Volume IX. No. I. January-February 2006 Rhododendron News January-February 2006
Rhododendron News
Volume IX. No. I. January-February 2006
Chin Human Rights Organization
www.chro.org
****************************************
Table of Contents
Human Rights Situations in Chinland
Summary Execution, Torture & Arbitrary Detention
• A 17 Year-Old Boy Summarily Executed by Burmese Troop
• Relative of Chin Rebel Victim of Chronic Abuse, Torture & Extortion
• Villager Severely Tortured for Alleged Sympathy to Rebels, Six Others in Army Custody
• Alleged Rebel Sympathizers Tortured by SPDC troops
• Two High School Students Arbitrarily Detained for Suspected Ties to Rebels
Forced Labor & Extortion
• 45 Civilians Forced as Porters
• More than 200 Civilians Forced to Work in Road Construction
• SPDC Forced Villagers to Clear over 600 Acres of Forested Land for Tea Plantation
• Advance Christmas Celebration Disrupted by Forced Labor Conscription
• Burmese Police Illegally Extort Money from a Woman Trader
• SPDC Troops Extort Money from Traders
• Villagers Forced to Contribute Tin Roofing Plates to Build Army Barrack
• Burmese Soldiers Robbed Chin Women Traders of over Half a Million Kyats
• SPDC Collecting Forced Donations to Support Disabled Army Veterans
• SPDC Forcibly Collects ‘Donation’
National Convention
• Mass-Signing’ Event Held in Support of the National Convention
International Campaign
• Canada Should Work More Aggressively to Affect Positive Change in Burma (Brief Submitted by CHRO to Canadian Foreign Affairs)
Opinion
• Rethinking a Parliamentary-Federal Proposal for Burma
By Salai Za Uk Ling
Back Cover Poem
• Unity against Colony (Chin National Day)
By Van Biak Thang
Summary Execution, Torture & Arbitrary Detention
A 17 Year-Old Boy Summarily Executed by Burmese Troop
1 February 2006
Aizawl; A 17 year-old boy, accused of aiding Chin rebels, was summarily executed by government troops under the command of Lt. Colonel Ye Myint, Commander of Light Infantry Battalion (140) based in Matupi, a local villager (identity withheld) told Chin Human Rights Organization. The troops carrying out the execution are from an Army Company currently stationed at Rezua Town, Southern Chin State. The incident took place on 15 December 2005 on a secluded hill just outside of Rezua.
The boy, identified as Maung Yan Naing Soe, was picked up at his native village of Hringthang and brought to Rezua Town by government troops by order of Lt. Colonel Ye Myint during the first week of December 2005. The Burmese troop also took along the boy’s stepfather.
On 15 December, the two civilians were taken to a secluded hill, located just one mile outside of Rezua. Upon arrival, the stepfather was made to dig the ground with a hoe. Seeing his stepfather tired and exhausted from digging, the boy volunteered to take over. The troops commanded the stepfather to walk home. Moments later, the stepfather heard two rounds of gunfire.
A childhood friend of the murdered boy who wished not to be identified by name explained. “Although I did not witness the execution with my own eyes, I am certain they murdered my friend. I’ve tried to gather as much information as I could on this incident. The stepfather’s account and words from the Battalion corroborated the fact that he was actually executed in cold blood.” He said villagers of the boy’s native place have already performed rites and built a grave for the boy in his village.
Colonel San Aung, Tactical Commander of Southern Chin State, in early December had reportedly issued a direct order to troops under his command to ‘eliminate’ anyone suspected of having contacts with Chin National Army. The order followed an incident in a daylight shooting in Matupi during a closing ceremony of a football tournament.
Prior to his capture, Maung Yan Naing Soe had delivered a letter for the Chin National Army to U Pan Ping, Chairman of the Village Peace and Development Council of Lung Ngo Village. U Pan Ping then reported him to troops stationed in his village, leading to Maung Yan Naing Soe’s arrest and execution by LIB 140 troops.
Relative of Chin Rebel Victim of Chronic Abuse, Torture and Extortion
Aizawl: 17 January, 2006
A brother of the Chin rebel army has been the target of regular torture, captivity and extortion by Burmese soldiers based in southern Chin State for nearly the past two years, the victim has testified to Chin Human Rights Organization.
The torture and physical abuse date back to as early as June of 2004, when Captain Aung Kyaw Than from Paletwa-based Burma army Infantry Battalion (34) got wind of the news that one U Haakha had a brother working with opposition Chin National Army. The Captain immediately sent his troop to capture U Haakha who lived 25 miles away in a village called Wadaikung of Sami Vvillage Tract, Paletwa Township. Those sent for U Haakha’s capture included an army Corporal and a private (both names unknown), a police corporal Sein Kyaw Hla and constable Hla Shwe Maung.
