BURMA RELATED NEWS – APRIL 15-18, 2011

Myanmar’s Suu Kyi welcomes US envoy nomination
Sun Apr 17, 7:46 am ET

YANGON, Myanmar (AP) – Pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi says she hopes that a new U.S. special envoy to Myanmar will be able to help usher in true democratic reforms in her country.

President Barack Obama last week nominated Derek Mitchell, a defense official and Asia expert, as U.S. special envoy to Myanmar. He would have the tough job of negotiating
with its military dominated government and pushing for reform. The post still needs to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

“I’m a cautious optimist,” Suu Kyi told reporters Sunday. “As a special envoy, he probably sees that his duty is to try to bring about democratization of Burma as smoothly and quickly as possible. So we look upon him as a friend.”

Myanmar is also known as Burma.

Suu Kyi’s opposition party, which won previous elections in 1990 but was blocked from taking power by the military, boycotted the last vote in November, calling it unfair. Much of the international community also dismissed the elections as rigged in favor of the junta.

Suu Kyi’s disbanded party, the National League for Democracy, held a religious ceremony in honor of Myanmar’s traditional New Year, which started Sunday after four days of festivities.

For the New Year, Suu Kyi said she wished for “peace and happiness and hope for the future.”

“Let’s hope that even if we do not get peace and happiness immediately, we will have great hopes of peace and happiness to come,” Suu Kyi said.

The party also held a ceremony for three people it named as “The unsung heroes” — Buddhist monk U Aindaka and two party members, Khin Win and Than Naing. All three are serving long prison sentences for their pro-democracy work.

In the past 18 months, the Obama administration has shifted the long-standing U.S. policy of isolating Myanmar’s generals, attempting to engage them while retaining sanctions imposed because of the military’s poor record on human rights and democracy.

The policy has made little headway. The U.S. says it is premature to lift sanctions. It is urging Myanmar to release its more than 2,000 political prisoners and open up its politics. Washington is also concerned about Myanmar’s alleged nuclear ambitions and trade in weapons with North Korea.

Suu Kyi cautiously optimistic that Obama envoy will help bring democracy to Myanmar
By The Associated Press/ The Canadian Press
April 17, 2011.

YANGON, Myanmar — Pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi says she hopes that a new U.S. special envoy to Myanmar will be able to help usher in true democratic reforms in her country.

President Barack Obama last week nominated Derek Mitchell, a defence official and Asia expert, as U.S. special envoy to Myanmar. He would have the tough job of negotiating with its military dominated government and pushing for reform. The post still needs to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

“I’m a cautious optimist,” Suu Kyi told reporters Sunday. “As a special envoy, he probably sees that his duty is to try to bring about democratization of Burma as smoothly and quickly as possible. So we look upon him as a friend.”

Myanmar is also known as Burma.

Suu Kyi’s opposition party, which won previous elections in 1990 but was blocked from taking power by the military, boycotted the last vote in November, calling it unfair. Much of the international community also dismissed the elections as rigged in favour of the junta.

Suu Kyi’s disbanded party, the National League for Democracy, held a religious ceremony in honour of Myanmar’s traditional New Year, which started Sunday after four days of festivities.

For the New Year, Suu Kyi said she wished for “peace and happiness and hope for the future.”

“Let’s hope that even if we do not get peace and happiness immediately, we will have great hopes of peace and happiness to come,” Suu Kyi said.

The party also held a ceremony for three people it named as “The unsung heroes” — Buddhist monk U Aindaka and two party members, Khin Win and Than Naing. All three are serving long prison sentences for their pro-democracy work.

In the past 18 months, the Obama administration has shifted the long-standing U.S. policy of isolating Myanmar’s generals, attempting to engage them while retaining sanctions imposed because of the military’s poor record on human rights and democracy.

The policy has made little headway. The U.S. says it is premature to lift sanctions. It is urging Myanmar to release its more than 2,000 political prisoners and open up its politics. Washington is also concerned about Myanmar’s alleged nuclear ambitions and trade in weapons with North Korea.

Obama nominates special representative on Myanmar
Fri Apr 15, 1:32 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama nominated defense official Derek Mitchell as his special representative on Myanmar to shape US policy towards the country after its criticized political transition.

Mitchell, a veteran Asia hand, will assume responsibility for the US approach to a nation with which Washington has a tense relationship due to the government’s suppression of Aung San Suu Kyi’s democracy movement.

Obama officially announced the move in a White House statement. Mitchell’s appointment will need to be confirmed by the Senate, in a hearing likely to give voice to Myanmar’s fierce opponents on Capitol Hill.

After Obama took office in January 2009, his administration concluded that Western efforts to isolate the military-led nation had been ineffective and initiated a dialogue with the junta.

But the United States has since voiced disappointment over developments in Myanmar, including an election in November widely denounced as a sham, but has said that it sees no alternative to engagement at such a fluid time.

Congress approved a wide-ranging law on Myanmar in 2008 that tightened sanctions and created the special envoy position. Then-president George W. Bush named Michael Green, formerly one of his top aides, but the nomination died in the Senate due to an unrelated political dispute.

Myanmar’s ruling junta officially disbanded this month, giving the country a nominally civilian government for the first time in nearly a century.

But many analysts dismissed the move as top junta figures remain firmly in leadership positions, albeit without their uniforms.

Aung San Suu Kyi has no voice in Myanmar’s new parliament. Her National League for Democracy was disbanded after it chose to boycott the elections, which it suspected were designed to marginalize the opposition and ethnic minorities.

Myanmar gays seek Thai-style acceptance
by Rob Bryan – Sun Apr 17, 3:06 am ET

YANGON (AFP) – Tin Soe was just four when he realised he was different to other boys in his neighbourhood, but growing up in conservative and army-ruled Myanmar, he struggled to be accepted as gay by his relatives.

“My granddad’s sister said that if I became a monk my sexuality would change. So I was a monk for three months, but my sexuality never changed,” the 30-year-old said, asking for his real name to be withheld.

A repressive mix of totalitarian politics, religious views and reserved social mores has kept many gay people in the closet in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma.

Gay men have developed their own language as a “gaylingual” code to both signify and conceal their sexuality, said Tin Soe, who now works on HIV/AIDs prevention in Yangon.

“We want to be secret and we don’t want to let other people know what we are saying. We twist the pronunciation.”

It’s a world away from neighbouring Thailand, where a lively gay and transsexual scene is a largely accepted part of society, which — like Myanmar — is mainly Buddhist.

“More Burmese are travelling to Thailand and see things there,” said a 34-year-old working in Myanmar’s tourism industry. “But here gays are still looked down on, in a certain category.”

Homosexuality is often linked to local religious beliefs about karma in Myanmar, Tin Soe said.

Many believe “we’re gay because we did something in a past life, that in a past life I committed adultery or raped a woman. But I don’t believe in that,” he explained.

“It’s not like Iran where they are killed, but gays are a strange story in this country.”

Traditionally, the only area where non-heterosexuality has been openly embraced is the realm of “nat” or spirit worship, a form of animism that is intertwined with Myanmar’s Buddhist beliefs.

Flamboyant and effeminate spirit mediums take centre stage at popular “nat” festivals throughout the year, but their acceptance here has also served to reinforce certain stereotypes of gay people in Myanmar.

Same-sex relations are technically criminalised by a colonial penal code, and while this is no longer strictly enforced, activists say it is still used by authorities to discriminate and extort.

“They use it as an excuse to make money and harass people but they don’t bring the cases to court,” said Aung Myo Min, an openly gay Myanmar exile and director of the Human Rights Education Institute of Burma, based in Thailand.

He said there were numerous instances of sexual violence and humiliation of gay people in public.

“Many cases are not reported because the victims keep silent out of shame and fear of repercussions.”

In a country under army control for nearly five decades, broaching any kind of anti-discrimination or human rights issue is hugely sensitive.

“The man who starts to ask for rights in the gay community will be sent to prison,” said another Yangon-based HIV/AIDS activist in his fifties.

The Internet offers a forum for gay men to meet, deemed safer than public cruising: Tin Soe met his boyfriend on Facebook, for example, but he said many were afraid to put their photos on gay websites.

In light of such discretion, raising public health awareness isn’t easy.

In some areas, such as the big cities of Yangon and Mandalay, as many as 29 percent of men having sex with men are HIV positive, according to a 2010 report by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.

“We have a lot of activists in this country but we can’t campaign very openly. We will have a workshop in a hotel but without big posters and loudspeakers. We do it low profile,” said Tin Soe.

While lesbianism is also largely hidden in Myanmar, Aung Myo Min said it was more acceptable to the militarised and macho culture, in which many fail to differentiate between homosexual and transgender people.

“The woman who wants to be a man is excusable,” he said.

A 52-year-old in Yangon said things had improved since his teenage years, when “people would use sling shots against us,” but he warned there was still a long road ahead to a truly tolerant Myanmar.

“We want to be like Thailand, where gay people have equal chances,” he said.

Washington is preparing to appoint a special envoy to the Burma.

Defence official Derek Mitchell is expected to be appointed and observers say this could open up doors for Washington to speak with government and opposition figures in Burma. The United States is continuing its policy of retaining sanctions while seeking to engage Burma. This approach was adopted by the Obama administration after two decades of efforts to isolate the military government failed to force positive change.

Reporter: Liam Cochrane
Speaker: David Steinberg, specialist on Burma and US policy in Asia and Distinguished Professor at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University

STEINBERG: Well, there’s great dissatisfaction with the results of the sanctions. The sanctions were supposed to change regimes and it hasn’t happened. There’s a great deal of feeling that something has to happen to change them, but the Burmese government hasn’t done anything to warrant that change, so this is a modest effort to try and get the Burmese government to make concessions for democracy for human rights, release political prisoners and things that basically the EU and the United States wants to happen.

COCHRANE: Is it a bit of a carrot approach, rather than the stick this time round?

STEINBERG: Yes, I would say it is, although the Burmese don’t like to use that expression at all. They say we’re not donkeys.

COCHRANE: On the issue of the new special representative that’s been nominated the US special representative. What kind of influence do you think Derek Mitchell might have in his role if it’s accepted on Burma?

