[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Dear OKKAR66129 (r)



In a message dated 98-07-09 11:32:56 EDT, dohrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:


 
> Thanks for your offer:
 
> There are several:  First note this AFP story that ran on June 17,
> suggesting the NLM article ran June 16.  Can you provide us with the text
> of that article?
 
--------------------------

                      Party responsible for making election results void
                                           (by - Pauk Sa)
                    (The New Light of Myanmar, Tuesday, 16 June, 1998)

	In the dailies published on 7 June 1998, I presented my view and conclusion
in my article titled, "It all comes to naught" in connection with-the speech
of the democracy princess at the democracy memorial ceremony. These days, I am
aware of ultimatums issued in a strong term by the chairman, the . vice-
chairman and the democracy princess. I would like to relate what I have
learned to the public.

	I am presenting this article based on the words spoken in an impassioned mood
by a friend of mine who is a member of that particular party at a tea shop
popularly known as "Lay Htan Gon" as if he was going to be a cabinet minister
or a district/township chairman in a couple of days. I felt a bit frightened
as I saw him very active and enthusiastic in recalling the speeches of the
democracy princess, the, vice-chairman who presided over the meeting and the
chairman of the party.

	I have recounted the speeches of the democracy leaders and now I am going to
recall the speech of the party chairman.

	The party chairman was said to have remarked that not a thing was done yet in
connection with the election results. I felt ashamed of what he had said. It
seems  that he has forgotten what the Tatmadaw government has done in
connection with the election results. May be this has been because of his old
age. As far as I can recall, the Tatmadaw government on 27 1uly l990 issued
the Declaration No l/ 90. In the declaration, directives were stated on the
do's and don'ts for political parties candidates of which won in the election
to avoid undue occurrences during the political reform. On 29 July l990, the
Tatmadaw government sent a statement on its stand on development of national
affairs to, the National League for Democracy, the Patriotic Veterans
Organization- and the National Democracy Party. But what the party of this
party chairman did was that it issued a Gandhi Hall declaration after holding
a meeting on 28 and 29 July l 990. Thc declaration contained calls for
convening of the Pyithu Hluttaw in September l990 and handing over power to
the- National League for Democracy in accordance with the constitution drafted
by itself. It would be necessary to consider whether it is realistic or not to
hand over power to a party in accordance with the constitution drafted by a
single party. Who would invest powers to a party which had drafted a
constitution by itself? Should the opinions and attitudes of over 40 million
people in the States and Divisions including national races be ignored? The
Gandhi Hall meeting and the Gandhi Hall declaration produced results that made
demands and that called for confrontations and for a secret Hluttaw meeting.
Eventually, some of the party members and representatives-elect were sent into
exile. The Tatmadaw government offered ways and means of cooperation to the
political parties candidates of which won in the election to build a new
nation in dignity in conformity with the national politics. But the party of
that chairman did not accept any offer insisting that power be handed over to
it. The stand of the Tatmadaw government is nationa1 politics with the
country's peace, prosperity and unity in mind. The stand of that party
chairman, on the other hand, is based on seizing power and it is like the will
to sell something at current prices without considering the consequences. In
future Under the circumstances, there has been no room for cooperation. 

Let it be. The Tatmadaw government convened the National Convention when
political situation was stabilized. The objective of the National Convention
is to a work for the emergence of n an enduring constitution and  to hand over
power to a  government which comes to power in accordance with t that
constitution. That party chairman himself and those of his party attended the
National Convention but he and all of his men left the National Convention
according to the order of the democracy princess who is said to have been
expelled from the party. Considering these instances, the remark of the party
chairman that the Tatmadaw government had done not a thing in connection with
the elections results holds no water; it carries no weight. The Tatmadaw
government, in recognition of the election results, offered various ways and
means of cooperation but the chairman and his party declined bluntly;

