'Free Burma VJ' Campaign seeks the release of 17 journalists from DVB in prison

* This article was written for the Doha Centre for Media Freedom. For original version visit: Gauging the ‘Winds’ of Change in Burma

Bold Promises

Tint Swe, Director of the Press Scrutiny and Registration Department (PSRD) of Burma is confident that freedom from censorship is an inevitability for the country and that privately owned publications will soon be allowed to operate as dailies once the new media law comes into effect. There have been rumours of a draft circulating in the parliament but with no confirmed details.

“Press censorship is non-existent in most other countries as well as among our neighbours and as it is not in harmony with democratic practices, press censorship should be abolished in the near future,” said Tint Swe during an interview with Radio Free Asia (RFA).

Seldom do we hear of government bureaucrats discussing the redundancy of their own departments. The comments, which were made available to readers inside the country continue to make headlines, triggering heated discussion amongst analysts across the spectrum on ‘winds of political reform’ in the country. While some, including foreign diplomats, are eagerly embracing the moves as positive and progressive, free speech advocates would like to put a question mark in the phrase: winds of reform?

The atmosphere inside the country is rife with discussions from newsrooms to the tea shops. Stuart Deed, Business Editor at Myanmar Times, the largest private news publication in the country with a weekly circulation of 25,000 (Burmese version), is encouraged by Tint Swe’s statements and believes the intent is genuine. In an interview with Doha Centre for Media Freedom, he explains that censorship in the country is less pervasive in comparison to five years ago, yet remains a staunch presence. As a journalist practicing inside the country he describes the process of state controlled censorship as “exasperating, painful and disheartening” at times.

“For the best reporters – at least those who dare to report on corruption or edgy subjects – it’s very hard indeed because they would sometimes go weeks without seeing any of their work published. To some extent that has eased but there are still boundaries,” he elaborates.

Every article written in the country must go through the PSRD, the censor board, which then decides if the story will be published and if parts that are disagreeable to the government will be omitted. This has been the law since 1962 when a military government took power.

Progressive Measures

There is no arguing that unprecedented events in relation to media have taken place inside the country. A detailed interview of Aung San Suu Kyi, the country’s well known opposition leader, was published on the front page of newspapers legally circulating in Burma. An interview of Aung Zaw, the editor of exiled publication Irrawaddy, which included his comments on controversial topics such as press freedom and political prisoners, was published in Yangon based Weekly Eleven Journal. The decades-long official ban on media outlets such as the BBC and the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) was lifted last month. It should be noted that these outlets have been sources of information, for years, for millions of Burmese who manage to access blocked sites through proxy servers. So the move by the government is of symbolic importance rather than improved access to information.

But, recent events that have created greater access to information and public opinion deserve mention.

“The decision to allow journalists to cover this latest sitting of the upper and lower houses of parliament is a fine example of a measure the new government has implemented to operate more freely,” explains Deed. Previously his publication would have to rely on information provided by The New Light of Myanmar, the state-run newspaper, essentially a pro-government mouthpiece.

Another recent event that received unprecedented coverage was public protest that took place in September and early October of this year, opposing construction of the Myitsone dam on the Irrawaddy river. It was a project led by China and catering mostly to Chinese consumption at the expense of Burmese civilians’ needs for water and electricity.

“The amount of information and criticism that papers were able to publish on that issue here was astounding,” explains Deed. However, the coverage was not without censorship as Deed’s own story on the topic was rejected.

Politics of Prisoner Release

It is indeed a novelty in a Burmese context to see an international reporter from Norwegian television presenting for camera from the parliament in Naypyidaw. It was this report from October, with an interview of a high level Burmese official implying an ‘imminent’ release of political prisoners that first alerted the international community on a possible amnesty taking place within days. In the end, the amnesty only included 237 political prisoners. About 1900 still remain behind bars.

Burma does not officially recognise the existence of political prisoners, journalists included. Those released were classified as criminals freed under a presidential pardon. It is interesting, however, that the announcement of a mass prisoner release by Myanmar State Television (MRTV) coincided with a letter addressed to the President by the newly formed Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC), seeking the release of all political prisoners.

