[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
OBLF+ICJ REPORT TO HR SUB-COMMITTEE
Subject: OBLF+ICJ REPORT TO HR SUB-COMMITTEE SEP-1995.
SUBMISSION NO. 5c.
HUMAN RIGHTS SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
DEFENCE AND TRADE
JOINT SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF
<H1>THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS AND
THE OVERSEAS BURMA LIBERATION FRONT</H1>
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION
Panlong Agreement: February 1947
To overcome the last obstacle to independence from Britain, the Burmese
National Leader Aung San (father of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi) arranged a
conference at Panlong on 12 February 1947 for the purpose of forming an
alliance between the Burmese and the leaders of the ethnic minorities. The
ethnic minorities agreed to form a union with the Burmese in which the
ethnic states would acquire equal status based on the principles of the
right to self determination and political autonomy and social equality with
the Burmese majority. All signatories to the Panlong Agreement demanded
independence from Britain. The Panlong Agreement formed the basis of a
unified federal Burmese state.
24 September 1947
On 19 July 1947 General Aung San was assassinated along with six of the
country's Executive Councillors. Following the death of Aung San, the
proposed Constitution was amended to establish a unitary system of
Government thereby abolishing the federal system which had formed the basis
of the Panlong Agreement. The Constitution was hastily adopted on 24
September 1947.
4 January 1948
On 4 January 1948 Burma became and independent nation formerly known as the
Federal Union of Burma. The Constitution contained Article X which granted
the right of succession to the Shan and Karenni states at the end of a
period of ten years from the date of the adoption of the Constitution.
1948 to 1960
After 1948 Burma experienced a brief period of parliamentary democracy. The
first post independence general elections were held in 1951. This period
was characterised by unresolved constitutional crises including the
question of whether the Karenni and Shan minorities were entitled to secede
from the Union in accordance with Ariticle X of the Constitution.
Conference of the Ethnic States Unity and Solidarity Organisation in 1961
At a conference of the Ethnic States Unity and Solidarity Organisation in
1961 the ethnic minorities expressed their concern at the ineffectiveness
of the 1947 Constitution and reasserted their adherence to the principles
underlying the Panlong Agreement, namely federalism and the right to
self-determination for ethnic minorities. The conference delegates
supported the Karenni and Shan's decision not to secede from the Union.
2 March 1962
The army headed by General Ne Win seized power from the Burmese civilian
government. The military regime subsequently instituted a campaign of
systematic human rights violations and arrested all of the constitutionally
elected Burmese national and ethnic leaders. Although the 1947 Constitution
was never formally repealed it was replaced by the 1974 Constitution in an
attempt to underpin the power base of the socialist government of General
Ne Win.
8 August 1988
Pro-democracy uprisings were violently suppressed on the orders of the
Burmese military. Thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators were massacred
or imprisoned.
18 September 1988
General Saw Maung issued Declaration 1/88 which announced the abolition of
all civilian government institutions and the establishment of a nineteen
member junta known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC).
Thereafter, SLORC outlawed all public demonstrations and arrested thousands
of Burmese citizens, ethnic minorities and opposition political party
members.
20 July 1989
On 20 July 1989 following a further campaign of suppression, Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi, the Secretary General of the National League for Democracy (NLD)
was placed under house arrest without trial. She presently remains under
house arrest.
27 May 1990
National elections for Burma's Parliamentary Assembly were held on 27 May
1990. The opposition NLD party secured 392 of the 485 seats in the National
Assembly. The National UNity Party (the former Burmese Socialist Program
Party) supported by SLORC won only ten seats. SLORC refused to recognise
the election and transfer power to the elected NLD civilian government and
refused to allow the National Assembly to convene. SLORC imprisoned the
NLD's main party leaders. SLORC issued Declaration 1/90 in self
justification of its refusal to relinquish power.