STEINBERG: Well Derek Mitchell will have ambassadorial rank, so he has to be approved by the senate and that means that he has to come out strongly in favour of sanctions to get that approval, because there is a bilateral interest in the senate in ensuring that there be some sort of relationship with Burma that involves them changing and the sanctions are part of that process. But at the same time, the law under which he is nominated requires him to also negotiate with the Burmese, so there is a problem there between what the Burmese want and what the US government wants. He’s a good man, he’s very knowledgeable about the area, he’s been to Burma before, so he comes there with certain kind of knowledge that would be very useful, but his role will be very, very difficult.

COCHRANE: Is there any room to manoeuvre between those two difficult policy points that you described?

STEINBERG: There is, I think that the United States and the EU are both waiting for the Burmese government to do something important, some sort of gesture to which the west can respond, a gesture most importantly would be the release of large numbers of political prisoners and there are supposedly 2,100 or so of these in jails in the country. Their release would then allow politically the EU and the US to make certain modest changes in their approach to that country and what we need is a sort of step by step confidence building measures on both sides. It hasn’t happened yet. The Burmese have a new government, just inaugurated and they probably feel pretty good about their situation, even though we would say that they still have deprived their people of a better livelihood and the human rights we want to see them have.

COCHRANE: If there was a gesture of goodwill as you described, perhaps the release of a large number of political prisoners in Burma. What might the US correspondingly do to sort of reward that gesture?

STEINBERG: Well, that is an interesting question. The president can invoke his authority to make some changes and personally I would say the approval of a Burmese ambassador in Washington would be a modest, but appropriate step. I would also say if the Burmese are interested in economic reform and they seem to be talking about that, whether they do it we don’t know, but they’re talking about it. And if that were to happen, then the United States could say we would not object for the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to lend money to Burma, if, in fact, they met the Burmese, the World Bank and ADB requirements for transparency and good governance.

VOA News – Burma Sanctions Debated After Change in Government
Daniel Schearf | Bangkok  April 18, 2011

The European Union has announced it is suspending some sanctions against Burma, now that a nominally civilian government has replaced the military one. The move follows calls for western governments to remove the economic and political punishments, altogether, and reports that top military leader Than Shwe has retired. But Burma’s main opposition, led by democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, says sanctions should remain until human rights improve. Analysts say a combination of targeted sanctions and diplomacy may be the best way to engage Burma.

Reversal of measures

The European Union’s suspension of sanctions against Burma, although temporary, is the first reversal of punitive measures put in place by western governments for the military’s abuses.

The EU has issued a one-year suspension of its visa and asset freeze for civilian leaders and the foreign minister. A ban on high-level EU visits to Burma has also been lifted.

The relaxing of sanctions follows the replacement of the military government, last month, by Burma’s first civilian government in decades, although it remains dominated by former military officers.

Need for suspension

David Lipman, EU ambassador to Burma, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand, says the suspension of sanctions is needed to pave the way for possible ministerial-level talks with the new government and key opposition figures in Burma, also known as Myanmar.

“We want to engage,” he said. “We want to engage at a high level with the government and with all other democratic stakeholders in Myanmar. And, that is why we’re suspending [sanctions]. It is our intention to have, to develop a high-level dialogue with, as I say, the new institutions and with opposition figures, across the spectrum.”

Lipman says Burma’s former and current military leaders, including President Thein Sein, are still subject to the visa ban and asset freeze.

The November election was condemned, internationally, as a sham designed to mask the military’s continued rule.  Allegations of cheating and intimidation were widespread.

Even before votes were counted, the military-drafted constitution guaranteed the military a quarter of all seats in parliament. And, the leader of Burma’s main opposition National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, was banned from running for office.

Government change and military

The NLD boycotted the polls. It won Burma’s previous election, in 1990, but the military refused to give up power and put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for most of the past two decades. She was released just days after the latest election.

After the new government was sworn in, Burma’s senior general, Than Shwe, is reported to have given up his position and stepped down from power. But analysts say the military is still in control.

Carl Thayer, a professor of Southeast Asia politics at Australia’s University of New South Wales, says Than Shwe is still pulling strings, behind the curtain.

“I see him playing a role like his predecessor, Ne Win,” said Thayer. “That is, for the next several years, his role will be that of ‘king maker’ behind the scenes. It’s clear, although he shed his senior general title, that he’s continuing to meet with top military and civilian officials and has influenced promotions up until quite recently. So, he still has power, for the moment, but his age is a factor ticking against him.”

Political prisoners

Burma still has more than 2,000 political prisoners and rights groups say military abuses include forced labor, torture, rape and extrajudicial killings.

In February, the NLD called for dialogue on the sanctions issue, but said it wants them to stay in place until human rights improve.

The United States appointed a Burma envoy, last week, to increase dialogue with the new government, but says it is premature to lift sanctions.

Supporters of sanctions say economic and political punishments are the only way to pressure Burma’s military to allow democracy.

Maung Zarni, a Burma researcher at the London School of Economics, says some countries are focusing on strategic and commercial interests,  while brushing over why sanctions are there in the first place.

“Sanctions have been put in place for good reason, in terms of the regime’s human rights behavior,” said Maung Zarni. “And, that behavior has not changed at all.”

History of Burma sanctions

Western governments first imposed sanctions against Burma after a bloody crackdown in 1988 against pro-democracy demonstrators.

Australia and the United States blocked weapon sales and visas for Burma’s leaders and the U.S. froze some of their assets.

Further sanctions followed widespread arrests of activists and the government’s refusal to acknowledge results of the 1990 election.

In 2003, the United States banned all trade with Burma.

Another military crackdown against democracy protesters in 2007 led to more and tighter sanctions.
Canada and the EU stopped all trade, except humanitarian goods.

Despite its history of abuse, Burma’s neighbors in Southeast Asia have long argued for engagement and that economic sanctions are more harmful to ordinary people than the military.

Some think tanks, like the International Crisis Group, have for years been echoing those sentiments.

Jim Della-Giacoma, the Southeast Asia project director for the ICG, says the sanctions are too broad brush and restrict international aid and development organizations in Burma. He says, if blocks on trade, finance, and investment are removed, it would have a positive effect on Burma.

“Positive in both giving the citizens of Myanmar access to these programs and these developments and these benefits, but also I think it would lead to a change in the political tone that would allow western governments, who are imposing these sanctions, to have a more principled engagement with the new government in Myanmar,” said Della-Giacoma.

However, Della-Giacoma says sanctions targeted at specific military leaders in Burma should be decided separately by individual governments.

A review ahead

At the end of the year, the EU is to review Burma’s progress in democracy and human rights and decide if it will continue the limited suspension of sanctions.

Thayer says sanctions should continue to be used as an incentive for change in Burma, but they should also be targeted at the military leaders and constantly under review to ensure the impact on ordinary people is minimal.

“So, instead of closing the door, sanctions should remain in place, but always with the possibility of them being lifted or redirected in response to developments inside that country,” he said.

Thayer and some other analysts argue the changes in government will allow younger and newer players to jockey for power, which could eventually bring about gradual democratic reforms.

He says elements of the military are challenging the old order and the object of diplomacy must be to listen for those differences and try to lend support to those who are pushing for change.

Monsters and Critics – Myanmar democracy icon greets well-wishers on New Year
Apr 16, 2011, 11:36 GMT

Yangon – Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi in a surprise move Saturday used the last day of Myanmar’s traditional New Year festival to greet well-wishers outside her home.

Suu Kyi, surrounded by her personal security guards, appeared outside her family compound in Yangon at 4:00 pm to wish people passing by a happy Thingyan – Myanmar’s traditional New Year, also called the water festival.

Hundreds of people stopped their cars to get out and shake hands with Myanmar’s best known opposition leader who was released from six years of house detention on November 13.

‘She is in very good health. That’s why she is able to meet with the people enjoying Thingyan,’ her personal doctor Tin Myo Win said.

Suu Kyi, 65, the daughter of Myanmar independence hero Aung San, has spent about 15 of the past 20 years under house arrest.

‘Auntie Su, happy new year,’ people cheered.

One young woman shed tears after shaking hands with her.

‘I am very happy to see Auntie Su. This is a surprise meeting,’ said a man in his thirties, who asked to remain anonymous.

Suu Kyi leads the National League for Democracy (NLD), which was effectively blocked from contesting the military’s general election on November 7. Suu Kyi was still under house detention during the polls.

With her party now officially dissolved and a newly elected government in place, Suu Kyi faces a tough challenge in continuing to play the pivotal role as the country’s main voice of opposition to military rule, albeit through an elected regime, observers said.

About 80 per cent of the new cabinet comprise former or still serving military men. Myanmar has been under military dictatorship since 1962. The new constitution assures the military a lead role in an elected government.

Myanmar’s four-day water festival started on Wednesday and ends Saturday. Thailand, Laos and Cambodia hold similar celebrations.

The Guardian- Saturday interview: Aung San Suu Kyi
Burma’s tireless political campaigner talks about rebuilding the National League for Democracy, the revolutionary power of social media and her love of The Grateful Dead
Polly Toynbee, The Guardian, Saturday 16 April 2011

The high fence is back, separating her house from the lake it stands beside – but this time it has been erected by her own people to protect her, not to lock her in. How free is Aung San Suu Kyi, five months after her 15 years of house arrest ended? Not very; or free as a bird, depending on how you ask the question.

Fragile yet strong as iron, the yellow and white roses in her hair belie her steely resolution. She had not been well when we visited her this week. Though she steps into the room with bright smiles, warmth and grace, her ramrod-straight deportment disguises painful spondylosis of the spine. Andrew Comben, director of the Brighton festival, and I as its chair, have come to film an interview, as she is guest director of this year’s event in May. Since she dare not travel abroad, knowing the generals who have run Burma since 1962 would never let her return, we shall show this film of her instead. Her visitors will be followed, so it takes some subterfuge, ducking and diving in and out of taxis, a ferry over the river and sidling out through hotel back doors to avoid confiscation of our film.