“The Myanmar National Human Rights Commission humbly requests the president, as a reflection of his magnanimity, to grant amnesty to those prisoners and release them from the prison,” the letter said. Even the use of the term ‘prisoners of conscience’ in the letter is a significant departure from the norm.

While Amnesty International has welcomed the release of the prisoners as a positive sign, their researcher on Burma, Benjamin Zawacki, sticks to their overarching statement regarding the event.

“Unless the figure rises substantially, it will constitute a relaxation of reform efforts rather than a bold step forward,” he explains in an interview with Doha Centre.

Journalists Behind Bars

The atmosphere at the exile media organisation, DVB, with 17 of its own reporters behind bars, was somber on the day of the prisoner release. Only three of their video journalists were released in the end. The rest remain in prisons across the country for violating the draconian Electronics Act and the Emergency Provision Act. Many of them are serving heavy penalties for their contributions that exposed military brutality during the Saffron Revolution of 2007.

Geraldine May, the campaign coordinator for Free Burma VJ campaign, explains the stories of five of the DVB video journalists who have featured prominently in the campaign. 27 year old Hla Hla Win is amongst these Vjs and her current sentence will put her at twice her present age when she is released.

“Her official crime was traveling on the back of a unregistered motor vehicle when she was detained but her real crime was speaking to monks on political subjects,” explains Geraldine. World wide protests continue on calling for the release of Hla Hla Win and her peers.

Practice What You Preach

Does the new government have a different approach than the old guard?

The answer from all the interviewees is a clear yes. However, the pertinent question here is that of substantive change over rhetorical gestures. Zawacki points out that beyond recognising the new wave of discussion around reform that has been initiated by the government, there are important questions to be asked: “How deeply does that approach run within the government and how far does it extend beyond media reform? And is that new approach sustainable, even irreversible?”

Adding to this discussion, Deed points out that the term ‘media reform’ itself is contradictory. “Media reform means a busted system or there would be no need to reform it,” he points out.

Other analysts, based inside the country, who advocate collaborative efforts with the government within existing frameworks in order to create change, have a slightly different notion of what reform entails.

“Press freedom, in Myanmar, means the extent to which the private media can push the boundaries, and write about things that won’t necessarily please the government,” explains a Yangon based foreign analyst. He adds that press freedoms have gradually expanded in Burma over the last two years, well before the current government came into power.

But, even the most ardent supporters of the idea of ‘media reform’ agree that the changes will be gradual and those concerned with free speech issues will have to be realistic, as an overnight transformation is unlikely.

While the discussion of reforming media laws initiated by government officials such as Tint Swe is a welcome change for a country thirsty for basic freedoms, the difficult steps are yet to be made. Implementing swift media reforms in a country that was once known for its vibrant press is not a far fetched notion, according to Zawacki. But implementation will require change in laws.“Media reform must manifest itself in both law and practice,” he explains.

Long term and permanent reform is therefore inextricably bound to establishing a legal precedent.

The post Winds of ‘Media Reform’ in Burma appeared first on The Faster Times.

The penalty for ‘whistle blowing’

On August 25th 2011, a Malaysian High Court concluded that Charles Hector Fernandez, a Malaysian human rights advocate, would pay about $1 million in damages to Asahi Kosei, a Japanese electronics firm, as part of a civil defamation settlement. He will also address a half page apology to the company to be published in leading Malaysian newspapers.

The official charge against Charles was creating “ malicious falsehoods” against Asahi, which constitutes as ‘libel’ under Malaysian laws. But his actual crime is that of being a whistle blower who documented and reported labor violations against 31 Burmese migrant workers employed by Asahi. Charles detailed the Burmese workers’ claims on his human rights blog. His penalty was a punitive lawsuit by Asahi demanding $3.3 million dollars from Charles for trying to malign their reputation and a public apology, which has led to the current outcome.

Sedition to defamation: public and private restrictions on freedom of speech

It was an act instated in 1948 to curb critical speech against British colonial rule in the Federation of Malay – present day Malaysia.

Today, the infamous Sedition Act remains a parliament-imposed restriction on freedom of speech that has been granted and consistently extended under the auspices of the federal constitution of Malaysia.