First Session of National Convention 9 January 1993 to 11 January 1993
The National Convention Commission was formed by SLORC in 1992 with the
objective of convening a National Convention of delegates to discuss and
formulate a new federal and democratic constitution. The National
Convention first met in January 1993 and continues to meet in session for
the purpose of finalising a new federal constitution. Despite SLORC's
apparent desire to create a constitutional foundation for a genuine
multi-party democratic system in Burma, its insistence that the military
participate in the political leadership of Burma illustrates that SLORC's
pronouncements of constitutional reforms are a mere "sham".
SLORC'S ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL
REGIME AS A BASIS FOR ITS SEIZURE OF POWER IN 1988.
After seizing power on 18 (September) 1988, SLORC has progressively issued
laws, declarations and martial law orders in an attempt to justify its
abolition of the civilian government institutions and to secure power unto
itself. The principle declarations and laws are briefly set out hereunder.
Declaration Number 1/88
Declaration Number 1/88 was issued upon the violent assumption of power by
SLORC on 18 September 1988 "in order to save the general deteriorating
situation in the whole country". The military assumed the responsibilities
of all state organs purportedly "for the welfare of the people". SLORC
outlined four objectives in accordance with its "basic duty to save the
Union of Burma from the dangers of disintegration", namely:
"(a) maintenance of law and order, prevailing peace and tranquility in
the country;
(b) providing secure and smooth transportation;
(c) ... better conditions of food, clothing and shelter of the people
and to render necessary assistance to the private sector and the
co-operatives to do so;
(d) to hold multi-party democratic general elections when the above
measures are completed."
Law Number 1/88
On 21 September 1988 SLORC promulgated Law Number 1/88 for the purpose of
"holding multi party democracy general elections successfully in the Union
of Burma."
Law Number 4/88
On 27 September 1988 Law Number 4/88 was issued for the purpose of
registering all political parties. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's National League
for Democracy Party ("NLD") was registered pursuant to that law.
Declaration Number 6/88
On 24 September 1988 Declaration Number 6/88 was issued. That Declaration
stated that:
".... all laws existing on the 18 September 1988, the date on which the
state Law and Order Restoration Council took charge of the sovereign
powers of the State, shall remain in force until and unless repealed."
Pursuant to Declaration Number 6/88 SLORC continued to rely upon a regime
of oppressive laws previously enacted by the U Nu Government. For instance,
the Emergency Provisions Act 1950 had prohibited a wide range of activities
such as those allegedly aimed at the "disintegration of the moral
character of the people and methods causing harm to the security, the law
and order and rehabilitation of the State". That Act had been passed in
1950 to contain communist and ethnic rebellions following the promulgation
of Burma's independence in 1948.
Martial Law Order Number 1/88
Military tribunals were established on 17 July 1988 by Martial Law Order
Number 1/88 which empowered the military to conduct "summary trials" of
civilians. Martial Law Order Number 1/88 Allowed no right of appeal from a
conviction and provided only three form of sentences, namely:
(a) three years imprisonment with hard labour;
(b) life imprisonment;
(c) death sentence.
Law Number 2/88
Law Number 2/88 known as the "Judicial Law" was issued on 26 September
1988. Pursuant to the Judicial Law, SLORC constituted the Supreme Court.
The Judicial Law was purportedly based upon the following principles and
goals:
(a) to administer justice independently according to law;
(b) to protect and safeguard the interests of the people and to aid in
the restoration of law and order and peace and tranquility;
(c) to educate the people to understand and abide by the law and
cultivate in the people the habit of abiding by the law;
(d) to work within the framework of law for the settlement of cases;
(e) to dispense justice in open court unless otherwise prohibited by
law;
(f) to guarantee in all cases the right of defence and the right of
appeal under law;
(g) to aim at reforming moral character in meeting out punishment to
offenders.
Martial Law Order Number 2/89
Despite the passing of the Judicial Law, SLORC continued to rule by decree
and military tribunals exercised jurisdiction over all criminal matters. In
1989 Martial Law Order 2/89 established the following procedures to be
observed by the military tribunals:
(a) the waving of unnecessary witnesses;
(b) conviction without hearing prosecution witnesses;
(c) all decisions to be final.
