Rape and Torture in the Shan State

[Rangoonp@xxxxxxx]

Subject: Rape and Torture in the Shan State of Burma

Rape and Torture in the Shan State of Burma , et.al.

March 29, 1999
Excerpt from : A report on the conditions of internally displaced
persons in Shan State of Burma.

by the Shan Human Rights Foundation


Rape and Torture

"Internally displaced persons, whether or not their liberty has been
restricted, shall be protected in particular against rape, mutilation,
torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (Guiding
Principle 11.2)

In the list of killings given in the previous section on executions are
included 25 cases of women raped before being killed. In the case on May
18, 1998,. the women raped and killed (who had been relocated ) also had
their nipples sliced off. 

As well as this, SHRF has recorded the following cases of rape by SPDC
troops in the areas of forced relocation in 1998:

18.1.98 Ho Lin, Murng Pan 5 women, 16-20 yrs gang rape Deputy Commander

& troops of IB 66

20.1.98 Ta Sarng on Salween 4 women rape officer at Ta Sarng

25.7.98 Zaeet Lawk, Laikha 16-year-old girl gang-rape Major & troops

from LIB 515

27.7.98 Phawng Seng, Laikha 13-year-old girl gang-rape "

The fact that officers are committing the rapes, and that in each case
the offenders were not charged 

even when the victims complained to the authorities, indicates that rape
is being condoned by the 

SPDC to intimidate the local populations. 

Given that the authorities themselves are committing the rapes, it goes
without saying that no provision is

being made by the SPDC for Guiding Principle 19.2 that "special
attention should be paid to the health

needs of women (...) as well as appropriate counselling for victims of
sexual and other abuses." 

The list of executions in the previous section also shows that many of
the victims were tortured, usually by beating, before death. In most
cases, the torture was to force the villagers to reveal the whereabouts
of the Shan resistance. 

Forced labour

According to Guiding Principle 11, "IDPs shall be protected in
particular against slavery or any

contemporary form of slavery such as forced labour of children." Yet
almost all the relocated villagers

interviewed for this report had been ordered to work without payment for
the military bases near their


relocation sites. The following examples show the types of labour they
were used for:

relocation site, township type of forced labour

Wan Nong Wan Koong, Pang Long dig fence around camp 513, get firewood,
dig bunkers, portering

Kho Lam, Nam Zarng had to do forced labour at least 4 times a month

Nar Pao, Kun Hing make fences for mil. camp (or pay 100K a day),
portering

Wo Long, Kun Hing portering, dig ditches at army camp twice a month

Wan Nong Wan Koong, Pang Long build fence around relocation site

Koe Pown, Kun Hing children aged 11-13 were forced to be porters

Kho Lam, Nam Zarng portering

Mae Kaen, Murng Ton portering

Wan Sai Pay, Murng Nai build fences around the military base, portering

Ton Hoong, Murng Nai work in Burmese military gardens, fields, fences,
portering

Wan Pak, Murng Kerng 5 days at a time, had to plant soybean and peanuts
for Burmese military; dig bunkers, portering

Murng Kerng work on the road to Murng Yon, digging and breaking stones.

porering, children aged 15-16 made to work on 2 military camps at Murng
Kerng, looking after soldiers animals, cleaning their houses and washing
clothes

Kun Hing building barracks, cutting wood for army camp, forced to make a
pagoda and carry bricks; 

Instances of forced labour by the SPDC military in Shan State,
particularly on military agricultural projects have increased during the
second half of 1998, apparently as a result of the economic crisis in
Burma and the fact that the regime has cut off rations for its own
troops. Relocated populations have also been targeted. For example on
July 11, SPDC LIB 102 ordered villagers in the Murng Pan area to provide
labourers for weeding soya bean and corn farms owned by the military in
Murng Pan. (10 persons from each of 10-15 villages each day had to bring
their own food and tools). In September 1998, villagers in the
relocation site of Kengtong, Murng Nai, were forced to cultivate yellow
bean for the army, then tend it, weeding and fencing, for troops at
local bases.

The military has also been using relocated villagers to work without
payment on their own business

projects. Throughout 1998, SHRF has received reports of villagers from
Murng Pan, Larng Khur, Murng

Nai, Murng Ton and Nam Zarng being forced to work for periods of up to 2
weeks splitting rocks near the

Salween river crossing of Ta Sarng in southern Shan State. They were
forced by IB 225, IB 64, IB 65, LIB

333. The rocks were trucked by the army to big cities like Rangoon where
they were sold at a rate of 12,000

-15,000 kyat per truckload. 