Approached some months ago while still under house arrest, we wondered if she might think the idea of guest directing an arts festival absurdly frivolous or irrelevant to her country’s struggle for democracy. But not at all. She accepted with delight: despite 15 of the last 21 years spent in solitary isolation, she has an ebullient enjoyment of many things. Arts matter, she says. “If you can make people understand why freedom is so important through the arts, that would be a big help.” Exploring her artistic tastes, pleasures and memories has been revealing and moving. And surprising – of which more later.

As a surge for freedom storms across the Middle East, will it ripple on through dictatorships everywhere, including Burma? “Human beings want to be free and however long they may agree to stay locked up, to stay oppressed, there will come a time when they say ‘That’s it.’ Suddenly they find themselves doing something that they never would have thought they would be doing, simply because of the human instinct that makes them turn their face towards freedom.” Is that time now? “More people, especially young people, are realising that if they want change, they’ve got to go about it themselves – they can’t depend on a particular person, ie me, to do all the work. They are less easy to fool than they used to be, they now know what’s going on all over the world.”

The Middle East is never mentioned in Burma’s state newspapers, organs that make Soviet-era Pravda look like Wikileaks. The New Light of Myanmar carries front and back page warnings – “Anarchy begets anarchy. Riots beget riots, not democracy. Wipe out those inciting unrest and violence” – and attacks on the BBC and Voice of America: “Do not allow ourselves to be swayed by killer broadcasts designed to cause troubles.” She laughs at it, calling the paper “The New Blight of Myanmar”. Is the regime rattled? “People know what’s going on because of the communications revolution. So people are becoming more aware of their own potential, and this has to be encouraged.”

What might the trigger be? A 1988 uprising was sparked by the government abolishing existing bank notes overnight, so everyone lost their savings. The 2007 protests, joined by the monks, began with soaring rice prices. “Once the army starts shooting, most uprisings are put down pretty quickly. But how long the people will remain quiet after something like that is another matter.” People look to her, and now she is free the National League for Democracy has a new impetus, though organising is extraordinarily difficult with all its leaders among the country’s 2,200 political prisoners: 65-year sentences were handed out to students. “Fear, fear, fear” is everywhere, she says.

Except inside her. In 2003 they tried to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi when her convoy was set upon by government-organised thugs and 70 of her people murdered: beaten up and thrown into jail, she was put under house arrest until this year. Her people want her heavily guarded, but she refuses. She shrugs, and says if the regime wants her dead, there’s little to be done. How free is she now? If she steps outside she is mobbed by thousands of admirers wherever she goes. She went shopping once with her son, but had to be rescued from the crush of well-wishers. “Luckily, I don’t like shopping!” – and indeed shopping in Burma holds few enticements. Once the second richest nation in south-east Asia, despite rich resources it is now the poorest, as well as least free nation after North Korea. Is she free to travel the country? Unlikely, she thinks. She hasn’t yet ventured out of Rangoon: “So far I haven’t tried to go anywhere they wouldn’t wish me to, but I must start testing the waters again.” Her work detains her between the party’s office and her home, her erstwhile prison.

Her long years in detention were so exceptional because they were partly voluntary. Most prisoners have no choice, but every day she could have walked free, headed for the airport and flown away, her captors glad to be rid of her for ever. Every day for 15 years she had to make that hard decision to stay, alone and isolated without her two sons, even as her beloved husband was dying of cancer in Britain, cruelly forbidden from visiting her. But if you suggest exceptional fortitude, she always refers to the other Burmese political prisoners kept in far harsher conditions, half-starved, their health broken. “I don’t think I was the only one who volunteered. A lot of our people could have chosen not to go to prison if they had given up working for the movement for democracy.” The generals’ respect for her war-hero father, who died fighting for Burma’s independence when she was just two, kept her incarcerated in her own home. This Nobel Peace Prize laureate was protected, too, by world opinion. “This word ‘free’,” she says of herself and the other prisoners, “we all think that we are freer than the people outside because we don’t have to compromise with our conscience. We are doing what we believe in. We are not locked in by the bars of guilt. So I think this is what made us choose imprisonment rather than to stay – in quotes – ‘free’. For us, that is how our lives are.”

In the last five months she has revived the National League for Democracy, starting new humanitarian services, digging wells, opening clinics and schools with scarce money.

Scrupulously, they take not a penny from foreign campaigners, only from Burmese donors. She laughs as she says that if they begin to dig a well, the government rushes in to dig a better one, “So that does a lot of good!” But it’s hard to convene meetings with regional organisers without funds, hard to find out what’s happening anywhere. She has just learned of mutinies in army bases from the BBC World Service, a lifeline when information is so hard to come by. She is relieved the BBC’s Burma service has been saved from British government cuts, “puzzled” at the decision to cut the Chinese service. After 70 years, the BBC’s last Mandarin programmes for China have just been broadcast.

Pressure from the outside world makes more impact than people realise, she says. That’s why the generals felt obliged to shape a new constitution, though it leaves the same military cadre running the country in civilian clothes. Sham elections held just before her release were declared “deeply flawed” by the UN. Her party did not stand, since conditions included repudiating all its political prisoners and swearing support for a constitution that lets the army take over at any time. But it has been enough to allow neo-liberal Western economists to call for compromise and the lifting of sanctions, accusing her of stubbornness. “They say if we build up trade, it will bring democracy. They say what you need is a middle class, that will bring democracy.” As in China? She mocks the idea. “But the IMF say the mess in the economy is due to mismanagement and not sanctions.” She heats up with controlled anger at pusillanimous NGOs: “They invite civil servants to ‘capacity building’ training. But the problem with civil servants’ capacity is they won’t do anything unless bribed.” Burma is ranked 176th out of 180 countries for corruption. “I talk to business people and they say (what prevents enterprise) is that everything falls into the cronies’ hands.”

Her message is that democracy and transparency are the only answer – but the NGOs steer clear of politics, which makes her burn with indignation. She quotes Graham Greene, “He wrote, ‘Sometimes, if you are human, you have to take sides.’ They say we are not ready to compromise. I don’t know what they mean. Our minds are not inflexible, but perhaps our knees are inflexible. We are not down on our knees!” Her message is that politics is everything, nothing is apolitical. With crystal clear precision, she enunciates in capital letters, “I AM A POLITICIAN. That’s a dirty word, but I write it on forms as my profession. I AM A POLITICIAN!” We talk about the universal contempt for politics, as voting declines in the West. “Just ask them if they would like to emigrate to a totalitarian state,” she says. But does she worry that when freedom comes, people quickly forget as the everyday business of governing falls short of expectations? “I’ve always tried to explain democracy is not perfect. But it gives you a chance to shape your own destiny.”

Despite everything, politics is not her whole life, as she talks of what the arts have meant to her. You might expect her to choose Beethoven: “For many people he does represent not just the greatness of music, but the greatness of thought behind it. I’ve often wished in these last few years under detention that I were a composer, because then I would be able to express what I felt through music, which is somehow so much more universal than words.” So the festival starts with Fidelio, the prisoner’s opera. In detention she played the piano daily. She talks of her devotion to TS Eliot when she was at Oxford reading politics and economics, so the festival is producing the Four Quartets, accompanied by a Beethoven string quartet. She mocks the awful poetry she was taught at school in colonial Burma, reciting “At Flores in the Azores, where Sir Richard Grenville lay” with a laugh. But here’s a surprise. You might not expect her recently acquired taste for the Grateful Dead’s Standing on the Moon. “Have you ever listened to it? I like it very much. My son taught me to like it. And Bob Marley. Well, I do like ‘Get up, Stand up for your rights’. We need more music like that.” So the festival has brought her Lee Scratch Perry, one of Bob Marley’s mentors.

Before we go, she stops to fold an origami lotus flower to send to the festival, to join the thousands to be floated on the lake in Queen’s Park to mark Burma’s many political prisoners. Deftly her fingers fold it back and forth, and she smiles as she recalls doing origami with her young sons. There she is, the iconic beacon of freedom, worldwide symbol of fortitude and endurance, laughing and folding. As ever, with good humour and grace, she wears her heroism lightly.

Aung San Suu Kyi is Guest Director of Brighton Festival 2011. Brighton Festival takes place on 7-29 May.

Asian Correspondent – Without respecting ASEAN Charter, Burma doesn’t deserve ASEAN Chair
By Zin Linn Apr 19, 2011 12:04AM UTC

The Burma question seems unresolved within the short-term as Asian leaders have no compassion towards the people of Burma who have been suffering hellish plights underneath an atrocious military dictatorship. Currently, they are collaborating with Thein Sein’s sham civilian government so as to exploit the resource rich country.

China may be more horrible than the ASEAN in protecting the rogue junta of Burma by using its veto in the UN Security Council. If China together with ASEAN countries were high-minded and unbiased nations, the question of Burma could simply be sorted out.

Particularly, the ASEAN doesn’t follow its well-founded principles and gives shelter only to the dictators in place of the oppressed people. It is the time for ASEAN to amend its manners and prove compassion on the people of Burma.

Kavi Chongkittavorn gives update of Burma and ASEAN in today ‘The Nation (Thailand)’. He said, “Last week, when the newly appointed foreign minister of Burma Wunna Maung Lwin briefed the Asean foreign minister in Bangkok on the latest political situation inside his country, he also asked for the grouping’s support to allow Burma to take the role of chairman.”

Khun Kavi says in his article, “Since its admission in 1997, Burma has resisted repeated calls from Asean for national reconciliation, political reforms as well as hordes of other issues. As part of a family, Asean has quietly swallowed its pride and lived with its bruised reputation to render support for the brutal regime in Naypyidaw. At this juncture, Asean still holds the last bargaining chip, albeit very small, to salvage international standing of the group. At the Bangkok meeting, Singapore and Malaysia made it clear they wanted a credible Burma to chair Asean.”

He also pointed out in his ‘Regional Perspective’ commentary –    Burma seeking to be the chairman of Asean in 2014 – that Burma desires ASEAN leaders to come to a decision at the approaching summit on May 7-8 in Jakarta so as to have enough time organizing the year-long chair in three years. However, several ASEAN countries still have doubts.

Before ASEAN makes any decision on this matter, they have asked Burmese Government to allow a delegate from ASEAN to visit the country to assess the latest situation and its readiness to take up the chair. Foreign Minister of Burma could not decide and said he would take the matter back to the head of state.