Persons tried by the military tribunals were commonly charged pursuant to
Section 5(j) of the Emergency Provision Act 1950 which prescribed an
offence for anyone who:
"Causes or intends to disrupt the military or the behaviour of a group
of people or the general public ... or to disrupt the security or
reconstruction of stability of the Union."
Another commonly applied offence was Section 10 of the State Protection Law
1975. When SLORC arrested more than forty members of the NLD including Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi on 20 July 1989, they were initially held and sentenced
under Section 10(b) of the State Protection Law 1975 which provided:
"The Government may order up to three years detention or house arrest
without charge or trial for anyone the authorities believe, will do, or
is doing, an act which endangers the peace of most citizens or the
security and sovereignty of the State".
In September 1992, the military tribunals were abolished. Since that time,
the civil courts have dealt with all criminals as well as political trials.
Almost all political cases are tried in court rooms in prison compounds and
are not open to the public. Reports from Burma indicate that due process is
largely ignored and verdicts are manipulated in political trials. In other
cases, although defendants may have access to a defence attorney, a
defendant's counsel serves little real purpose other than to provide a
pretence of justice. Although defence attorneys are permitted to call and
cross examine witnesses, their primary purpose is to "bargain" with the
judge to obtain the shortest possible sentence for their clients.
SLORC'S CLAIM FOR LEGITIMACY AS A MILITARY GOVERNMENT
Declaration 1/90
On 20 July 1989 Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest and
excluded from participating in the forthcoming multi-party elections. Those
elections were eventually held on 27 May 1990 which resulted in a
resounding victory for the NLD Party. The NLD secured 392 of the 485
contested seats in the National Assembly.
On 27 July 1990 SLORC issued Declaration 1/90 in an attempt to legitimise
its refusal to transfer power to the democratically elected NLD party.
SLORC continually cites Declaration 1/90 as self justification for its
continued legitimacy as a military government and its governing of the
country by martial law.
Clause 2 of Declaration 1/90 refers to the four basis duties outlined in
Declaration 1/88 following the assumption of power by the military in
September 1988.
Declaration 1/90 blatantly admits the SLORC is not bound by any
constitutional or legal imperatives other than those laws, orders and
directives which SLORC has itself issued. Clause 6 states:
"The State Law and Order Restoration Council (Tatmadaw) is not an
organisation that observes any Constitution; it is an organisation
that is governing the nation by Martial Law. It is common knowledge
that the State Law and Order Restoration Council is governing the
nation by Martial Law. It is common knowledge that the State Law and
Order Restoration Council is governing the nation as a military
government and that it is a government that has been accepted as such
by the United Nations and the respective nations of the world."
SLORC therefore also attempts to derive legitimacy from the fact of its
recognition by other sovereign nations as well as its participation as a
member state in the United Nations General Assembly.
A full copy of Declaration Number 1/90 is attached to this Submission and
marked "A".
NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Order Number 11/92
On 24 April 1992 Order Number 11/92 was issued for the purpose of convening
a National Convention to draft a new federal constitution. The drawing up
of such a constitution was first foreshadowed by SLORC in Clause 21 of
Declaration 1/90 referred to above.
Order Number 13/92
On 2 October 1992 SLORC issued Order Number 13/92 which established the
National Convention Commission with the following objectives:
(a) Non disintegration of the Union;
(b) Non disintegration of the national solidarity;
(c) Perpetuation of sovereignty;
(d) Flourishing of a genuine multi-party democratic system;
(e) Further burgeoning of the noblest and worthiest of worldly values,
namely justice, liberty and equality in the State;
(f) For the Tatmadaw (military) to be able to participate in the
national political leadership role of the State.
Since the convening of the first session of the National Convention from 9
January 1993 to 11 January 1993, the National Convention has continued to
meet in session up to the present time. Given the objective contained in
sub-paragraph (f) above, if the new federal constitution is ultimately
approved by the National Convention Commission, the military's domination
of Burmese politics will be formalised and legitimised for all future
governments in Burma.