Since July 4, 1998, villagers from the Kengtong area have been forced to
drive their ox-carts to carry teak lumber from Kengtong to the SPDC
military base of IB43 at Kunhing. During the months of July and August
1998, a total of 427 ox-carts were used solidly. 

Forced recruitment

"Internally displaced persons shall be protected against discriminatory
practices of recruitment into any armed forced or groups as result of
their displacement. " Principle 13

Many of the refugees interviewed for this report stated that villagers
in their relocation sites had been forced to serve in the local

"people's militia" for the Burma Army. The local authorities in towns
such as Nam Zarng, Lai Kha and Kunhing have conscripted young men on the
basis of household registration lists. These young men would be trained
locally and then given weapons and forced to go out on patrols with SPDC
troops. They have often been made to walk at the front of patrols as
guides, and also to bear the brunt of any attack. 

Restriction of movement

"Every internally displaced person has the right to liberty of movement
and freedom to choose his or her residence... In particular internally
displaced persons have the right to move freely in and out of camps or
other settlements." (Guiding Principle 14)

All of the relocated villagers interviewed for this report had been
restricted in their movements following the relocation. Details given
were as follows:

original distance allowed to move allowed back to old village 

village, township from relocation site

Nong Wo, Murng Kerng within1 hour's walk allowed back with a pass

Wan Lao, Kun Hing not allowed out of site not allowed back at all

Bang Hoo, Pang Long allowed anywhere except old village not allowed back
at all

Huay Perng, Kun Hing within a 3 mile radius not allowed back at all

Nawng Pum, Murng Nai within a 1-mile radius not allowed back at all

Kun Mi, Kun Hing within a half-day's walk allowed back with a pass for
one day at cost of 10 kyats

Loi Yarng, Kun Hing within a 3 mile radius allowed back with a pass for
the dayWan Wan Na Jerm, Kun Hing -- allowed back for the day

Koong Kao, Pang Long within a 2-mile radius not allowed back at all

Loi Ser, Larng Kher within a 3-mile radius allowed back with a pass

Ho Yarn, Kun Hing within a 1-mile radius not allowed back at all

Wan Mai, Nam Zarng within a 6 mile-radius not allowed back at all

Loi Mot, Pang Long within a 2-mile radius allowed back with a pass
costing 25 kyats

Wan Laikha, Laikha within a 3-mile radius not allowed back at all

Wan Pang, Murng Kerng within a 7-mile radius not allowed back at all

All said they were threatened they would be shot if they returned to
their old villages without permission. Some anyway risked sneaking back
to their old farms to try and plant or harvest some crops, or to find
out what had happened to any livestock that had been left roaming in the
old village. 

Freedom to seek refuge in Thailand

"Internally displaced persons have the right to leave their country or
the right to seek asylum in another country." (Guiding Principle 15)

All of the refugees interviewed for this report, who had all arrived in
Thailand during 1998, said they had not been allowed by the Burmese
troops to leave their relocation sites to move to Thailand. One person
said this was because the Burmese troops "were worried they would not
have anyone to use for forced labour if everyone left". They therefore
had to sneak out of the relocation sites either by pretending they were
simply going somewhere nearby, or that they were simply travelling to
another town to visit someone. They could not carry many possessions,
nor could they travel in large groups, in case they attracted attention. 


One villager from Kho Lam relocation site said the headman of Kho Lam
had forbidden people to travel to Thailand because he was afraid of
retribution from the Burmese troops. 

Once they had left the relocation sites, none of the villagers were
prevented from travelling to the border, but said they had to pay money
to Burmese troops at various checkpoints along the main roads. 

Establishing the fate of missing IDPs

"All internally displaced persons have the right to know the fate and
whereabouts of missing relatives. The authorities concerned shall
endeavour to establish the fate and whereabouts of internally displaced
persons reported missing.. They shall inform the next of kin on the
progress of the investigation and notify them of any result (...)The
authorities shall endeavour to collect and identify the mortal remains
of those deceased, prevent their despoilation and facilitate the return
of those remains to the next of kin or dispose of them respectfully."
(Guiding Principle 16)

Given that the SPDC/SLORC troops have almost invariably been responsible
themselves for the disappearance or killings of the IDPs, they have not
surprisingly shown no willingness to cooperate with the relatives of the
deceased in locating or assisting in the return of any mortal remains. 