So any critical speech against a branch, instrument or figure of the government can be punishable by law when deemed malignant and a threat to national interests. Now, apply the same principle to the private sphere, where accusations against a company or individual of unethical behaviour, can be taken to the courts even if documented and corroborated with testimonies. This is what Charles Hector is currently facing as a whistleblower on human rights abuses against migrant workers by Asahi Kosei. Asahi has charged Charles with committing ‘libel’ which applies exclusively to the private sphere, but the company’s behaviour alarmingly resembles that of a governmental body with constitutional privileges.

The story behind the case

Charles’ blog entry was based on complaints by the 31 migrant workers that they were being compensated a significantly lower wage than agreed upon. The workers reported to Charles that when they addressed the issue with their employer, they were threatened with termination and deportation. The migrant workers were supplied to Asahi by an ‘outsourcing’ agent. According to most civil rights activists, the very existence and continuing operation of such outsourcing companies that supply workers to the owner-operator are in violation of current employment laws in Malaysia, where third party outsourcing agents are illegal and do not possess permits.

Charles is candid in his assessment of the state of free speech in Malaysia. ‘Deplorable’ is his unhesitant verdict. “Whilst Malaysia’s Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, opinion and peaceful assembly, it is taken away by the requirement of permission from the police, permits and licenses from government bodies,” he elaborates.

That this case has successfully made it to the courts in Kuala Lumpur is a heavy blow to an already precarious human rights situation for migrant workers in the country. It is a veiled threat to free speech and access to information that are vital for demanding accountability from wrong doers. In this case the parties to be questioned are Asahi, as a foreign company that should be meticulous in following labor laws, and the government that has turned a blind eye towards illegal outsourcing agents. In determining the validity of the lawsuit, the courts have not considered the illegal status of the outsourcing company that provided the workers to Asahi and Asahi’s own complicit involvement in an illegal practice by hiring the workers through the agent. And so the lawsuit has continued for months upon Charles’ refusal to retreat his blog entry that documented complaints by the 31 workers.

Government compliance

Charles and his family are not alone in their disbelief over the lawsuit. Civil society groups across the globe from Human Rights Watch to the Asian Foundation for Human Rights have condemned the case as a bullying tactic to shut the mouths of activists, journalists and media challenging the ethics of multinational giants that carry weight and influence in policy making circles. It is a move that they all agree should not be condoned by the government, especially when related to the rights of its own citizen over the interests of a foreign-owned company that is treading murky waters.

As part of efforts to eradicate corruption and promote transparency in Malaysia, the government instated the Whistleblowers Act in 2010 to protect individuals and organisations that uncover fraudulent practices inside the country. So the imperative question in this case is: Why has the act not been applied to Charles and the 31 migrants workers as whistleblowers?

Asahi claims that they have no legal obligations towards the treatment of these workers who carried out paid duties at their factory as these individuals were supplied by a third party. Hence, Charles must either officially retract his statements or pay the sum for the purported libel.

To counter Asahi’s demands that Charles remove the postings from his blog and publicly apologise for his ‘condemnable’ and condemning comments, 70 international human rights groups have asked the company to retract the libel case.

“It is against public interest to go after human rights activists, bloggers and media personnel who highlight any alleged human rights violations,” the Asian Human Rights Commission and others explain in their joint letter.

But the lawsuit against Charles is exemplary of the current state of the judicial process in Malaysia, where individual speech is curbed when deemed necessary, police have an inordinate amount of power and corporations profitable to the economy behave like political heavyweights.

Charles explains that government compliance in this case is evident through its deliberate “inaction” and its failure to “enforce existing laws and allowing practices that attempt to evade/disguise real employment relationships.” By not reacting to Charles’ accusations of ill-treatment of migrant workers and allowing the defamation case to continue in the court where Asahi is the initiator of a libel suit and not a defendant in a labor abuse case, the responsible ministries have implicitly endorsed the case.

Asahi is clearly attempting to shut down future questions over ‘ethical practices’ from other prying activists and journalists. And the case is perhaps one that the government has been entertaining as a solution to the increasing criticism of the ‘migrant situation’ over the years.