The role of the military in Burma's political future was reiterated by Mr U
Aung Toe, the Chief Justice and Convening Chairman of the National
Convention's Work Committee. In a speech delivered on 16 Spetember 1993, he
referred to the military's participation in the "national political
leadership role of the State". Mr Aung Toe also proposed that the
membership of the lower and upper houses of the proposed parliament and the
state and regional assemblies include military personnel "in numbers
stipulated by the State Constitution". Such military personnel were to be
appointed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The head of state
would be a president drawn from the ranks of the military and the military
would be govern the autonomy and "the right to independently administer all
affairs concerning the armed forces". In the case of state emergencies,
"the Defence Services Commander in Chief has the right to take over and
exercise State power".
The role of the military outlined by Mr Aung Toe and in particular, the
powers of the Commander in Chief in the case of a State emergency, would
legitimise any further military coup by reason of the proposed
constitutional provisions.
Shortly thereafter, the "Panel of Chairmen" of the various committees
comprising the National Convention announced that there was a "consensus"
in support of the proposals concerning the role of the military in the
Constitutional framework referred to above. Although SLORC has attempted to
create an imprimatur of legitimacy for the National Convention, the
pronounced objectives of the Convention and the membership of the
Convention and its committees, illustrates SLORC's attempt at
constitutional reform to be nothing less than a "sham". For instance, of
the approximately 690 members of the National Convention, approximately 600
delegates were selected directly by SLORC to represent groups such as "the
workers", "the peasants" and "the intellignetsia". Further, of the 392 NLD
Party members of Parliament elected in the May 1990 elections, only 15 were
allowed to participate in the Convention. Similarly, only 15 of the 23
elected members of parliament from the Shan National League for Democracy
(SNLD) were permitted to participate in the Convention. Six delegates who
attended the Convention were from parties which did not win any seats in
the 1990 elections.
Until a new constitution is drafted by SLORC which embodies its objectives
for Burma, SLORC is determined that it alone will exercise all Legislative,
Executive and Judicial power. SLORC refuses to convene the National
Assembly on the pretence that such power can only be obtained from a
constitution and it refuses to recognise the legitimacy of either the 1947
or 1974 Constitutions.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF INTERNATIONAL INACTION AND CONTINUED
RECOGNITION OF THE MILITARY REGIME IN BURMA
On 16 May 1991 the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Senator Gareth Evans, stated to the Australian Parliament:
"Indeed, it is now increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion
that, as much as we hoped and believed otherwise at the time, [the
election in Burma] was a fraud to flush out democratic leaders and
make it easier to move against the dissident groups using
increasingly intimidatory methods."
Senator Evans reiterated his belief that Australia "should do what we can
to focus the world's attention on the situation in Burma."
It its "Reviews of Australia's Effort to Promote and Protect Human Rights"
in December 1992, the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade identified various courses of action for
Australia aimed at promoting and protecting human rights in Burma
including:
1. Sponsoring a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly to
declare Burma's seat vacant;
2. Calling for Burma's Least Developed Country (LDC) status to be
withdrawn;
3. Calling for the United Nations General Assembly to instruct the
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and all allied UN agencies to
cease all operations in Burma;
4. Calling for a UNited Nations trade and arms embargo against Burma;
5. Closing Austrade office in Rangoon.
Unfortunately, none of the recommended actions identified by the Human
Rights Sub-Committee have been implemented by Australia. Partly, the reason
for the government's reluctance to pursue those recommended avenues was the
difficulty in mobilising international support.
The Australian Government's current policy towards Burma is based upon:
1. No resumption of bilateral development assistance without substantial
progress in the political and human rights field;
2. A ban on defence exports;
3. A suspension of Austrade visits to Rangoon although a locally staffed
Austrade office in Rangoon would be maintained with guidelines to
"neither encourage nor discourage" trade;
4. The provision of humanitarian assistance to Burmese refugees in
Bangladesh and Thailand "as needs dictate";
5. Endeavouring to restrict the assistance programs of UN organisations
to "grass roots activities";
6. Support for UN consensus resolutions calling for political and human
rights reform;
7. Urging influential and mainly regional countries to assert their
influence with SLORC to promote a policy change.