 In his speech, the party chairman was said to have pointed out that section 3
(a) of the Chapter II of the Election Law stated the Hluttaw was to be
constituted with representative select of various constituencies but the
authorities had not done anything according to law although they claimed to be
working for the rule of law. In this connection, the party chairman referred
the phrase of constituting the Hluttaw only as he pleased. But which
constitution is to be based in constituting the Hluttaw? As far as I know, I
have never heard of a country where a Hluttaw is called and constituted
without a constitution. The party chairman served as an ambassador of the
country to foreign nations and his children got married with foreigners and as
such he has constant foreign contacts and is therefore rich in foreign
knowledge. I would like to gain knowledge from him and would like to know
whether there is any country where Hluttaw can be constituted without a
constitution. Concerning the chairman's remarks that the Tatmadaw government
has not done for the rule of law as it had claimed to do so, I feel that the
chairman's remark has been inconsistent since he said the failure of convening
the Hluttaw was against the law while he did not say anything about the need
to draft a constitution to convene the Hluttaw. When action was taken against
law  breaker criminals such as subversives, terrorists and murderers, and
members of chairman's party were involved, he and his men were used to say
that authorities violated human rights and that they were denied democratic
rights and  were subject to unjust arrests, detention and persecution. So
saying they lodged complaints with such and such organizations. The  VOA, BBC
and RFA, who constitute the voice of the colonialist bloc and supporters of
the chairman did shout to echo the complaints.

There are more. I noticed one point in the chairman's speech. He said (the
Tatmadaw government) should not avoid calling the Hluttaw and that a Pyithu
Hluttaw should be convened without fail. The chairman seems to have lost his
senses. He should say with common sense. Because the Tatmadaw government does
know that it is responsible for calling a Hluttaw. That is why it has convened
the National Convention to be able to draft a constitution and lay down basic
principles by following the path of national politics. The chairman's party
did accept to carry out the national duty which is important for the nation
but it failed to fulfil it and went as far as disrupting and sabotaging the
task. It was very simple. It is the chairman's party which attempted to impede
the progress made in political conditions and to cause instability. After the
elections a Hluttaw is to be convened. A constitution is to be drafted for
calling a Hluttaw if there is no constitution to do so. After introducing the
constitution, the Hluttaw will be called and a government formed accordingly.
The way is thus clear. However, there was a delay in reaching the goal since
the chairman refused to follow the straight path.

Furthermore, the chairman's speech referred the resolutions of the UN General
Assembly in 1997 and that of the Human Rights Commission in 1998. He said (the
government) had not taken steps leading to democracy and that power should be
handed over through the representatives elect as called for by the
resolutions. In my opinion, the resolutions were not sincere and they were
passed by the colonialist bloc under cover of the United Nations; they
intended to put pressure on Myanmar and interfere in its internal affairs in
violation of the UN Charter. It is because the paragraph 2 of the UN Charter
provides that the UN is based on the sovereign equality of all member nations
and paragraph 2, sub-paragraph 7 also provides that there is nothing in the
Charter to authorize UN to intervene in matters which are essentially domestic
jurisdiction of any State. Under the circumstances, the UN has no reason to
intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign Myanmar. But as all are aware,
interference in the international affairs is being committed under cover of
the UN prompted by the super power colonialist bloc.

	Be that as it may, their resolutions were absolutely wrong. The Tatmadaw
Government, in a bid to take a step orientated towards democracy, has been
convening the National Convention with a view to ensuring the emergence of a
constitution based on the wishes of the entire people. A government will be
formed in accord with the constitution which will emerge in line with the
basic principles laid down at the National Convention. Power will be
transferred to that Government. The task to establish a democratic system
according to the results of the election is not a separate problem. The
Tatmadaw Government has been working practically for the emergence of a
constitution. The way of speaking about the transfer of power through
delegates of the Hluttaw according to the democratic practices is rather of
inferior political status. How will the transfer of power be carried out
without any constitution? To say the least, I don't know whether their purpose
of standing for the election is merely to take power or to sit on the chair of
power. The prevailing situation is that, when it comes to the task of drawing
up a constitution which will contribute to the safe and secure life of the
entire people and which is practically more important than the power in the
political field, they behave like an earthworm which is rolling in
excruciating pain after coming into contact with salt. I applaud by dint of
wrinkling my nose in distaste.