One of the survivors of the massacre of 29 villagers at Sai Khao on June
16, 1997, described how the relatives had been unable to leave their
relocation site at Kunhing to go and fetch the bodies. "The SLORC did
not do anything with the bodies of those they'd killed. They just left
the bodies to rot. Some time afterwards someone from our village said
the shooting could have been a trick of the Burmese soliders, that maybe
they just took our men away as porters. So we hired a Burmese Army
veteran to go and have a look. He had to be an ex-soldier because no one
else would dare do it, and even then he had to go with a group of carts
that were being forced to serve the Army. No one dared go to bury them.
He found their skeletons all over the place, and 4 piles of long hair
from the women victims. The man could only take a quick look when he was
with the bullock-carts that were carrying supplies for the Army.
Otherwise anyone found in the area would be shot at." (KHRG #3, 98-03)

Separation of the family

"The authorities undertaking such displacement shall ensure, to the
greatest practicable extent, (...) that members of the same family are
not separated." (Guiding Principle 7; later expanded in Guiding
Principle 17)

Shans traditionally live as extended families, particularly in the rural
areas. The elderly stay with their married offspring, and often with any
unmarried offspring as well, meaning that an average household may
contain 7 or 8 people. 

In the past, due to the abundance and fertility of land, it was possible
for most Shan farming families to grow enough food to feed all extended
family members. Thus, few families split up unless by choice. Younger
adults sometimes chose to go to work in the towns or in Thailand,
leaving any children in the care of other adults or the elderly
grandparents in the house. These migrating adults would expect to return

home after saving up enough money. 

The recent forced relocation program in Shan State, by depriving the
relocated farmers of their land and livelihood, has destroyed the
support system for the traditional extended family unit. In their search
for shelter, work and food, families are now being forced to split up,
and no attempt is being made by the authorities to prevent this. 

The splitting up of the family following relocation follows several
patterns: 

1. Splitting up immediately following relocation 

Some families split up immediately after they had been relocated because
they needed somewhere to stay. After being ordered from their homes,
those families with relatives in towns would sometimes send some family
members to stay with those relatives, while others would go to make a
new shelter at the site or town to which they had been relocated. 

In other cases, while most family members moved to the relocation site,
one or more family members would stay in hiding near the old village to
try and plant or harvest crops. 

2. Splitting up following the move to the relocation site

A very common pattern has been for families to move first to the
relocation site, and then for some members of the family to come to find
work in Thailand, with the hope of making money to send back to support
the family members in the site, or else with the idea of finding a
stable worksite and then going back and fetching other family members to
stay with them. Usually it would be the younger adults who would be the
ones to come first to Thailand, sometimes with their young children,
sometimes leaving their young children with their elderly parents in the
site. 

3. Splitting up following the move to Thailand 

Although the relocated families who come and work in Thailand try and
stay together at one worksite, this is not always possible. Very often
they have no choice but to split up in their search for work,
particularly if they are working as domestics or in shops or
restaurants. 

The chart below of some of the people interviewed in Oct-Nov 1998
indicate the effects of the relocation on the family unit.

Interviewee, original original number of family members number now in
Thailand

township living together

M (aged 28) Pang Long 5 (2 elderly parents, 3 adult children) 1
(himself)

F (aged 42), Keng Kham 7 (2 elderly parents, 1 grandparent, 4 (she,
husband, 2 children)

husband, 2 children, 1 niece)

M (aged 30), Pang Long 5 (he, his wife, 1 son, 2 daughters) 1 (himself)

M (aged 48), Murng Nai 7 (he, his wife, 1 son, 4 daughters) 4 (he, his
wife, 2 children )

F (aged 73), Keng Kham 5 (she, 2 sons, 2 daughters) 2 (2 sons)

F (aged 18), Kae See 3 (she, her parents) 1 (herself)

M (aged 29), Murng Kerng 7 (2 elderly parents, he, his wife, 1 son, 3
(he, his wife, 1 son)

1 sister)

F (aged 56), Kun Hing 6 (she, 4 adult children, 1 niece) 3 ( she, 2
adult children)

F (aged 35), Keng Kham 12 (2 elderly parents, 2 grandparents, 6 (she,
husband, 4 children)

2 niece, she, husband, 4 children)

Food 

"Authorities shall provide internally displaced persons with and ensure
safe access to essential food and potable water." (Guiding Principle 18)


1. In the relocation sites

With one exception, none of the relocated villagers interviewed for this
report were at any time provided with any food by the authorities.
Sometimes rice they had brought with them to relocation sites was even
confiscated from them, and the SPDC troops forbade members of the local
community in nearby towns from donating any food to the relocated
villagers. 