Khun Kavi’s comment exactly resembles the concern of Burmese people. The new Thein Sein led namesake civilian government may not possess independent decision-making power which is still in the hand of Senior General Than Shwe. The new Burmese civilian government ought to prove that it has complete self-sufficiency exclusive of military dictatorship.

But, as the Burmese FM Maung Lwin look as if a puppet, he cannot make a positive response to accept a delegate from Asean to visit the country to evaluate the latest situation and its readiness to take up the chair. Maung Lwin’s stance clearly illustrates the true picture of up-to-the-minute the military dominated country. ASEAN must be very careful to allow Burma as its chair in near future. If ASEAN has watchful eyes, it can easily see that as soon as the new civilian government was installed at the end of March in Burmese new capital, one of the first significant tasks President Thein Sein did was to propose a letter to the Asean Secretariat stating Burma’s willingness to adopt the grouping’s chair in 2014.

Here also, I do agree with Kavi Chongkittavorn’s recommendation that an immediate positive response to the grouping’s offer for a fact-finding mission should be useful after the traditional New Year festival. Without counting the facts on the ground, ASEAN should not support Burma’s propositions including the lifting of sanctions. Otherwise, it would deteriorate the grouping’s image due to irrational decision. Finally, what decision the grouping makes will directly impact on Asean since it has a series of prestigious meetings and projects with its dialogue partners.

On the other hand, the EU has softened down its stance with sanctions recently to show its willingness to fit into place in further exchange of ideas. The ASEAN should notice EU’s new move to disclose the important of dialogue. At the same time, ASEAN has to take note of the US’s new drive to engage Burma by assigning US envoy on Burma, Derek Mitchell, who still waits for backing from the US Senate.

Taking examples of the EU and the US, ASEAN itself should encourage its member Burma to prepare a national reconciliation talk among the Burma’s stake-holders. At this juncture, the most important thing ASEAN has to do is driving the new Thein Sein government to release all political prisoners as a sign of goodwill message not only to its own people but also to the International Community.

In brief, while dealing with Burma issue, ASEAN must stand for the ASEAN Charter that specifies the fidelity “to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

04/15/2011 14:28
MYANMAR
AsiaNews.it – Burmese farmers teeter between tradition and modernization
by Yaung Ni Oo
Myanmar is anchored to the agricultural tradition, but the sector lacks resources and investment. The government imposes types of crops in certain areas, blocking development. NGOs forced to provide qualified personnel, not to aggravate the crisis. The population does not expect “democracy”, but higher wages from new government.

Yangon (AsiaNews) – Myanmar is still home to a strong agricultural tradition, but short on tools and technologies to boost the sector. Even today the farmers are not familiar with modern equipment, how to enhance the exploitation of the land nor do they know of fertilizers that contribute to the maturation of their crops. The farmers, in fact, are slaves to traders and their slogans, propaganda and omissions that alter the true picture of the sector.

A farmer, on condition of anonymity, said that his family will only be able to feed themselves if “the proceeds collected are sufficient to pay the debt” contracted this year for planting. “The work and fatigue does not matter – e continues – the only problem is to be able to pay back the money to honour debts, without being left empty-handed. Otherwise I will have to sell my piece of land “and lose all the initial investment. In the rare cases in which farmers are assisted by technicians and agronomists, the results are poor because they are not guaranteed daily support in the work, advice or money for long-term projects. Even today, in Myanmar the life of a tiller of the soil is highly dependent on good weather, the climate is the discriminating factor that regulates the quality of a crop. Added to this are the problems caused by government bureaucracy, which requires famers to grow certain types of products in certain areas of the country, and the farmer has to obey, under penalty of being fined by authorities.

In this general situation of backwardness, the work done by non-governmental organizations are of vital importance: If the NGO ensures the availability of qualified personnel who know the area and provides the technical knowledge, then it can help to improve the quantity and quality of crops. Otherwise, however, if the technicians are without experience or moral caliber, the situation worsens further.

However, there are also positive aspects: these include the greater closeness and cooperation between local officials and farmers. The same cannot be said of high-level ministers, the heads of the military junta, but lower ranks are more sensitive to the problems of the people. “The people – says a source – no longer feel as alone as before, as left to itself. This first change may bear fruit in the future. ”

The people of Burma called for a “renewal” in the transition from military leadership to civilian rule, although the majority are former officers and leaders of the Burmese armed forces. Of course you can not talk about “democracy”, but the hope is that the handover could lead to greater prosperity, higher wages, water and electricity for all households, at least in cities. At the current price, not even a primary school teacher can afford the “luxury” of having a steady supply of electricity in their home. Meanwhile, the prices of petrol and basic foodstuffs continue to increase. The average Burmese salary however, remains the same.

Time.com – Essay: The Problem with Venerating Aung San Suu Kyi
By ANDREW MARSHALL – Sun Apr 17, 12:00 pm ET

Are western policies failing Burma? And is our veneration of Burmese democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi partly to blame? These questions struck me at an exhibition in Bangkok by the Toronto-based photographer Anne Bayin. Amnesty International Canada called the show “a striking illustration of [Suu Kyi’s] plight.” But it gave me the creeps.

For some photos, Bayin asked famous people such as Desmond Tutu and Vaclav Havel to express solidarity by holding a half-mask of Suu Kyi over their faces. Other photos show someone wearing a full-face mask of Suu Kyi at apparently random locations: at a pro-Tibet rally in Toronto, for example, or swimming in the Mediterranean. Bayin says her goal was to “depict freedoms often taken for granted.” (Suu Kyi was released from her latest spell of house arrest last November.) Yet the masks suggest that our heroes are half-blinded by Suu Kyi’s image, while our own identities are subsumed into hers. (See pictures of Aung San Suu Kyi’s freedom.)

Bayin is not alone in seeing Burma as, she says, “a David and Goliath story, one woman against an army and its brutal regime.” In our celebrity-obsessed age, it is perhaps inevitable that a nation’s struggle for democracy is recast as a one-woman reality show. Why, then, does Suu Kyi’s name appear just six times in a recent 21-page report on Burma’s future by the highly respected Brussels-based International Crisis Group? The report makes a seemingly unlikely proposition: that a new balance of power created by a flawed election presents the West with “a critical opportunity to encourage [Burma’s] leaders down a path of greater openness and reform.”

Staged a week before Suu Kyi’s release, the ballot was rigged so that the junta’s party won by a landslide. The election seemed custom-built to perpetuate military rule: a quarter of the parliamentary seats were already reserved for military appointees. But the primary function of the election, suggests the Crisis Group, is to facilitate “Than Shwe’s exit strategy.”

With retirement looming, General Than Shwe, 78, Burma’s absolute ruler since 1992, wants to prevent the rise of another dictator who might threaten him and his family’s business interests. That’s why, says the Crisis Group, power in postelection Burma is now deliberately spread among four centers: military, presidency, parliament and party. All are still dominated by the military, of course, but their leaders “are neither feared in the same way [as Than Shwe] nor will they be able to wield power as capriciously,” argues the Crisis Group. “They are more likely to be given bad news … and will be more in touch with the realities of the country, which may lead to more rational policy-making.” Incremental reform could well follow. (See pictures in “The Two Burmas.”)

Realpolitik, though, is no match for romance. Concentrating solely on the Lady helps sustain two myths. First, that a popular protest will topple the regime. It won’t: the last uprising – the 2007 “saffron revolution” led by Buddhist monks – was efficiently crushed. Second, that the regime can be sanctioned into submission. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted in 2009 that “imposing sanctions hasn’t influenced the Burmese junta.” Yet Western nations still impose sweeping investment and trade bans on Burma.

While Burma’s economic misery is due to the junta’s corruption, neglect and mismanagement, the Crisis Group says that the “failed policies of sanctions and isolation” have further impoverished ordinary Burmese. Western oil companies and giant Asian neighbors such as China and India do enough business with Burma to render any embargo ineffectual. But the E.U. and the U.S., which recently affirmed their commitment to sanctions, still take their cue from Suu Kyi. She believes sanctions have had little impact on ordinary Burmese and should only be lifted if human rights improve. I hope she’s right, since in this respect she effectively has a veto over Western foreign policy. (Read “Aung San Suu Kyi: Burma’s First Lady of Freedom.”)

The world has long campaigned for Suu Kyi’s release. She is free at last. Now what? Well, we must continue to demand that the Burmese government release all political prisoners, end the violent persecution of ethnic minorities and guarantee the liberty and safety of Suu Kyi and other democrats. But we must also put pressure on our own governments. They could start by dismantling the legal obstructions on delivering humanitarian aid to Burma – or explain why it gets less aid ($6 per capita) than communist Laos ($62).

On April 12 the E.U. relaxed travel restrictions on 22 top Burmese officials, including the Foreign Minister, while the U.S. is appointing a new special envoy on Burma. These fresh attempts to engage an isolated regime are necessary and timely, although it’s unclear how or whether the regime might respond. Still, if there are opportunities to shape Burma’s postelectoral landscape and improve the lives of its people, let’s at least consider them. It’s time to take the masks off, and put the thinking caps on.

Time.com – Will Thailand Send Burmese Refugees Back to Harm’s Way?
By ROBERT HORN / BANGKOK – Mon Apr 18, 7:00 am ET

More than 140,000 refugees will be forced back to war-torn Burma unless Thailand’s Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva shows a rare bit of backbone in dealing with his country’s increasingly powerful security forces. Last week, the nation’s head of security announced its intention to close nine refugee camps along the Thai-Burma border after elections were held in Burma last fall. The announcement drew sharp criticism from human-rights groups and representatives of Burma’s ethnic minorities who said the refugees would face persecution, torture, rape and worse if sent back to Burma under current conditions. “Burma is still a dangerous place – too dangerous for the refugees to return,” says Sunai Phasuk of Human Rights Watch.

Thailand has served as a safe haven for refugees from neighboring countries for four decades, sheltering hundreds of thousands over the years from Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and, most recently, Burma. Ethnic Karen, Shan, Mon and others have been spilling into Thailand since the 1980s when Burma’s military regime began launching a brutal series of armed campaigns to bring ethnic regions fighting for autonomy under its control. The Burmese military has a documented record of burning villages, torture, rape, summary executions and forcing villagers to serve as porters for soldiers and to work in other forms of slave labor. (Read more about Burma’s minorities.)