Migrant Workers: commodities without protection

With an estimated 1.7 million migrant workers, only 700,000 of whom are documented, Malaysia constitutes the largest market for foreign workers in Southeast Asia. As a relatively affluent country in the region, the country attracts migrants from surrounding conflict ridden and poverty afflicted countries, such as Burma. Whilst the market demand for these workers has continued over the years, the government has done little to protect the rights of non-Malaysian employees. These workers are needed but not necessarily wanted and this attitude can be seen both societally as well as well as in the government’s inadequacy in applying human rights laws to these segments.

Horror stories of overcrowded detention centres where illegal migrants are confined for months without legal aid are not new to the country. Mass hunger strikes and setting ablaze of facilities by frustrated migrant detainees have been reported in the media in recent years. Cases of employers confiscating passports of foreign workers are widespread. However, activism in relation to migrant rights remains a sensitive and ‘difficult to access’ field even for Malaysian citizens.

Similar to its neighbour Singapore, Malaysia has maintained a highly restrictive environment for civil society groups, where local NGOs have to undergo a burdensome and bureaucratic process of registration and where international NGOs are often successfully curtailed by the government in their activities. Similar restrictions has been formally and informally applied to media coverage of migrant issues.

For instance Charles points out, “joint media statements on issues affecting migrant workers are almost never carried by mainstream media in Malaysia.” The absence of a unified voice amongst national media outlets against this rampant problem is clear evidence of a domineering government policy that inevitably encourages similar violations by individuals, businesses and corporations.

Impact on activism

Charles is not alone in realising that the very initiation of this lawsuit, which has stretched over several months now, will have a severe impact of the psyche and morale of those wanting to expose wrongdoings in their communities.

“This will certainly have a very great implication on the situation of human rights, worker rights, environmental rights and other rights, for it will instil greater fear in the hearts and minds of those who not only become aware of rights violations, who may then choose to sit idly for fear of being sued for millions of dollars.”

Based on his current court battle, Charles explains that apart from the heavy penalties levied upon individuals, it is mainly “the torment, anguish and cost of fighting such a case in court that is an expensive affair beyond the means of most persons.” Hence, an effective tactic for curbing critical speech.

The lawsuit might in some cases prevent the general public from reporting human rights abuses, but it has certainly not deterred Charles from continuing his efforts. Charles will continue championing human rights, justice, peace, migrant issues and equitable labor laws in Malaysia. He is here to stay, and a multi-million dollar threat is unlikely to stop him. Meanwhile, he patiently awaits a response from Asahi and the government of Malaysia in relation to the 31 migrant workers.

The post Migrant Rights and a Million Dollar Lawsuit appeared first on The Faster Times.

That these elections will not be an explicit step towards democratic reform has been obvious well in advance. Even if there is not much cause for immediate celebration, there is a fact to bear in mind. The pre-election atmosphere in Burma might resemble a fictional plot from a dystopian novel, but the process of elections (fair or unfair, all encompassing or disenfranchising) is a better situation than no elections at all. The Economist’s latest article is titled “..slowly the army release its grip.” This loosening of control might be unintentional on the part of the current regime, but it appears inevitable. The 2008 constitution might provide the military with impunity from prosecution, but that was to be expected. What is important at this point is to examine the additional (although minimal) democratic space, emanating from the changing power structure, where the military will no longer remain the unchallenged executive power. The 14 regional parliaments that will be established as result of the elections will be a first instance since the inception of the Burmese state.

ECONOMIC OUTREACH

Like any other nation, the Burmese,from the Junta or local businessmen, would like to see their stagnant economy grow. Perhaps with the old guard retiring, the new generation will pay heed to the business communities in the country that understand the inter-relatedness between health reform, education, social welfare and development. The Myanmar Egress is one such initiative, corroborated by Burmese entrepreneurs and social workers, that focuses on nation building despite the political impasse that has plagued the country for years. They aim to empower civil society organizations in the country by training young Burmese in the fields of social entrepreneurship, economics, and media. What sets them apart from most other initiatives is that instead of challenging the legitimacy of the current administration, they aim to create change within the existing political framework. By engaging business communities, intellectual classes and Burmese youth, they hope to create ‘national development through capacity building.’