One villager from Loilem reported: "They gave us nothing. At first when
we moved we took all the rice we could and then shared it among us, but
then the soldiers took what was left. In our family, six of us had to
survive on one tang of rice: my 2 parents, myself, my wife and the
children." (KHRG #11; 98-03)

The exception was a villager relocated to the relocation site of Wan
Nong Wan Koong near Parng Long, who reported that the SPDC authorities
had trucked in about 200 sacks of rice for the relocated villagers about
3 months after they were relocated to the site. The rice was from
Central Burma (generally considered as inferior to the local Shan rice)
and was stale, ill-smelling and discoloured. Ironically, this was the
same site at which over 400 relocated villagers have been reported as
dying from poisoning (see SHRF report of February 19, 1999, called
"Poison the Rats, Kill the Shan"), and many villagers believed they had
been poisoned by the SPDC rice donation.

In all of the areas of relocation, almost all of the relocated villagers
were farmers whose families had tilled their fields for generations. On
moving to the relocation sites, they were usually forbidden to return
and work on their fields. The areas to which they had been relocated,
particularly if they were close to existing villages or towns, usually
had no cultivable land available for them. Since they were mostly
forbidden to go farther than a small radius from the relocation sites,
this meant that they often could grow no food for themselves. Thus they
were forced to become wage labourers, usually on other people's fields.
In some areas, no wage labour was available at all and some villagers
even starved to death.

"We were not provided with anything at the relocation site (Keng Lern).
Many villagers had no food. One villager, an old man I knew, had to dig
for roots to eat. He dug a hole and fell into it. His head got stuck and
I had to pull him out. He died two months later because he did not have
enough food to eat." (SHRF interview, May 30, 1998, male villager, aged
18, Ke See) 

One villager from the village of Loi Mot, relocated to Pang Long,
reported that 10 villagers from his village had died of starvation after
moving to the site. This is direct contravention of Guiding Principle
10.2, that "Internally displaced persons shall be protected, in
particular, against ( ) starvation as a method of combat." 

The following chart of villagers interviewed between October-November
1998 shows the change in livelihood for all the villagers, and how they
fed themselves:

original livelihood, livelihood and source of food in relocation sites 

village, township of origin


1. farmer (peanut, sesame, rice) -wage labourer on tea plantation (100
Kyats per day)

Nawng Wo, Kun Hing - also grew some peanuts and rice but not enough to
feed selves 


2. farmer (cheroot leaves, rice, tea) - wage labourer in rice fields (60
Kyats per day)

Bang Hoo, Loilem - planted dry rice fields 2 miles away

- sold gold to buy rice

3. farmer (rice, sesame) - ate rice they brought from old village until
it ran out

Wan Lao, Kun Hing - wage labourer (50 Kyats a day), no land to plant on

4. farmer (rice, corn, chilli) - at first ate rice brought from old
village

Na Jerm, Kun Hing - wage labourer on rice fields 

- sneaked back to old village to plant rice

5. farmer (rice) - wage labourer on relative's farm (45 Kyats a day)

Wan Mai, Namzarng - planted some crops on a small plot of land.

6. farmer (rice, sesame, soy bean) - ate rice brought from old village

Murng Bu Long, Murng Paeng - wage labourer (50 Kyats a day, or 1 "pye"
of rice, enough to feed one person for 3 days) 

- no land to grow anything on

7. farmer (rice, soybean, peanut) - ate rice from old village, but not
enough so had to mix with maize

Loi Mot, Loilem - split firewood and fetched water for other villages
(50 Kyats a day)

- no land to plant on

        a.. 
8. farmer (rice, oranges, peanut) - work on relative's farm, earn 4
"pye" of paddy per day

Wan Pang, Murng Kerng - no land to plant on

9. farmer (rice, cheroot leaves, tea) - tried to plant around relocation
site, but soil not good, so nothing

Koong Kao, Loilem grew 

10. farmer (rice, peanut, beans) - wage labourer (100 Kyat per day)

Loi Ser, Larng Kher - ate rice that harvested from old village 

 .