Echoing security leaders, Thai government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said recent elections in Burma “show that things are beginning to improve.” But with leading opposition figures like Aung San Suu Kyi barred from running, and many ethnic groups disenfranchised by the military, Western governments and human-rights groups have labeled the elections a sham.

Furthermore, fighting has intensified in recent months as Burma’s army attempts to crush ethnic militias who have refused to lay down their arms. “There is fighting in Shan state and Chin state, not just in Karen state. It is very unstable and people are still fleeing,” says Naw Zipporah Sein of the Karen National Union. Ethnic Karen make up the majority of the refugees who face returning. “Even when there is no battle going on, villagers are still rounded up for forced labor, raped, tortured, killed and have their property stolen by the Burmese army. They are still using villagers as human minesweepers.”

Panitan said Abhisit instructed security officials to prepare an evaluation of the situation before he would decide whether or not to shutter the camps. He says there is no timetable for sending the refugees back to Burma, and for that to happen, two conditions must be met: “that the situation for them is safe, and that Burma will accept them.” (See pictures of refugees living in cities around the world.)

Sending some 140,000 Burmese refugees back to Burma against their will will not do Thailand’s humanitarian image any favors. Thailand’s record of compassion has already been marred by actions that can only be described as heartless: in 1988 students who fled the slaughter of democracy protesters by Burma’s military government were handed over to the junta by Thailand’s then Defense Minister General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh. In 1997, then Prime Minister Chavalit had Karen refugees, including women and children, pushed back into the path of a Burmese army offensive.

In late 2009, despite international protests, Abhisit repatriated over 4,000 ethnic Hmong to Laos, where the ethnic minority’s persecution has been well documented. Earlier that same year, the Thai military was accused of pushing Rohingya boat people who had fled from Burma back out to sea. Abhisit ordered the practice stopped, but allegations again surfaced recently that such incidents have continued.

Many expected that Abhisit, who is Oxford educated and has a more international outlook than his predecessors, would place humanitarian principles first in matters relating to refugees when he became Prime Minister in late 2008. Instead, his record of callousness rivals Chavalit’s. “Abhisit’s record on refugees has been a catalog of violations of international refugee law,” says Benjamin Zawacki of Amnesty International. Though Thailand has not signed the U.N. treaty that obliges its domestic laws to comply with the principle of nonrefoulement, or not forcibly returning refugees back to harm’s way in their home country, it is unusual for nations in good international standing to do so. “As a matter of customary international law, Thailand cannot forcibly return refugees to countries where they will face persecution. Abhisit’s government has done that time and time again.”

But it’s the Thai military – not the Prime Minister – that appears to be calling the shots in the nation’s security matters these days. Military leaders allegedly pressured members of parliament to elect Abhisit Prime Minister in December 2008, and he relied on the military to suppress street protests by opposition Red Shirts in 2009 and 2010. The military vetoed a Ministry of Foreign Affairs decision to allow international observers along the Thai-Cambodian border, where fighting erupted earlier this year. It has been accused of using cluster bombs that have been outlawed by international law and has said it opposes signing the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions banning their use. More than 100 countries have signed the Convention. Thailand has yet to sign. (See pictures of the 2010 Red Shirt protests.)

Should he send the refugees back, Abhisit would be satisfying no one but the military; there has been no public outcry in Thailand demanding refugees be returned to Burma. Should he overrule the military, he may “find himself pitted against the same security forces he has previously been unable or unwilling to bring in line,” Amnesty’s Zawacki says. Unless Abhisit can prevail over the hard-liners, his government will suffer another black eye it doesn’t need. But those who will suffer most will be the refugees from Burma.

The Nation – Burma seeking to be the chairman of Asean in 2014
By Kavi Chongkittavorn
Published on April 18, 2011

Can Burma have its cake and eat it too? The answer rests with Asean. Right after the new civilian government was installed at the end of March in Naypyidaw, one of the first important tasks President Thein Sein did was to submit a letter to the Asean Secretariat stating Burma’s readiness to take up the grouping’s chair in 2014.

At the 11th summit meeting in Vientiane in November 2004, under pressure from colleagues and the international community, Burma skipped a chance to take the chair, citing domestic conditions, especially the absence of national reconciliation and dialogue with all stakeholders. What Burma did not know at the time was resumption of the chairmanship was not automatic!

Last week, when the newly appointed Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin briefed the Asean foreign minister in Bangkok on the latest political situation inside his country, he also asked for the grouping’s support to allow Burma to take the role of chairman. Burma wants Asean leaders to make a decision at the upcoming summit on May 7-8 in Jakarta so it will have sufficient time to prepare for the year-long chair in three years. However, several Asean countries still have reservations. Before Asean makes any decision on this matter, they have asked Naypyidaw to allow a delegate from Asean to visit the country to assess the latest situation and its readiness to take up the chair. Lwin could not decide and said he would take the matter back to the capital.

Since its admission in 1997, Burma has resisted repeated calls from Asean for national reconciliation, political reforms as well as hordes of other issues. As part of a family, Asean has quietly swallowed its pride and lived with its bruised reputation to render support for the brutal regime in Naypyidaw. At this juncture, Asean still holds the last bargaining chip, albeit very small, to salvage international standing of the group. At the Bangkok meeting, Singapore and Malaysia made it clear they wanted a credible Burma to chair Asean.

The new civilian government must show gratitude in concrete ways that the Asean support over all these years has been worth it. Furthermore, it must prove that it can initiate policy decisions independently from the strongman, General Than Shwe, through its new political process. A quick positive response to the grouping’s overture for a fact-finding mission should be forthcoming after the traditional New Year festival. Otherwise, it would bode further ill feeling with Asean as well as weaken the grouping’s call to end sanctions against Burma. Eventually, whatever decision the grouping takes will directly impact on a series of high-profile meetings and projects Asean has with its dialogue partners.

Obviously, given the current situation, nobody with the right mind would expect leaders from the US, the EU, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to go to Burma for a series of meetings – unless there were substantive changes in

people’s livelihoods and overall reforms, especially those related to democracy and human rights. As such, Burma has a small window with a limited timeframe to showcase its new government – that its parliament is neither subservient to the military’s machinations nor a sham.

Equally important, Naypyidaw needs to engage with the newly appointed US envoy on Burma, Derek Mitchell, who still awaits approval from the US Senate. Talks would serve as a barometer of Washington’s renewed engagement on Burma. With Mitchell, issues related to nuclear proliferation – and Burma’s with China and North Korea – would also be priorities. For the time being, it has to contend with the latest EU decision to renew sanctions for another year with an easing of travel and financial transactions for key Burmese civilian ministers. The EU, which is still divided over sanction issues, is willing to engage in further dialogue.

Essentially, the West is giving a trial run to Than Shwe’s “end game” if the new government plays it well. After all, Thein Sein has the right mix – perceived as the least corrupt leader with some administrative experience. His inaugural speech was well received with elements of reform and calls for good governance. However, with a pacemaker and advanced age, whatever he chooses will have a bearing on his country and his legacy.

A timely response to overtures from Asean and the West would greatly boost the civilian government’s credentials. If Thein Sein can seize the opportunity and deliver on key concerns such as the release of a large group of political prisoners – estimated at 2,100 – and come clean on nuclear proliferation, normalisation with the West and increased humanitarian assistance for health and education could come very fast this time. Both sides can no longer afford to misread each other’s intentions and enthusiasm.

Of late, within the Asean inner circle, serious discussions continue unabated as to the grouping’s future direction after the high-profile Indonesian chair this year. Will the US president come to the region for the East Asia Summit and the Asean-US leaders’ Meeting in the future, not to mention other summits? Even Indonesia, as the world’s third largest democracy and a proud chair, has difficulties with the White House negotiating the upcoming EAS summit timetables. The host wants it at the end of October, the White House has so far insisted on early November after the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Honolulu. Just imagine what the US attitude would be if other Asean countries took up the chair.

Cambodia and Brunei would come in as future Asean chairs in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Let’s be realistic – nobody expects Obama to go to Phnom Penh next year or for that matter, if he is re-elected, to Brunei. Should Asean give the green-light to Burma’s chair in 2014, the answer regarding the US is rather obvious. Furthermore, Laos has to acquiesce to Burma’s request because it anticipates holding the seat in the same year following alphabetical rotation. Given past experience and growing confidence of this land-locked nation, Laos may not be in the mood to delay taking up the top post.

If Asean wants to stay relevant and sustain its centrality in the overall scheme of the region and beyond, it has to convince Burma, after failing to do so repeatedly, that the well-being of the Asean community very much rests in the hands of Burmese leaders, including shadow junta leaders. Again, in case there is still doubt in the minds of Asean leaders in the next few weeks, then it would be better off to defer the chair further until the next round in 2021. That would be a historic moment – 24 years of waiting before holding a summit!

Myanmar national arrested for murdering friend
PTI – Fri, Apr 15, 2011 1:26 PM IST

Kochi, Apr 15 (PTI) A Myanmar national who had come to India along with his friend for higher education in Biblical studies has been arrested here for allegedly murdering his fellow countryman.

Thomas (30) was arrested yesterday for killing his roommate Joseph (27) by slamming his head with a block of stone after an argument, police said.

Both Joseph and Thomas had come to India to study in a Bible college in Tiruvalla in Pathanamthitta district, they said.

They came to Kochi last month to work in hotels to earn money during their vacation and were staying in a city lodge, where a large number of emigrant labourers were also staying, police said.

The occupants of the lodge told police that Thomas and Joseph used to quarrel. Though Thomas tried to escape after committing the crime, people in the lodge caught hold of him and informed police, they said.

The Myanmar authorities have been informed about the case, they said.

Epoch Times – Burma Starts Crackdown on Skype, VoIP Calls
By Jack Phillips
Epoch Times Staff Created: Apr 17, 2011 Last Updated: Apr 18, 2011

Burmese authorities have started cracking down on voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) calls, including Skype, last week, following a state-mandated ban last month, the Irrawaddy has reported.