CONUNDRUM OF NO CHOICE

Political activists opposing elections have been sighted distributing ‘boycott vote’ pamphlets to civilians, urging them to exercise their ‘right not to vote’ – an action that could land them in jail for years. Although admirable and courageous, refraining from voting in elections does not appear a pragmatic or productive solution. Universal boycott will not be possible as many are being intimidated into voting. With USDP thugs ‘guarding’ the polling booths rigging will undoubtedly take place. The result will not be based on the number of voters who turn up on November 7th. If those opposing the regime do not cast their ballots, the Junta can more easily manipulate the results while conveniently pointing to the ineptitude of their citizens in the democratization process. The burden will then fall on those who ‘chose’ not to vote, thereby handing the power to the ruling elite. It is a tough choice to make and one riddled with double standards. You vote – you recognize the legitimacy of the election. You don not vote – you completely lose your political voice.

PREMISE AND PROMISE

The premise of elections and the promise of a ‘democratic process’ by the current leadership has inadvertently spawned calls from ASEAN, UN and the international community at large for immediate action on several fronts. They all demand (and in some cases mildly suggest) release of political prisoners, establishment of a war crimes tribunal and inclusion of ethnic communities in the political process. Although these issues have been glaring gaps in justice for a majority of Burmese since 1990 when the Junta took over, they have received a new breath of life in the ‘IR’ arena due to the impending elections. The hope amongst those not boycotting elections is that these issues will continue to receive much needed attention in the post election period. Also, those not boycotting elections are not necessarily agreeing with the manner in which they are being conducted. They are simply acknowledging that with or without the support of the masses, a green signal from the UN, or a pat on the back from neighboring countries, Than Shwe and his Junta colleagues will go ahead with their plans. And these plans will have a lasting impact – some of which could prove positive in the long term.

The months following November 7th will be much more crucial for the political landscape of Burma than the speculative cloud that has been looming over the country’s future ever since the announcement of elections.

The post Can Predictable Polls Lead to Unpredicted Consequences? appeared first on The Faster Times.

Our organization (USDP) has served the national cause for 17 years since its inception and has thus already gained the popular support of the public. Based on this support, and based on our aim to win the elections in accordance with our future development plan, we will definitely win in the upcoming elections.

– The Union Solidarity and Development Party (UDSP)

It could easily be a page from Orwell’s dystopian piece,1984. To think is a crime and the thought police are everywhere. Sometimes disguised as civilians, they are watching every move you make and every flicker of emotion that betrays your face. News related to Burma these days is frighteningly similar to Big Brother’s reach over the masses as described by Orwell. The difference is that a majority of Burmese are well aware of the inequity that has permeated their society and the persistent failure in creating sustainable progress (economic, political, social) since the formation of the Burmese state in 1948. Alas, these elections do not seem to bear any semblance of immediate or visible reform.

With elections a day away, the current atmosphere in Burma continues to be filled with a combination of apathy, fear and pessimism amongst civilians, all of which are bolstered by unprecedented restrictions by the military Junta. Foreign journalists (those who managed to enter the country on the premise of tourism) report that internet connections are painfully slow, making transmission of emails, images and video difficult to impossible. Burmese landlords are being instructed by ‘security’ police to report all whereabouts and movements of their non-Burmese tenants. The Myanmar administration has stated that the representatives of foreign media already present in the country and the various countries’ embassy officials will be the only allowed international observers. No UN observers for this round. Needless to mention, UDSP will dispatch their own ‘election monitors’ to ensure a ‘smooth’ voting process.

The regime has its heart set on a sweeping victory that can get the international community off their backs – at least for the next several years.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR THE POWERFUL

The high ranking members of the party will never lose their power even if their titles change. It is the foundational policy of the party to advance through victory. But, the USDP in all its honorable efforts is willing to shed its military uniform.

There is certainly an Orwellian tone to the Junta’s rhetoric. The military leadership has managed to entrench the system with its power just as the Big Brother’s party had a firm hold over the citizens of Oceania. Albeit in civilian garb, the Junta intends to continue on the same path.

The constitution, which is being rejected by many political activists as contrary to international legal principles, reserves 25 percent of the seats in the new parliament for the military. This percentage is enough to block any attempt to change the prevailing laws established by the Junta. So the overarching legal principles will remain unchanged after elections.