	Well, let it be. The conclusion of Mr Chairman's speech sounded somewhat
ridiculous, which says that the people have to suffer the consequences of
political crisis, as a result of the facts that the authorities have not
summoned the Hluttaw according the provision contained in the law and have not
initiated a dialogue; the authorities should not neglect these situations at
all; the authorities are absolutely responsible for multifarious affairs of
the people; they cannot shirk all responsibility.

	I have already explained that the accusation that the Hluttaw had not been
summoned in accord with the provision of the law had been made to their
liking. I do not need to repeat it. The accusation of Mr Chairman that a
dialogue has not been held in accord with the provision of the law is wide
open to ridiculous remarks. Could you tell me the law which has prescribed the
persons with whom the dialogue must be held? I am talking about such things
according to my information. I am not humiliating you, Mr chairman, by means
of saying false and fabricated news? I have just raised a question according
to the person, a friend of mine, a member of Mr Chairman's party. Without
having a little knowledge of the law which prescribes these facts and the
persons with whom the dialogue must be held, you yourself has made accusation
by giving a section number, and has behaved in an unruly manner. But, there is
one thing. Do you mean that the dialogue is refused to be held with your
party? If that's so, it is very simple. As is known to the entire people, the
leaders of the State have taken initial steps towards a dialogue. The leaders
of the State themselves have created the condition to meet Daw Suu Kyi in a
cordial atmosphere. Please, think it over that who started putting an end to
this favourable condition. The first person is Michael Aris, a British
citizen, husband of Daw Suu Kyi. On his way back after meeting his wife, he
issued some information in Bangkok on 23 January, 1995 . It implies that a
foreigner interfered in the internal affairs of Myanmar. The second person is
Daw Suu Kyi herself. She acted, shortly after the restriction order was
lifted, in a manner that a dialogue must be held, or else you would all get
into trouble. How will it be convenient? There were lots of such acts done
later as the use of coercion by relying on external power. Without taking any
offence, the head of the State offered to meet the chairman and executives of
the party, it was known to all. Who is the one who didn't take this
opportunity and behaved in a malicious manner? On the one hand they are
behaving in a malicious manner, but on the other hand, they are shouting with
their eyes shut that a dialogue is refused. This implies that you are exposing
your political black magic to everyone. Members of the party should understand
this condition. I feel pity for them who have been left with a deep feeling of
hurt in their hands as a result of clapping, sitting op the mats and wasting
time and effort in a big hut of Danathahaya Compound. The very thing which
needs to be taken into consideration is whether the Tatmadaw Government is
making demands and launching attacks to make the people suffer the
consequences of political crisis and the Tatmadaw is creating anarchy such as
head-on confrontation and defiance of all authority. Who is the one who
resorted to various black magic political means by distributing the copies of
the letter sent to the Secretary-l by a national race organization with the
intent of creating misunderstanding and arousing suspicion between the
Tatmadaw and the national races organizations which made peace with the
Tatmadaw and of marring the peace achieved? It is Mr Chairman and your party
that is hand in the glove with the group of colonialists and preventing
international community from investing in Myanmar, extending loans and
providing assistance with a view to making the people suffer the consequences
of economic stringency, isn't it? Who is the one hindering international
community from providing social assistance with a view to inflicting social
suffering on the people?
 
I would like to ask the chairman of the party, which has resorted to various
political  black magic means designed to inflicting the consequences of
political crisis , economic stringency and social suffering on the people and
who is shirking all responsibility of what he has done and heaping the blarne
on the Tatmadaw Government, if he has a clear conscience. I am going to
withdraw my question if your conscience is releasing rotten smell as a result
of lack of having a bath.

	But, if your acts I have seen and heard and the ways of speaking of leaders
of the party including Mr Chairman are taken into account, I thought that Mr
Chairman's party has won the election and failed to fu1fil the obligation in
the national political duty which covers the entire nation, and it is Mr
Chairman' s party which makes the result void.

	Of course, Mr Chairman's party makes the result void.

(Translation: MO)