The Australian Government has announced several benchmarks in its policy
which, in addition to the unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,
include:
(a) the commencement of a serious dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi;
(b) access to political prisoners by international human rights groups;
(c) progress in the proposed dialogue between SLORC and the UN;
(d) a clear timetable for the constitutional process;
(e) the provision of legal guarantees for the rights of ethnic
minorities;
(f) the cessation of forced labour and forced porterage;
(g) the repeal of censorship and state protection laws;
(h) a review in reduction of sentences imposed for political activity.
The Australian Government's benchmark policy on Burma does not address the
more fundamental issue of denying SLORC the legitimacy which it purports to
enjoy by reason of its recognition by the international community and its
participation in the United Nations General Assembly as a member state.
Declaration 1/90 clearly reveals that SLORC derives a significant amount of
its "legitimacy" from its recognition by the international community.
Furthermore, the Australian Government's benchmark policy merely
perpetuates SLORC's misleading and deceptive pronouncements concerning
constitutional reform and attempts to institute multi-party democracy in
Burma. SLORC's purported desire to institute a genuine multi-party
democratic system in Burma cannot reconciled with its objective to involve
the military in all aspects of national political leadership and reserving
to the military full autonomy and full state powers in the case of
emergencies.
SLORC continually relies upon the National Conventions as being part of a
program towards the establishment of a constitutional multi-party democracy
in Burma in accordance with Declaration 1/90. The representation of the
membership of the Convention and of its committees illustrates the lack of
genuineness of SLORC's public pronouncements in support of constitutional
and democratic reform.
For these reasons, the benchmarks proposed by Senator Evans are
unrealistic.
SLORC's attempt to rely upon the sham of the National Convention to satisfy
international concerns at the lack of progress towards democracy are
evident from a publication on 30 December 1992 in the state owned newspaper
"The Working People's Daily". The article was in response to a draft
resolution introduced in the UN Third Committee deliberations on human
rights questions on 3 December 1992. The article stated:
"One thing that surprised (and saddened) me was the total neglect
to mention the National Convention soon to be convened. Every
structure of society will be represented at the Convention, elected
represented of the 1990 elections, representatives of all the
national race of our country, representatives of the political
parties under the very strata of our society - which will unite the
diverse desires of these peoples under one mandate that will be the
backbone of the constitution to be drafted by the elected
representatives. Everyone is looking forward to the convening of
this very significant convention and as it is the only way towards
establishing a constitutional democracy in our country. If the
biased and unsubstantiated views of a country's outlaws are to be
give more consideration than those of its government, then what
hope is left for the future of our people ?"
The resolution was adopted on 4 December 1992. In response Burma's
permanent representative to the United Nations said that "the caravan of
Myanmar's political process will role on along its set course and at its
set pace until it reaches its goal. [The resolution] will in no way
influence the measures which my government is committed to implementing
with a view to establishing a strong and enduring constitutional democracy
in Myanmar".
That statement accords with several other published statements over many
years by SLORC's members. For instance, on 23 September 1988 General Saw
Maung announced in a speech that "all the armed forces personnel, my
colleagues and I would like to solemnly promise not to hold onto power for
a long time. We will not break this promise for any person. Moreover, we
additionally promise that the armed forces, after transferring power to
the democratically elected government which will emergence from a free and
fair election, shall only perform its principal tasks of defence, security
of the state and maintaining law and order ...."
On 7 October 1988, U Maung Maung Gyi, SLORC's permanent representative to
the United Nations, addressed the 43rd Regular Session of the General
Assembly and said:
"No outside power can prescribe for Burma what her future political
destiny should be, for it is the right of the peoples to determine
their own future. In order that the Burmese people would be able to
exercise the rights, the state authorities have announced and are
making arrangements for holding general elections that would be
free and fair and which all political parties can participate so
that a multi-party democracy system which the people have been
aspiring may be successfully established."