POLITICAL DISSIDENTS: NO HOPES FOR RELEASE

Beware, in case you spew out hatred for the Big Brother, even if in your sleep. Or you might just be sent to Room 101.

For those unfamiliar with the reference, it is the yet another allusion to 1984 – a harrowing account of those arrested and tortured into submission by the police for ‘thought crime’ (simply thinking ill about the state party). With an eerily comparable attitude, the Myanmar administration continues to outlaw public gatherings that exceed five persons at a time. Those suspected of advocating against the Junta are often arrested without explicit reasoning or warrants.

As expected, those ‘dissidents’ already serving prison sentences in Burma’s version of Room 101 are barred from standing for elections. 
This means the 2200 activists who are currently political prisoners serving sentences for purportedly jeopardizing national unity by attacking the regime will not stand a chance. Daw Syuki who has been under house arrest for 14 years is included in the list.
 Most Burmese await November 13, the intended day of her release, with much greater anticipation than election day. They hope that the regime will surprise them by releasing the opposition leader.

ELECTION REGISTRATION: NO FUNDS, NO POLLS

Political parties had two weeks to register for elections provided they paid a sum of approximately $500, a hefty amount, especially for independent candidates. All political organizations were required to submit their candidates for the 1103 constituencies in the country within this deadline. Unlike the situation in 1990, when the government provided a time frame of six months to carry out the pre-election registration, this time the regime expedited the process to deliberately allow limited space for opposition parties to contest. The 1990 elections disaster where the opposition won an overwhelming majority obviously taught the administration a valuable lesson in election control mechanisms.

BARRED POLITICAL PARTIES: MISSING ETHNIC VOICE

The existing election commission laws bar political groups with armed factions from participating in polls, even if ceasefire agreements are in place.

Article 3 (B) of the law reads: “The insurgent organizations which hold arms to go against the state are not allowed to apply for the formation of political party.” Although the government removed ceasefire groups from the list of ‘unlawful’ parties, ethnic minority groups with armed factions could not register for polls unless they agreed to surrender their forces to become part of the Border Guard Force (BGF). In the views of most ethnic leaders, this would mean permanent enslavement to the wishes of the Burmese military and continued human rights violations in which ethnic soldiers would be mandated to perpetrate crimes against their fellow men and women.

Whilst the international community is discussing the need for a war crimes tribunal to examine cases of torture, rape and killings in Eastern Burma, leaders from most ethnic groups warn of an upheaval in conflict and increase in forced migration immediately following elections. While speaking at a conference on the current health crisis in Eastern Burma in Bangkok, Charm Tong of the Shan Women’s Action Network (SWAN) emphasized that the systematic government denial to provide health care and basic amenities to ethnic communities points to the agenda of the Junta to wipe out populations from the region either by force or through deliberate negligence. She fears that the regime will undertake more aggressive measures upon securing majority vote in the elections.

ELIGIBLE VOTERS: DISENFRANCHISED MILLIONS

Only 29 million out of the total population of 50 million are able to cast votes at the Sunday polls. This number does not include those internally displaced, mostly belonging to ethnic minority communities, who are not registered and others who fled persecution over the last few decades and remain as unclassified migrants or self- exiled Burmese citizens in Thailand and other countries. Due to the lack of an updated census, many eligible voters will be disenfranchised despite being Burmese citizens with full rights.

Additionally, elections will not be held in large parts of Shan State and in several villages of Kachin, Karen, Karenni (Kayah) and Mon State. The USDP claims that conditions in these areas do not permit ‘free and fair elections’ at the present time. According to The Irrawaddy, a publication based in Thailand, this move alone has reportedly disenfranchised 1.5 million people in more than 3,400 villages. It is expected that a majority of ethnic groups in Eastern Burma will not vote in elections.

The post Burma Elections: Not Free Nor Fair But Necessary appeared first on The Faster Times.

Call it Burmese fixation on numerology. October 10, 2010 is being predicted by many as the date for general elections for the country. The first elections in two decades, it is an occasion that a majority of Burmese and ethnic minorities living in the country and overseas as self-exiled citizens have waited with bated breaths. But the prognosis remains mixed at its best and pessimistic and grim at its worst.