Officials from the regime’s Bureau of Special Investigation entered cyber cafes in Rangoon, as well as in several other cities, and forcefully told owners to discontinue providing the service.

Other than Skype, Google Talk, Pfingo, and VZO have been recently banned in Burma (also known as Myanmar).

“Authorities in civilian clothes came to my shop on Monday and told me not to provide Internet phone call service to customers,” the owner of a downtown cafe in Rangoon told Irrawaddy. “They said it is illegal under existing law, but they didn’t specify so I don’t know which law they were talking about.”

The cafe owner added that Google Talk and VZO are free-to-use services and are impossible to police. “The [Ministry of Post and Telecommunication] wanted to stop these services by saying that because of them the state revenue from overseas calls will be reduced,” the owner said.

Despite the ban and potential legal action from the regime, the cafe owner said that they will still provide VoIP services for people who need to communicate internationally.

“If people have to use a normal phone to call overseas they will become paupers since calling rates are very expensive,” he said, noting the relative inexpensiveness of Internet calls.

For example, cafes charge people $0.23 per minute for calls to the U.S. In comparison, the state charges $4.50 per minute to the U.S., reported Irrawaddy.

REFUGEES IN Q-C
The Quad-City Times – Moline freshman recounts escape from Burma
Alma Gaul | Posted: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:58 am

Hiding, hiding, all the time hiding.

Cin Khat’s flight from his native Burma to Malaysia when he was 11 years old was filled with hiding. And fear.

By car, boat, truck and on foot, he, his mother and little sister were handed off from one guide to another, always with payment, to get first to Thailand, then to Malaysia’s Kuala Lumpur, where they were reunited with his father, who had fled earlier from Burma, now called Myanmar.

“We have a problem with the government, the soldiers,” Cin, pronounced “chin,” says by way of explaining why his father left Burma. “The police did something to my dad  — I don’t know what happened.”

Sitting in a classroom at Moline High School, where he is a freshman, Cin recounts a jumble of travels.

From a bus, they got on a boat where they hid, sailing to Thailand. Once there, they “run into somebody’s house and hide in the house,” he says. Then they walked for two days to another bus, where as many as 20 people were stuffed in the luggage area.

“It was really hot inside,” he says. “We really thirsty. But there (are) soldiers out there. They (the guides) come and give water and then close the door again. It really dark inside. Some places the soldiers are checking the road and we have to walk.”

Eventually, they got to a village where they stayed in another house and then walked in the jungle for three days, again with other people. “Somebody lead us. Every time we go, we have a new person.”

They slept on plastic sheets on the ground and ate biscuits.

When they emerged from the jungle, “We stop by the road waiting for somebody coming. We wait a day.”

A truck arrived and the group “stay inside and they cover from the top.”

At the border of Malaysia, the group split up. Cin and his family went with about seven others to a bus station. “That time, nobody lead us and we don’t speak their language.”
They crossed the Malaysia border in a bus and arrived in Kuala Lumpur.

Again, someone found them and took them to a Burmese restaurant where his father was waiting. His father paid some money and the family was reunited. Then they took a taxi to where his father lived in the jungle.

For the next two years, they lived in hiding. His dad worked construction and Cin, then 11, worked in a restaurant. They had dogs for protection because if they were found out by the police, they would either have to pay them off, be sent back to the Thai border or — worse — be sold to Thai fishermen.

“Thai fishermen, they buy the people,” Cin says. And the people have to work for the fishermen? “Yep, until you die.”

Cin’s father made contact with the United Nations and eventually their turn to leave the country came up.

“We have to wait,” Cin said of those two years. “There were 4,000-5,000 refugees in Malaysia.” Now there are thousands more, he adds.

They were put on a plane bound for Chicago via Hong Kong and Los Angeles. Bewildered and trusting, they blindly followed people they did not know through airports, boarding one flight after another.

The family lived for two months in Chicago, but Cin’s father could not find a job. A connection brought them to Moline, and now his father and mother work for Tyson Foods at Joslin, Ill. In Burma, Cin’s father worked in the mountains, extracting rubies.

Neither his father nor his mother speaks English. “They tried to take a class, but they really don’t have the time,” he says.

Cin had four years of education in Burma, including some rudimentary English. But when he arrived in Moline during November 2008, “I don’t understand anything,” he says.

He has made amazing strides since then and helps with other refugee students from Burma, teacher Wendy Pilichowski says.

Cin’s favorite class is introduction to engineering, and on this particular day, one of his assignments is to draw a three-dimensional picture of a small car made of Legos.

He wants to get a degree in engineering and work for Boeing or Deere & Co.

“I want to have a house, a car. I want to be a smart guy,” he says.

He and his family are happy here, he adds.

“We don’t have nothing in my country.”

The Financial Times – Striking the right note on Burma
Published: April 17 2011 18:50 | Last updated: April 17 2011 18:50

The generals who have run Burma since 1962 are said to be nervous about becoming too dependent on Beijing. Chinese companies are involved in some 20 energy projects including the construction of a 500-mile pipeline to pump oil and gas to landlocked Yunnan province. In border towns and cities such as Mandalay, Chinese money and influence are everywhere. For years, both the US and the European Union – which have imposed varying degrees of sanctions – have been losing sway over Rangoon.

It is still too early for the west to relax sanctions. That would look too much like a response to sham elections held last November. The poll nominally established a civilian parliament and a series of regional parliaments. But most of those returned in the heavily manipulated poll were close to the long-dominant junta. One quarter of seats were reserved for the military. The party of Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the 1991 Nobel peace prize, did not even run.

Yet there is a case for eventually re-examining the west’s sanctions policy. To put it bluntly, these have not worked. If anything, isolating the country has played into the generals’ hands. Their grip on power, superficially at least, seems stronger than ever. Thanks to business dealings with China, India and Thailand, they are economically more secure. Ms Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, now banned, has re-examined the sanctions issue, although its conclusion was that these were not hurting ordinary Burmese. Yet even the NLD, some of whose members secretly worry the sanctions policy may have driven them into a political cul-de-sac, has given some ground. Ms Suu Kyi, for example, is more relaxed about tourists visiting Burma so long as they avoid state-run tours.

Last week, the EU lifted travel and financial restrictions on four Burmese ministers and 18 vice-ministers who had minimal links to the military. The change was in line with efforts by the US to engage more. The Obama administration is seeking Senate approval to appoint a special US envoy. Contemplating more dialogue is not the same as lifting sanctions.

Flawed as these may have been, the west should not think about relaxing them until the generals give some ground – for example, by releasing some of the more than 2,200 political prisoners. The changes announced by the EU strike a balance between opening a dialogue and keeping the generals isolated. They probably strike the right note.

Asian Tribune – Can Burma create a genuine clean government?
Mon, 2011-04-18 01:02 — editor
By – Zin Linn

April 17th is the New Year day in Burma or Myanmar. After four-day water-splashing festival – April 13 to 16 – here come to mark the traditional New Year on April 17, which is Burmese New Year day as always in line with the Burmese calendar.

At this moment, with a New Year spirit, Burmese people are waiting for a bright era earnestly how their new government will transform the country as well as its subjects. Burma’s new President Thein Sein made use of his inaugural address last month to illustrate his government’s reform agenda, promising ‘to open doors’ and ‘catch up’ with the outside world. So, people look forward to have the benefit of the fruits of economic development under President Thein Sein’s government.

During the days of State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) regime, the International Labor Organization (ILO) called on the military regime to get rid of the practice of forced labor in Burma, which has taken root for several years. However, the regime has no political will to prevent the use of forced labor. The setback is still at large and Thein Sein has the responsibility to end it.

Expressing the internal affairs policy line up, Thein Sein pledged to get better socio-economic conditions for the people, industrialize the economy, combat corruption, reinforce the law-courts and improve public health, education and media policy. However, without eliminating forced labor, it will be impossible for the government to establish economic developments in this poverty stricken country.

Actually, forced labor is a burden on the general population, pulling farmers away from attending to their farm works and children from school. It falls most heavily on landless laborers and the poorer strata of the population, which rely on labor hire for survival. The impossibility of making a living because of the forced labor is a frequent reason for fleeing the country.

So, if Thein Sein truly pledged to get better socio-economic conditions for the people, he should go along with the ILO’s plan and he also must listen to the complaints of the citizens who are still under the forced labor bondage.

Thein Sein also promised to put emphasis on, including amendments to existing laws that are against the constitution, occasionally increasing salaries and pensions, reviewing existing agriculture and employment laws and promulgating and amending laws on environmental protection.

His words are silky enough to pour into one’s ears. But, here comes a question about the Myitsone dam in Kachin state. Irrawaddy Myitsone dam is being constructed by the state-owned China Power Investment Corporation (CPI) jointly with Burma’s Asia World Company and the junta’s No.1 Ministry of Electric Power. The project was set in motion on 21 December 2009, despite heated protests by the Kachin people and environmentalists who fear severe ecological damage.

The Myitsone dam is one of seven dams on the headwaters of the Irrawaddy River in Kachin State. It will produce 6,000 MW of electricity. Most of the electricity produced by the dam projects will be sold to China. The Kachin people repeatedly appealed to the Burmese military leader, Snr-Gen Than Shwe, to stop the Myitsone dam project. But their request was ignored.

Now, this issue is in the hands of Thein Sein and the Kachin people have to watch his response on this dam issue carefully.

In the most important part of Thein Sein’s speech he said he would like to get along with various political parties, especially with politicians who have different outlooks and views.

He said, “I promise that our government will cooperate with the political parties in the parliaments, good-hearted political forces outside the parliaments and all social organizations. I would like to advise the political parties to work together … although they may have different outlooks and views”.

He also added, “I urge the parliament representatives of various political parties to follow the wishes of the majority and respect the wishes of the minority in accordance with democratic practices.”

On the contrary, he himself as prime minister of the previous junta aggressively banned the basic rights of citizen including freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of association.

People hope him of making a true clean government as he mentioned in his speeches. To be a clean government, he must enforce judiciary system first together with freedom of expression plus free press. Without freedom of expression and free press, the president cannot hear the voice of the grassroots or workers and farmers who are the majority of the nation.

