
reconciliation and consolidation of the democratic efforts currently under way in
Myanmar were fundamental to enduring peace, stability and socio-economic
development. Myanmar was encouraged to continue on its path towards democratic
reforms, including by engaging the relevant stakeholders in the country through a
meaningful and inclusive political process. The Government should continue to take
the necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the forthcoming elections would
be free, fair and in line with international standards. Malaysia also encouraged
Myanmar to continue engagement with the international community with a view to
addressing the many and complex challenges it faced, including the humanitarian
and refugee issues as outlined in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human
rights situation in Myanmar.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that, as a close neighbour, Bangladesh was
following with interest the events in Myanmar and continued to support the
Government in its efforts towards the upcoming elections. Bangladesh noted with
appreciation the many positive developments that had taken place in the past years
in Myanmar. The international community could do more by engaging in Myanmar’s
democratization. The situation of Muslim minorities in Myanmar remained a concern
for Bangladesh. The border parts of Bangladesh with Myanmar were also being
affected by that situation. Bangladesh, however, noted that the Muslim minorities
had been provided with identification cards and had been allowed to vote in local
elections; that was an undoubtedly positive development.
THAUNG HTUN, of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, asked for a
resolution to follow from conclusions and recommendations made by the Special
Rapporteur. It had expressed its serious doubts at the tenth session of the Council
that the State Peace and Development Council’s seven-point road map to democracy
had only been meant to legitimize military rule through the elections due to take
place this year. Now, election laws had been designed to exclude prisoners of
conscience from any political process ahead. There would be no polling in certain
areas. What measures would be taken by the Special Rapporteur to deter the State
Peace and Development Council’s moves against ethnic groups? How would the
Special Rapporteur work with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Member States to improve human rights in the country?
GEORGE GORDON-LENNOX, of Reporters Without Borders International, said the
Special Rapporteur on Myanmar had been allowed to visit certain prisoners of
conscience, including journalists. He also rightly pointed out that the 2010 elections
could not be held meaningfully without freedom of expression. Nevertheless,
presently there were 12 journalists and many more bloggers in prison in that
country, and few correspondents could access what was happening in Myanmar. Did
the Special Rapporteur intend to work with the Working Groups on torture and on
arbitrary detention to address the situation in the country? Also, did he agree that
press freedom should be one of the priorities for the 2010 elections?
EMMANOUIL EATHAN ASIOU, of the International Federation for Human Rights
Leagues, expressed deep concerns that numerous urgent calls to end gross,
systematic and widespread human rights abuses in Myanmar had gone unheeded.
National reconciliation was not possible when abuses were being committed in
various parts of the country, against ethnic minorities including women and girls,
political activists, journalists and civil society. The International Federation also
strongly condemned the recently announced elections laws, which stripped the over
a million Burmese people of their right to participate in the elections. The minimum
conditions for an effective transition to democracy had not been met. Yet the
Government seemed bent on carrying out elections in a climate of fear.
JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s call to
establish a commission of inquiry on the human rights situation in Myanmar.
Ongoing research by Human Rights Watch had found that a range of crimes
continued against certain minorities in the country. Myanmar was very different to
many developing countries. It remained one of the most repressive regimes in Asia.
The Council should support the Special Rapporteur’s call for an inquiry commission.
It called on the Secretary-General to support Mr. Quintana’s recommendation and to
convene a commission at the highest levels of the United Nations to put it into effect.
MICHAEL ANTHONY, of the Asian Legal Resource Center, hoped that the Special
Rapporteur would study in depth the corruption that undermined justice in Myanmar.
Virtually every case that the Asian Legal Resource Center had studied in recent years
had illustrated the effect of corruption and procedural failures on the administration
of justice in that country. Courts in Myanmar also routinely accepted as evidence
confessions that had been obtained through the use of torture, and torture was now
more widespread than at any time in recent decades. The Council and the Special
Rapporteur were urged to make torture a priority concerning Myanmar; to insist that
Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution be amended to prohibit torture; that Myanmar acceded
to the United Nations Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol; that a
law to prohibit torture be introduced; and that international agencies be invited to
assist in the setting up of special units for the investigation and prosecution of acts
of torture in the country.
PATRIZIA SCANELLA, of Amnesty International, welcomed the latest report of the
Special Rapporteur. The gravity of its findings demanded a principled and resolute
response by the Human Rights Council. The upcoming elections in Myanmar
threatened to intensify the already severe repression of political critics. Over the past
two years, activist had faced extensive surveillance, harassment, religious
discrimination, arbitrary arrest, torture, imprisonment and extrajudicial execution. At
least 2,200 political prisoners, including many from ethnic minorities, languished in
Myanmar’s jails. A new law banning all political prisoners fr0m belonging to a political
party before the election only served to erode the already highly restricted right to
political participation.
TOMAS OJEA QUINTANA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Myanmar, in his concluding remarks, pointed out that, ever since the start of his
mandate, his attitude of cooperation and dialogue with the Government of Myanmar
had been present and it would continue. Cooperation meant a meeting between two
sides, and was a way of achieving higher goals, in this case protection of and respect
for human rights. It also required significant results; therefore, cooperation could not
act as an obstacle to making things public or to denouncing things. The important
thing was the resolve to cooperate and to enter into a dialogue with the Government.
With regard to the involvement of the Human Rights Commission of Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), it was noted that the ASEAN Human Rights
Commission had only recently been established and its terms of reference were just
being clarified. However, with the upcoming elections, it had the opportunity to play
and active role. Canada had referred to internal mechanisms for human rights. He
believed that a draft text for establishing such a body was being worked on, but a
serious analysis of the human rights situation remained to be undertaken. The
Philippines had asked about the situation of economic, social and cultural rights in
Myanmar. That allowed him to highlight the indivisibility of human rights. Human
rights conditions in the country were such that all rights were gravely restricted. The
report had always touched on all rights together. Myanmar needed to take measures
on civil and political rights so as to improve social and cultural rights.
Japan had said that it was also necessary to point to progress and positive signals
made in protecting human rights. Mr. Ojea Quintana underlined that he had never
omitted to make reference to efforts made by the Government to improve human
rights. It was also part of the process of cooperation between both sides. The
European Union had referred to his recommendations that laws limiting freedom of
expression, association and the right to take part in political events be reviewed. The
Government had indicated that that it had started a process along those lines, but he
had received no tangible indication of revisions of those laws yet. On participation,
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had referred to moves to gradually release
all prisoners of conscience. That had only been seen marginally. He would try to
continue to cooperate with Myanmar on that issue. He had asked for another mission
in 2010. The United States had referred to judicial issues; in his report it noted there
was no independent judiciary nor was it impartial. He had also noted that the right to
due defence was not ensured and that lawyers for prisoners of conscience had been
arrested because they were defending such people.
The international community had to carry out a more specific assessment if it was
going to work with the Government to improve the situation of poverty. Mr. Ojea
Quintana insisted that the issue of Muslims that had already had an impact on other
countries. He felt that ASEAN should play a role in addressing that case. Concerning
elections, it was the appropriate opportunity to remind the authorities that they still
had a major debt in the area of justice with regard to human rights violations to cope
with. The Council should also bore a responsibility; it should focus on achieving a
consensus to respond to that problem. That could mean the establishment of a
commission of investigation. The Special Rapporteur stood ready to assess ways of
proceeding in that regard. At this juncture, if marches or demonstrations were held
there should be only proportional use of force. The Special Rapporteur hoped that in
2011 they would be meeting again with the certainty that Myanmar had started
receiving the sort of care it deserved, which depended to a large extent on members
of the Council.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record