In October 1990, Burma's Foreign Minister stated that "SLORC will continue
to exercise martial law, until such time that a firm constitutionally
established government is accepted. In the exercise of judicial
responsibility, martial law is being applied in serious cases which warrant
such actions."
After the general elections in May 1990, SLORC abandoned all previous
promises and issued Declaration 1/90. SLORC's violations of human rights
and disregard of the rule of law has continued unabated. SLORC's refusal to
relinquish power and recognise the results of the general election are in
no way excused by its convening of the National Conventions or by the
holding or recent meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi.
The recent increased military activity and continued hard line policies
cannot in any way suggest that SLORC is genuine in its desire for
multi-party democratic reform, the assimilation of ethnic minorities into a
federated union or the removal of the military from the political
leadership. The fall of Manerplaw in late January 1995 will only encourage
SLORC to maintain its present policy of pursuing military solutions in an
attempt to destroy its political opponents.
It is therefore encouraging that Senator Evans announced on 21 February
1995 that he has received regional backing for Burma to be discussed in
detail at the first ASEAN Security Meeting in July. Senator Evans has
stated that Australia and regional nations should be prepared to reconsider
their current position since the regime's apparent desire for peaceful
reconciliation has been reversed by the fighting and stalled talks with
Aung San Suu Kyi.
Australia must remember that SLORC has no intention of relinquishing power
either now or in the near future. SLORC's blatant disregard for the human
rights of its people has continued unabated; it has increased its military
activities against the ethnic minorities and political opposition groups in
the Thai-Burmese boarder areas; it has continually broken its public
promises to institute multi-party democracy in Burma and created a pretence
at constitutional reform by the establishment of the Constitutional
Convention. SLORC's framework for reform merely reinforces and perpetuates
the role of the military in all burmese political matters. It is worth
remembering the words of Lieutenant-General Aung Ye Kyaw who announced in
September 1991 on state Burmese radio:
"We cannot say for how long we will be in charge of the State
Administration. It might be five years or ten ..."
<I>Sd. MALCOLM R. GRACIE
Convenor, Burma Sub-Committee
International Commission of Jurists
Sd. PHILIP E. SMYTH
Secretary, Overseas Burma Liberation Front</I>
<HR>
DOCUMENT ATTACHED -A
<I>Full text of State Law and Order Restoration Council Declaration No. 1/90
is as follows:-</I>
THE STATE LAW AND ORDER RESTORATION
COUNCIL DECLARATION,
(DECLARATION NO. 1/90)
The Sixth Waxing Daw of Wagaung, 1352 ME
(27the July, 1990)
1. Myanmar Naing-Ngan became an independent and sovereign nation on
4th January, 1948.
2. The situation in the whole of the country deteriorated because of
the disturbances during 1988. The Tatmadaw took over State Power in order
to control the deteriorating situation in time and in the interests of the
people. The Tatmadaw abolished all the Organs of State Power including the
Pyithu Hluttaw, formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council,
declared that it would carry out the four main tasks and undertook the
responsibility of all the affairs of the State.
3. The State Law and Order Restoration Council issued laws,
notifications, declarations and orders which have the force of law,
required for effectively ensuring prevalence of law and order, the rule of
law and peace and tranquility throughout the country.
4. In order to cease the food, clothing and shelter problems of the
people and to enable private, co-operative and joint venture businesses to
be undertaken, the State Law and Order Restoration Council has repealed
the restrictive laws and has issued necessary laws, orders, directives and
orders which have the force of law. Moreover, it is carrying out measures
which should be undertaken with a view to serving the long-term interests
of the State.
5. The State Law and Order Restoration Council is carrying out
measures which should be undertaken in order to ensure safe and smooth
transportation and communications and to improve the same.
6. The State Law and Order Restoration Council (Tatmadaw) is not an
organization that observes any constitution; it is an organization that is
governing the nation by Martial Law. It is common knowledge that the State
Law and Order Restoration Council is governing the nation as a military
government and that it is a government that has been accepted as such by
the United Nations and the respective nations of the world.