According to an investigative report last month by the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), there are at least 2,073 political prisoners in Burma’s prisons, reflecting the systematic denial of fundamental freedoms of expression, opinion and association. Burma has sentenced severe prison terms to thousands of political activists, monks, student leaders and journalists for their alleged involvement in politics.

To prove his words – cooperate with the political parties with different outlooks and views – Thein Sein has to think about releasing over two thousands political prisoners first of all in this New Year. Unless he releases political prisoners, people will not accept as true his entire speech.

Additionally, Aung San Suu Kyi has constantly called for a national reconciliation and publicly announced her will to cooperate with the military regime on improving the situation in Burma. She has repeatedly called for the release of all political prisoners as a sign of understanding.

According to political analysts, putting thousands of political prisoners in jail, Thein Sein’s imagination of ‘clean government’ plan will go nowhere. A ‘clean government’ has to allow fundamental human rights guaranteeing proper judiciary system.

The Irrawaddy – Wa People Rely on Chinese Wages for Survival
By SAI ZOM HSENG Monday, April 18, 2011

PANGHSANG, Shan State—Wa people living in Shan State claim that they depend on Chinese immigrants to the region for their livelihoods.

Local people have been forced to take up menial jobs in Chinese-owned businesses to survive, with even those working as prostitutes considered fortunate for the higher wages they can receive.

Aik Pao Rhine is a 32-year-old ethnic Wa man who is currently working at a casino in the Wa capital of Panghsang. He told The Irrawaddy that Chinese people come to the area with lots of money and establish hotels, bars, casinos and gems shops which provide local people with job opportunities.

Aik Pao Rhine said, “we are living in a rural area here but we still need modern amenities such as electricity, TVs, DVDs, refrigerators and so on. That’s the main reason why local people have left their farms to get jobs from the Chinese. They only used to receive a little bit of money from their farms.”

Around 500,000 Wa people currently live in this native Wa region of Burma, but millions live over the border in China where they share common languages and currency, claim the United Wa State Army (UWSA).

“Although we don’t like Chinese people for discriminating against us, we still have to depend on them for their money,” Aik Pao Rhine added. “But Chinese people only give us very basic jobs.”

Shan State is located in the northeastern part of Burma bordering China to the north and Thailand to the south. Panghsang is the headquarters of the UWSA—a military wing of the United Wa State Party.

Many Wa people current work as cleaners in hotels, night guards for Chinese businessmen’s houses and cleaners in restaurants, said Aik Pao Rhine’s younger sister E Hlwe Rhine.

“Normal Wa people like us have to find a job from the big Chinese bosses. Although they only give us a small amount of money, we have no choice. You can see that we have rough physical features, so we can’t get jobs at the massage parlors,” she added.

“Working at massage parlors is a good kind of job which can earn you a lot of money, but we can’t get jobs there. The owners just hire Chinese girls and some of the prettiest girls from Burma,” said E Hlwe Rhine.

Approximately 50 to 80 “massage parlor” brothels have opened in Panghsang, according to a NGO worker who spoke to The Irrawaddy on condition of anonymity.

“A basic worker can earn from 60 yuan (US $8) a day. A sex workers can earn 200 yuan ($26) or more for a day, but they still need to be more educated that most local people,” the NGO worker added.

According to local Wa people, almost all of the area’s large businesses are owned by Chinese people, with some high ranking officials from UWSA—the main armed group of the Wa State— controlling the remainder.

A major from the artillery battalion of UWSA said that they have to depend on China for everything including basic provisions such as salt and rice. Tensions between the Tatmadaw and the UWSA have becoming heightened since the UWSA refused to transform into a Border Guard Force under control of the junta.

“The Burmese government blocks everything from being sent into our territory, even salt. No one need wonder why we depend on China for everything,” a source said.

The Irrawaddy – Burmese Pro-Democracy Activists Launch Petition Drive
By KO HTWE Monday, April 18, 2011

Members of the Burmese Democracy Network (BDN) launched a petition drive on Sunday urging the new government to release all political prisoners unconditionally and to create an environment where Burmese people living abroad, organizations in exile and refugees can return home safely.

The BDN is the name of the unofficial network of people that has formed at the urging of Aung San Suu Kyi following her release in Nov. 2010. Members of this network have now initiated a campaign, which began on the Burmese New Year, the goal of which is to get people to sign a letter to President Thein Sein requesting that he agree to the group’s demands.

Speaking to The Irrawaddy on Monday, Phyo Min Thein, one of the BDN’s leading campaigners, said that Suu Kyi and the leaders of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and the 88 Generation Students group, as well as other prominent politicians, ethnic leaders and activists who did not compete in the November election, have signed the petition.

“After the holidays we will send this letter to the office of the new president in Naypyidaw. We will also send all the signatures of the participants. We are a voice for the people of Burma,” said Phyo Min Thein.

The letter, which will be sent on Friday, also requests that the new government build peace through a ceasefire with all ethnic armed groups and solve political problems through dialogue.

“People are sending their wishes to the president. It is the starting point for the dialogue. Most signed the letter making the demands with hope. The youth are performing worthwhile acts,” said Win Tin, a leading member of NLD.

“I welcome the movement for the freedom of the political prisoners, but I will only believe my brother is free when I see him,” said said Aung Tun, the brother of 88 Generation Students leader Ko Ko Gyi.

Sources inside Burma said that rumors are spreading that the new government will in fact release a large number of political prisoners, and many family members  have been waiting for their release since Sunday.

Meanwhile, three political prisoners who are serving long sentences were honored on Sunday by Burmese living in Japan for their sacrifice for democracy and human rights.

The honored prisoners, chosen by the NLD, were Eindaka, a monk from Maggin Monastery in Rangoon who is serving his sentence in remote Lashio Prison in Shan State; Bodaw Khin Win, who is serving a 20-year prison term in Insein Prison; and Than Naing, who is serving his prison term in Maubin Prison. They have each received 100,000 kyats (US $1,169.50).

According to the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, there are 2,073 political prisoners in Burma.

Burma
The Irrawaddy – Reporters With Thought Borders
By SIMON ROUGHNEEN Monday, April 18, 2011

PHNOM PENH—Ross Dunkley, the sole foreign owner invested in Burma’s state-controlled media, faces charges of assaulting a woman and breaches of the country’s immigration laws, in what many observers, including some of Dunkley’s own business partners, view as a power play aimed at ousting the Australian from his stake in the Myanmar Times.

Dunkley has since been released on bail, part of which was paid by his Burmese business partner, Tin Tun Oo, who was named CEO of the Myanmar Times in the days after Dunkley’s initial arrest. Dunkley has subsequently downplayed the conspiracy angle, and hopes to be acquitted soon.

He is well known in media circles in Cambodia after buying into the Phnom Penh Post, one of the country’s two English language dailies, back in 2007.

Cambodia is a challenging media market with freedom of expression under threat from a combination of formal and informal codes that inhibit the country’s press, according to several observers.

Prime Minister Hun Sen and other senior officials do not shy from suing media, and the Phnom Penh Post has been hit with lawsuits in the past, while a local NGO, the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO), points to numerous cases of journalists being threatened with violence or worse, in a scenario akin to the Philippines, where guns are used to cow reporters operating in an otherwise free media environment.

Blogger Sopheap Chak, who writes regularly for a number of online publications, told The Irrawaddy that sometimes her friends express concern if she is too outspoken, telling her that “Cambodia is not like America or Europe.”

However, she said that although she considers her words carefully—as any reporter or writer ought—she believes that “if we keep silent, intimidation will take over, and we will lose our constitutional right to free speech.”

Unlike the Myanmar Times, the Phnom Penh Post and the Cambodia Daily—the country’s other English language publication—do not have their articles vetted by a censorship board, and publish stories on human rights and corruption that would be unthinkable in any Burmese newspaper.

However, the Khmer-language media is watched more closely by the government, which dominates TV, a medium focusing mostly on entertainment rather than news.

Taken along with proposed trade union and NGO laws—dismissed by opponents as thinly veiled attempts by the Cambodian government to limit freedom of association—it all sounds retrograde.

On the other hand, Burma, if its new government is to be believed, has taken the “first steps to a free press system.” So said U Tint Swe, the deputy director general of the Press Scrutiny and Registration Division, on March 29, with the crucial caveat that any new exceptions to the censorship regime would not include news or business publications. At the same time, the new government announced the imminent launch of a new state mouthpiece to be called The Myawaddy.

Cambodia has no equivalent to the New Light of Myanmar, where anti-democracy and anti-Western invective is the norm, often delivered in unwittingly comic syntax that makes North Korean propaganda seem serene and eloquent by comparison.

In turn, there is not a really a Cambodian “exile media”—along the lines of Burma’s, such as the Norway-based Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), Mizzima in India, or the array of Thailand-based ethnic-focused news agencies such as the Shan Herald Agency for News.

Burma’s new government includes a cabinet comprised of just four civilians; the rest are from the army. The new president, Thein Sein, was a military general and prime minister under the previous military junta, known as the State Peace and Development Council. Over 80 percent of seats in the country’s new legislative bodies are held by the army and its party affiliate, the Union Solidarity and Development Party.

Thein Sein has spoken about the media since assuming his new office, describing the sector as “the fourth estate” and calling for the new government to show respect for the country’s press.

Fine words, but Burma is the world’s fourth-highest jailer of media workers, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and the second highest after Eritrea if the number of imprisoned journalists is weighed on a per head of population basis.

The Burma Media Association, comprising Burmese journalists-in-exile based in Thailand, puts the number of jailed journalists in Burma at 22, though the real number may be higher.

On Feb. 4, less than a week after Burma’s new parliament sat for the first time, video reporter Maung Maung Zeya was sentenced to a combined total of 13 years in jail for a a variety of alleged offences under Burma’s various draconian codes, such as the Unlawful Association Act, the Immigration Act and the Electronics Act.

According to Alerts Coordinator at the Southeast Asian Press Alliance George Amurao: “The new government has also yet to revoke any of its repressive laws that restrict freedom of expression. Until these are replaced with laws that improve the free expression environment, Burma remains governed by a de facto repressive regime—new government or no.”