That the Burmese government aims to win a sweeping majority is without question. The military regime has already launched an election commission comprising school teachers who will aggregate lists of ‘eligible’ voters on government computers. ‘Technological progress’ would be the only positive way of describing this development.

It is difficult to ignore that many Burmese will be excluded from the election process simply by virtue of their political affiliations. Others who belong to ethnic minority groups – there are at least 100 classified ethnic groups in Burma – will be unable to exercise their democratic rights. Many of them are internally displaced within Burma’s borders while others live as unclassified refugees in neighboring Thailand. Thailand has not ratified the refugee convention of 1951 and thereby does not distinguish between refugees and migrant workers (legal and illegal).

Collective Boycott: symbolism vs. pragmatism

Numerous Burmese political activists and student movements are calling for a collective boycott as a clarion call that will relay a strong message to the international community – that the Burmese want real democracy – one that includes the rights and interests of all the peoples of the country.

A product of the 1988 student protests, Jan Ano, disagrees with some of his counterparts who are calling for a unified resistance campaign opposing elections. During a conversation in Bangkok, he pointed out that history has attested that collective boycott rarely works in reality. At least not under the present conditions in Burma. In his experience of living both inside and outside of his country, he noticed that politics of exclusion have been common practice where the ruling Junta and the opposition parties have mirrored each other through absolute boycott. Clearly it has not been fruitful in elevating Burma from political stagnancy since independence from the British in 1948.

Ano is right in that the boycott does not carry universal appeal. Under Aung Sun Suu kyi’s leadership, the National League for Democracy (NLD) decided not to register for the intended 2010 elections. As a consequence, her political party has been officially dissolved by the government. Following NLD’s decision to refrain from contesting in elections, some members of the party who are in favor of participating, split into different factions to form separate registered parties. The idea of a nationwide boycott therefore seems a moot point.

People Power over Political Power

How will the NLD, considered the strongest voice of opposition, fight for democracy and justice without a place in the political system?

The secretary general of the NLD, speaking from his residence in Chiang Mai is reassured. He explains, “We won in 1990 with an 85 percent majority. We are more than a political party. We are a movement and the people of Burma support us…The change will come in the form of a social revolution within Burma – like the Saffron revolution. Our main objective right now is to support the people in their struggle. And we will do this outside the Parliament.”

A renewed Saffron revolution?

Nyo Myint is convinced that the autumn of 2010 will witness a social mobilization amongst ordinary Burmese. Concurrently, will the upcoming elections intended to take place on October 10, 2010, lead to a mass movement by students and academics similar to that of August 8, 1988?

When hundreds of thousands of Buddhist monks took to the streets of Burma in defiance of the ruling Junta on August 15, 2007, the world watched with trepidation. For many, the killings of 1988, when the Junta crushed the rebellion with unabashed brutality, were still unhealed memories.

This time, however, the Saffron clad monks began a relentless struggle, using technology to voice their demands for change. In a feat that would have been unimaginable in 1988, SMS, streaming video, blogs and digital cameras collectively painted a vivid image of the vital need for democracy in Burma and the consistent failure of the international community in aiding the Burmese.

‘We want three Fs, three Fs we want – Freedom for the future, Friendship between our army and our people, Food to live peacefully.’

Burmese poet Aung Way’s words splash across one of the more popular blogs named ‘Justice, Injustice’ where a digital clock counts the time since the birth of the Saffron Revolution and the beginning of the Movement for Change.

The Saffron revolution was not about elections but about the fundamental demands by the people for access to electricity, water and basic amenities. In this sense, it was a movement calling for universal rights that elected bodies are expected to ensure. As per Myint’s opinion, perhaps a call for democratic change will take the form of a social movement within the country regardless of the outcome of elections.

Finally, there is the obvious but evaded issue of the rights of Burmese ethnic minorities whose progress is an essential prerequisite for any form of democratic growth in Burma. The Junta will find it increasingly difficult to ignore a burgeoning demand from people of all ethnic groups of Burma for democratic rights in the form of equal access to – humanity, peace and economy.

Photo here.

The post Will the Burmese Rise Up in 2010? appeared first on The Faster Times.