7. As regards international relations, the State Law and Order
Restoration Council has declared that it will pursue an independent and
active foreign policy and has friendly relations with the respective
nations of the world. With a view to promoting better diplomatic relations
with the respective nations the Government has not closed down any embassy
in Myanmar Naing-Ngan but has allowed them to continue to operate; neither
has it withdrawn Myanmar embassies from foreign countries, but has
continued to keep them open and maintains normal relations with the
respective nations. Furthermore, the Government has even opened an embassy
in a country in which there was no Myanmar embassy previously.
8. Myanmar Naing-Ngan being a member of the United Nations, the
Myanmar Embassy to the United Nations strictly pursues the foreign policy
of Myanmar Naing-Ngan in international matters and in performing its duties
concerning the United Nations. Myanmar Naing-Ngan abide by the principles
of peaceful co-existence in its relations with other nations. MOreover,
Myanmar Naing-Ngan defends and safeguards its independence and deals with
other nations' interference in its internal affairs in accordance with the
provisions of the United Nations Charter.
9. In order to avoid disruption and severance of relations between
Myanmar Naing-Ngan and other nations, the Government magnanimously has time
and again told some diplomats who have violated their diplomatic code of
conduct not to interfere in its internal affairs without mentioning their
names and the nations to which they belong. Furthermore, it has informed
the matters to the embassies concerned through diplomatic channels. As it
has been able to avoid matters that may cause disruption of relations
between nations and governments by doing so, there has not arisen any
problem. Misunderstandings due to the activities of some diplomats have
been cleared with magnanimity, through diplomatic channels.
10. The State Law and Order Restoration Council (Tatmadaw) has been
persistently carrying out the three main tasks - that of preventing
disintegration of the Union, preventing disintegration of national
solidarity and that of ensuring perpetuity of the sovereignty of the State
from the time it has assumed the duties and responsibilities of the State.
Everybody is aware that on the other hand it has launched major offensives
and crushed all sorts of armed insurgents, sacrificing the lives, blood
and sweat of many members of the Tatmadaw. Since the Tatmadaw is not a
political organization, it did not hold negotiations with the insurgents by
political means. However, it welcomes all those who have renounced the
programme of armed struggle and returned to the legal fold and a body
formed by it is carrying out resettlemet work for them. Since the State Law
and Order Restoration Councial is not a political government, it has no
reason at all to negotiate by political means with any armed insurgent
organization.
11. In order to enable the Multi-Party Democracy General Election to be
held, the State Law and Order Restoration Council enacted the Multi-Party
Democracy General Election Commission Law and formed the Multi-Party
Democracy General Election Commission. It also It also enacted the
Political Parties Registration Law to enable political parties wishing to
stand for the election to get themselves registered. Moreover, in order to
hold a free and fair multi-party democracy general election, it enacted the
Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law.
12. Section 3 of the Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law provides that "The
Hluttaw shall be constituted with the representatives elected from the
constituencies in accordance with this law." The State Law and Order
Restoration Council will take measures for summoning the Hluttaw in
accordance with this provision. The Information Committee has, from time to
time explained that the Multi-Party Democracy General Election Commission,
the parties which won seats in the election and the elected representatives
should carry out measures which should be carried out in accordance with
the law and rules.
13. Today, after the Multi-Party Democracy General Election has been
held, matters relating to summoning the Hluttaw and transfer of power are
being discussed in bulletins and panphlets published; guidelines in respect
thereof are being given and incitements and instigations are being
undertaken by foreign broadcasting stations and illegal pamphlets and
leaflets are being distributed.
14. The matter of summoning the Hluttaw has been explained earlier. The
Chairman of the State Law and Order Restoration Council has explained
matters relating to transfer of power in the addresses he has made from
time to time in his meeting with the Command Commanders, Commanders of
Light Infantry Divisions and Chairmen of State/Division Law and Order
Restoration Councils. The Secretary-1 of the State Law and Order
Restoration Council explicitly dealt with this matter at the 100th Press
Conference held on 13th July, 1990.