Maung Maung Zeya’s son, Sithu Zeya, aged 21, is also in jail, given an eight-year sentence for attempting to report on a series of bombings in Rangoon in April 2010. Both father and son were reporters working on a clandestine basis for the DVB. Sithu Zeya has been tortured in Insein Prison, according to media watchdog Reporters Sans Frontiers.

Maung Maung Zeya’s conviction came soon after a blogger Nat Soe (real name Kaung Myat Hlaing) was given a 10-year jail sentence under the Electronics Act, joining more than 20 other journalists who have been given lengthy prison sentences for merely functioning as arms of Burma’s “fourth estate.”

To compare, a Cambodian World Food Program staff member was given a six-month jail sentence in Cambodia, after downloading and printing material from KI Media, a political blog that runs material critical of the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) and Prime Minister Hun Sen. While the sentence was light compared to those handed out in Burma, the fact that it was issued at all is a cause for concern, said Sopheap Chak.

Online and new media have been slow to take off in both countries, but for different reasons. Most of Cambodia’s 100,000 or so Internet users are concentrated in the capital and other cities (and in Phnom Penh fast and free WiFi is easily available in many cafés and restaurants). Low levels of English literacy, scant rural electricity supply and lack of disposable income mean that widespread use of Khmer script web browsers on mobile phones will be needed if the country’s Internet usage is to increase.

Burma has slightly more Internet users than Cambodia, though those absolute numbers are weighed against the respective populations in both countries, Cambodia’s 15 million against Burma’s estimated 48 million or more.

In Cambodia, there are 30 Internet service providers (ISPs), an open market in stark contrast to Burma’s rigidly monitored Internet service. However, depending on which ISP, KI Media might be blocked or it might be accessible.

There has been no formal order issued to block or censor the site, but it appears that behind-the-scenes deals between the government and some ISPs have seen the blog disappear in several places.

Mobile phones are much more widely used in Cambodia than Burma, with an estimated 6.4 million subscribers being fought for by nine service providers, all offering low-cost phones and deals.

According to United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP), Cambodia was the first country in the world to have more mobile phone subscribers than landlines—with the paucity of the latter contributing to the low level of Internet usage outside the urban areas.

Perhaps these statistics prompted Hun Sen’s recent outburst dismissing the likelihood of a Tunisia-style revolt in his country, which apparently has little chance of an Internet-facilitated public demonstration.

However, in another marked difference with Burma, public protests at land grabs and forced evictions related to Chinese investment and development projects are a growing phenomenon, perhaps enough to make the Cambodian elites nervous.

For now, at least, perhaps old-school SMS-organized rallies are more of a threat, something like the 2001 street demonstrations in Manila, that helped depose then-president of the Philippines, Joseph Estrada.

Not for nothing, perhaps, that the CPP banned text messaging on the eve of the 2007 elections in Cambodia.

According to the Burmese government, just 1.3 million Burmese use mobile phones. For Burmese wanting to talk to the outside world, the prohibitive costs—around US $4.50 per minute to call the United States in a country with an average per capita income of $469—have made Internet-based telephony such as Skype increasingly popular.

However the government recently ordered a ban on such services, a telling irony coming so soon after campaigners against sanctions on Burma asked the West to stop “isolating” the country’s people.

Corruption in Burma, Part IV: Education and the power of money
Monday, 18 April 2011 15:09 Sandi Nwe

Rangoon (Mizzima) – Burma typically gets poor marks for its educational system. It is not so much the system itself, which uses antiquated rote-learning and out-of-date textbooks. As teachers, parents and students tell Mizzima, the underlying problem is lack of government funding and the resulting endemic corruption as teachers and officials try to make extra money to supplement their poor salaries.

To get an education, parents typically have to pay bribes to teachers or pay the teachers for extra private classes that help guarantee their children passage through the system.

Tun is a teacher who says he has had enough. He took up teaching 30 years ago because he was enthusiastic and wanted to make a difference. But now he would rather run a small business selling rice than continue in an educational system that provides him ‘starvation wages’.

Tun says he refused to pay the bribes necessary to climb the ladder. ‘I know how to get a promotion’, Tun told Mizzima recently. ‘But I did not use this known method. It would spoil my morale and dignity’.

There is a preset price for teachers who wish to obtain a promotion, he said. Because he was unwilling to pay the ‘grease money’ or ‘whispering money’ to ease his rise, he spent 20 years as a primary assistant teacher in a remote village in Thowgwa Township before he eventually became headmaster.

But it is the effect that the corrupt system has on the students that particularly galls him.

‘I felt that I could no longer stay in this irregular world of a school teaching career because it was hopeless for a hard-working student to become an outstanding student in this system’, he said. ‘The current system cannot produce such students. This is a predetermined and deliberate plan. In this system, quantity is more important than quality’.

Things have changed for the worse, he said: ‘Previously, the second day of the New Year in the Burmese lunar calendar was a really thrilling and exciting day for all students from primary to 9th grade. This is the day that final exam results are announced. Many students rushed to school and were excited to see the results, value and merit of education’.

Now the schools are deserted on this day, he said, because the pupils know their names will be in the exam result list. The system has changed. ‘Their class teacher has already called them for summer classes for the next academic year. Those who have attended such (private) tuition classes provided by their teacher do not need to worry about passing their exams. The current education system guarantees a 100 per cent pass rate in exams but not for quality education. This system makes school teachers corrupt and downgrades their moral values. Even in this 100 per cent pass rate system, the teachers force their students to attend their moonlighting tuition classes by threatening to give a failing grade to those who refuse to attend. It’s a depressing system’.

Even the hardworking and outstanding students lose their motivation, he said.

Tun has quit teaching. ‘I can act no more in this play. I would face starvation unless I jumped on the bandwagon of my fellow teachers. It’s impossible to survive using a government salary. Then there was only one option left for me, resigning from the job, exiting from this unexciting play. Now I sell rice for my living’, Tun said.

Money makes the difference, a situation that puts poor families at a particular disadvantage. One parent told Mizzima that it is easy for her young son to pass an exam––but only if the teacher is paid to provide extra tuition.

‘My child is enrolled in second grade, but he cannot memorize even the alphabet,’ she complained. ‘I have enrolled him in private tuition classes run by his class teachers since he was in kindergarten. This is not my choice. It was done under pressure from his teachers, otherwise my child cannot get favour from them. The teachers know the economic background of each student in their class. She asked each and every one of them’.

She said the teacher will not force those who really cannot afford it to attend a private tuition class, but they also will not give free tuition to them. ‘Moreover, she will not take care of those students in her class and she will not give favour to those students’, the parent said.

Even paying for private classes does not guarantee a good education. ‘The result of enrolling my child in the teacher’s private tuition class and giving presents to her is poor performance in the class. Anyway, my child is promoted to the next class every academic year’.

If a child performs poorly, the teacher will call the parent with an offer of help.

‘His teacher called me before announcing the result to tell me my child failed in this and that subject but she could offer a passing grade if I wish. Then I said yes as many other parents did’.

The parent says she regrets paying the teacher so that her child made the grade. ‘My child still cannot read well even now’, she said.

Money and influence matter throughout the system, and to the  college and university level.

Ma Wei Lin and Ma Khaing Zar are close friends of the same age. They passed their matriculation exam at the end of the 10th grade from Ayeyarrwady Division in the first academic year of the new education system in 2002. They scored the same, just over 40 percent. Only in one subject, Burmese language, did they score just over 50 percent. So their aggregate marks were just over 250 for a total of six subjects.

Such a grade level was useless for a college education. But they decided to try to gain admission in one of the higher learning institutes, a teachers’ training college, just for the status that being a college student would give them.  When they visited they found many other students with similar grades, and returned home worried. They told their parents that they might not be able to get in.

Their parents desperately sought influential people in the education field who could help their daughters with admission. They gave 50,000 kyat (US $58) and a lot of gifts to obtain a personal interview, the first stage. During the personal interviews, the questions they were asked on the political and economic objectives of the Burmese regime were tough. They failed to giv correct answers.

Although they feared they would not get in, both of them were selected thanks to the grease money spent by their parents.

During their time at college, there were more calls to pay money. In the end, their results were different. Ma Wei Lin was appointed as a primary assistant teacher in Pyapon, not far away from her home. Ma Khaing Zar found herself appointed to the same post but far from home in China State.

Grease money eventually helped Ma Khaing Zar. After some money had been paid, she was transferred to Hinthada near her home and given a post of junior assistant teacher.

For many students throughout the country, money and influence are the key to passing through the education system and gaining good positions in public schools.

A Catholic church is ordered to remove a crucifixion cross near Myitsone Dam
Monday, 18 April 2011 21:12 Phanida

Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – A 15-foot crucifixion cross on a hill in Daungpan Village near the  Myitsone Dam Project in Kachin State must be taken down, according to local authorities.
According to a source close to a local Catholic Church, the cross, which was constructed years ago out of bricks and concrete, must be removed.  It was unclear why the order was given.

The Myitsone Dam project is a joint venture by Asia World Company, China Power Investment Corporation (CPIC) and the central government.

‘The crucifix on the hill is a symbol of our religion’, a religious leader told Mizzima. A deadline of March 26 has passed, and so far the cross remains in place.

He said that on April 12 church leaders met with the authorities and representatives of the two companies, who stressed that the dam was a project of the central government and it should not be opposed, according to a religious leader.

The authorities did not say where the cross should be relocated, the church official told Mizzima.

Similarly, authorities ordered the removal of a Baptist cross in Mali Nami Zup in Kachin State.

The Electric Power Ministry and CPIC launched the Myitsone Dam Project in late 2007.  The area is near the Sagaing earthquake zone. Despite strong opposition from conservationists and activists, the project is moving forward.

Soe Thura Tun, a geologist and  the secretary of the Myanmar Earthquake Studies Committee, said that although large cities in Kachin State are out of the earthquake zone, the Myitsone Dam area is located 14 miles from the earthquake zone.

Because of the project, an estimated 10,000 people from 40 villages were forced to move to a new settlement area called Sanpya Village.  Many residents say that the new location makes it difficult for them to make a living.