11. farmer (rice, coconut, betel, tea) - ate rice brought from old
village, 

Ho Yarn, Kun Hing - sneaked back to work old fields in village

- no work at relocation site

2. IDPs in hiding

As for the villagers who have not gone to the relocation sites, but are
hiding out in the jungles, the food situation is even more precarious.
These IDPs often do not dare to tend their original fields since they
are afraid of Burma Army patrols. They therefore have to cultivate small
new plots of land on hill slopes among trees, away from their original
fields on the plains. Although they may have hidden their old stocks of
rice in the jungle, they have to ration this sparingly, and often eat
only rice soup, or rice mixed with corn or dried jack fruit. 

Some of the villagers interviewed for this report who had been in hiding
mentioned that they had to be careful even when cooking their food in
case the smoke of their fires gave away their positions to patrolling
Burma Army troops. They would choose to cook at midday, when the smoke
would not be visible, or else at night if it was moonless. 

The IDPs try and supplement their food by taking any remaining livestock
to sell in the nearest towns, and then purchasing food supplies to take
back to the jungle, but this is clearly extremely dangerous. Some of the
IDPs in hiding also try and earn a living by catching wild animals or
fish, and then selling them in towns. 


Water


1. In relocation sites

In many cases, there was no convenient water source in or near the
relocation sites. For example, in the relocation site of Wan Nong Wan
Koong, near Parng Long, villagers had to walk up to 1 kilometer to fetch
water from the Nam Pawn River, which lay downstream from the town and
was thus not clean (This was also the river that SHRF reported as
causing the deaths of over 400 relocated villagers following the dumping
by SPDC troops of 20,000 poisoned rats in the river in 1998). The
villagers from Koong Kao relocated to this site had formerly used wells
in their village.

In the relocation site of Larn Kwae, Ke See, one villager reported:
"There was a lot of sickness among the relocated villagers at Larn Kwae.
There was only one water source, so at bathing time it was like a
festival. There were so many people trying to wash at the same time. I
know of about 15 people who have died of illness. They were mostly old
people. There was a lot of diarrhea." (SHRF interview of villager from
Wan Mak Lang, Ke See. May 30, 98).

2. IDPs in hiding

The IDPs in hiding often do not dare stay near streams as this would be
an obvious place for Burma Army patrols to find them. Thus, they may
have to walk for several hours to fetch water from the nearest stream.

Housing

"Competent authorities shall provide internally displaced persons with
and ensure safe access to (...) basic shelter and housing." (Guiding
Principle 18.2)

1. Relocation sites

Most of the relocation sites were simply empty areas of land near roads
or existing villages or towns. Each of the relocated villages was
usually designated a specific area to stay in.

In no cases were the villagers provided with any housing at all by the
authorities in their relocation sites.

Most people just built huts out of bamboo, sometimes in the relocation
sites designated by the military, and sometimes near to a relative's
house in a village or town. Some people sheltered in field huts
belonging to others. Sometimes up to 4 families would stay together in
one hut.

Some people did not even have huts to stay in: "In Lai Kha people who
have relocated there are living all over the place. Many are just living
in their ox-carts, including my old parents." (SHRF interview with male
refugee, aged 17, from Si Sor Ye Khe, May 30, 98)


Some villagers were forced to buy land in the relocation sites.
According to one villager from Koong Kao, Loilem township, some of the
relocated villagers had to pay 100 kyats each for a patch of land in a
site near Parng Long to build a house on. This money was paid to the
local Burmese military (LIB 513), after which they received written
permission to stay at the site. 

Some villagers who did not want to stay in the relocation sites, and had
enough money, ended up buying houses in the villages near which they had
been relocated. One farmer from Bang Hoo relocated to Pang Long related
how he had ended up buying a piece of land in a village Wan Long, which
cost him 40,000 kyats. 

2. IDPs in hiding

Most of the IDPs in hiding choose to stay in dense jungle, away from any
well-trodden paths that may be used by Burma Army troops. They make

small makeshift bamboo and thatch huts that are camouflaged under the
trees, in which many family members will stay crowded together in
unhygienic conditions.