15. There will be no necessity to clarify the fact that a political
party cannot automatically get the three aspects of the State Power - the
legislative power, the executive power and the judicial power - just
because a Pyithu Hluttaw has come into being and that they can only be
obtained on the basis of a constitution. The Constitution of 1947 was
accepted and approved by the Constituent Assembly on 24th September, 1947.
However, it can clearly be seen from the legal aspect that that
constitution came into force only on 4th January 1948 when Myanmar
Naing-Ngan was declared an independent and sovereign State. There are two
types of constitutions for a nation - one drawn up before the nation
becomes independent and the other drawn up after the nation has become
independent. The tradition followed by the respective nations which have
attained independence is that they hold constituent assemblies and draw up
the constitutions only after they have acquired sovereign power. However,
in Myanmar Naing-Ngan independence was declared only after the Constituent
Assembly had drawn up the constitution. It is clear that this was due to
the fact that the leaders of the nation in those days wanted to obtain
independence from the British by peaceful means as early as possible.
16. The Constitution of 1974 was drawn up after the nation's
independence had been gained and no one can deny the fact that it was a
constitution promulgated through a national referendum.
17. It is necessary to note particularly the difference in that the
Constitution of 1947 was drawn up before the independence of the nation was
attained and that the Constitution of 1974 was drawn up after the
independence of the nation had been attained.
18. It can be seen from the statements issued that the desire of the
majority of the political parties which contested in the Multi-Party
Democracy General Election is to draw up a new constitution. It will be
seen that when the Constitution of 1947 was drawn up, matters concerning
the national races were discussed only with the Shan, Kachin and Chin
nationals at the Panglong Conference and that they were not discussed with
the Mon and Rakhine nationals. Today, in Myanmar Naing-Ngan there are many
national races who have awakened politically and it is obvious that it is
especially necessary to draw up a firm constitution after soliciting their
wishes and views.
19. As the State Law and Order Restoration Council is a military
government, it exercise Martial Law. As such it exercises the following
three aspects of State Power in governing Myanmar Naing-Ngan:
(a) Legislative power: Only the State Law and Order Restoration Council
has the right to exercise it.
(b) Executive power: The State Law and Order Restoration Council has
the right to exercise it. However, it has delegated this power to
the Government, State/Division, Township Zone, Township and
Ward/Village-tract Law and Order Restoration Councils at different
levels and has caused administrative work to be carried out through
collective leadership. This is a form of giving training to the
service personnel so that they will be able to perform, by keeping
themselves free from party politics their departmental work under
the government that will come into being according to the
constitution.
(c) Judicial power: The State Law and Order Restoration Council has the
right to exercise it. However, the Government has formed courts at
different levels to adjudicate on ordinary criminal and civil cases
so that they will have practical training when a constitution comes
into being.
20. Consequently under the present circumstances, the representatives
elected by the people are those who have the responsibility to draw up the
constitution of the future democratic State.
21. It is hereby declared that the State Law and Order Restoration
Council will in no way accepting the drawing up of a temporary constitution
for forming a government to take over State Power and that it will take
effective action if it is done so, and that in the interim period before a
government is formed in accordance with a new firm constitution drawn up
according to the desires and aspirations of the people, the State Law and
Order Restoration Council (Tatmadaw) will defend and safeguard -
(a) the three main causes -- such as the non-disintegration of the
Union, non-disintegration of national solidarity and ensuring
perpetuity of the sovereignty;
(b) of the four main tasks mentioned in the State Law and Order
Restoration Council Declaration No 1/88 such as the prevalence of
law and order, the rule of law, regional peace and tranquility,
ensuring safe and smooth transportation and communication, easing
the food, clothing and shelter problems of the people and holding
Multi-Party Democracy General Election, the first three main tasks
(with the exception of the task of holding the multi-party
democracy general election) and
(c) the task of bringing about the development of all the national
races of Myanmar Naing-Ngan.
By order,
Sd. Khin Nyunt
Secretary-1
The State Law and Order Restoration Council
<HR>
<A HREF="../hrpage.html"><=| Go to human rights home page</A>
</BODY>
</HTML>