In the first week of June, the troops raided and ransacked U Haakha’s house. Then the army corporal brutally and repeatedly beat U Haakha with a round bamboo stick all over his body. The victim later collapsed on the floor with a truama sustained in the head. The soldiers later tied him to a pole of his house, leaving his helpless and aching body there for overnight. The next morning, the corporal demanded Kyats 150,000 from the victim, saying that U Hakhaa would be shot to death unless he paid the money. Relatives and villagers quickly assembled Kyats 50,000 but fell short of the amount the army corporal had demanded. The corporal accepted the 50,000 Kyats on the condition that they pledge in writing that the rest of the money would be handed to him the next month. The corporal returned the next month and confiscated newly harvested paddy from the victim as a substitute for the remaining 100,000 Kyats. The confiscated paddy was estimated to be worth more than 100,000 Kyats on the actual market price at the time. The victim family would find themselves not having adequate food supply over the next year, forcing them to borrow rice from other villagers to feed the family.
Then during the last week of April 2005, arrived in the village a Burmese troop of 7 men commanded by a 2nd Lieutenant (name uknown). It was around 5 p.m. local time. Saying that the army was not finished with the business of U Haakha’s rebel brother, the commanding officer immediately had his men arrested U Haakha and seven other of his relatives and took them away for interrogation. The other relatives were later released but U Haakha remained in the army’s captivity. After repeatedly slamming a table on U Haakha’s stomach and chest, the officer demanded Kyats 300,000 and 30 chickens. Stuffing the barrel of his gun on the victim’s nostril the officer warned, “This is what I would do to you if you don’t give me what I asked for.” Sensing the seriousness of the officer’s warning, U Haakha had to borrow Kyats 300,000 from his brother-in-law living in the next village. But he only managed to get 25 chickens and pleaded the officer to accept what he had. Luckily, it was accepted.
But U Haakha’s turmoil was far from over. In August of 2005, Captain Aung Kyaw Than had his men picked up U Haakha at his farm. He was taken to the army camp in Sami village. Yelling, “You of rebel brood, a family of daciots and savages,” the Captain punched U Haakha in the jaw three times until his upper molar flew out of his mouth. He was then sent to a police lock up for the next seven weeks. Another 150,000 Kyats was demanded from the victim, but he was only able to pay 100,000.
After his release, U Haakha was told to report to the army camp at Sami village, 25 miles away, every two months. “I had already reported once to the army camp on 7 December, 2005. There they told me I had to bring back my brother or I would suffer the consequences,” explained U Haakha. “I don’t know what’s going to happen to me if I can’t bring him back. I am afraid of living in my village,” he told Chin Human Rights Organization.
Villager Severely Tortured for Alleged Sympathy to Rebels, Six Others in Army Custody
Lieutenant Thant Zin Oo from Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 268 (based in Falam) and currently stationed at Vuangtu Village of Than Tlang Township of northern Chin State accused civilians in Vuangtu and its surrounding villages of providing ration to Chin rebel army and helping to build their camp. On 14 November 2005, a villager accused of supporting rebels was severely tortured by Burmese soldiers. He needed to be taken to urgent medical treatment afterwards. The Burmese army also took another six Village Council Chairmen from Vuangtu area into custody in connection with the accusation.
A local villager (identity withheld), reporting the incident to Chin Human Rights Organization, identified the tortured victim as Ngun Hu, a 32 year-old civilian from Zephai (B) village. He was accused of delivering a letter for Chin National Army. “The cruelty inflicted on him was so severe he might not become a normal person again, that is if he ever recovers at all,” explained the unnamed villager. “All his front teeth were knocked down and the extreme swelling in his face makes him unable to even open his eyes,” he said of the victim’s condition.
The victim was reportedly carried to a local clinic by his relatives. But Lt. Thant Zin Oo threatened to send him to jail in Thanglang instead. Only impassioned plea by his relatives deterred the Lieutenant from imprisoning his victim. “He would probably be dead had he been sent to jail in that condition,” the village said. Each household from the victim’s native village donated Kyats 100 for his medical treatment.
In a related incident, Lieutenant Thant Zin Oo and his troop arrested six Village Council Chairmen and took them to Thantlang town. Their conditions in custody are still unknown. “People are filled with such extreme fear, a lot of the villages went hiding in the jungles,” the unnamed villager told Chin Human Rights Organization.
The six Village Council Chairmen currently in custody are identified as follows:
1) Sang Hre (Tluangram (A) Village)
2) Siang Hu (Tluangrem (B) Village)
3) Ral Khuai (Zephai (A) Village)
4) Cung Hmung (Zephai (B) Village)
5) Unknown Name (Belhar Village)
6) Unknown Name (Nga Lang Village)
Alleged Rebel Sympathizers Tortured by SPDC troops
Aizawl: 7 January, 2006
On 23 December 2006, Burmese troops commanded by Captain Aung Myo Zaw whose company is stationed at Sabawngte Camp under Matupi-based Light Infantry Battalion 140, tortured Mala Village Council members after accusing them of having received a letter of taxation from Chin National Army.
Arriving with his troops in Mala village, Captain Aung Myo Zaw accused the village administration of having received a taxation letter from the rebel group. Denial by the members resulted in them severely being beaten by the officer. The headman of the village received 10 times of canning, while the rest of the members were beaten 5 times each.
The army officer later demanded 5 chickens and 4 porters as a punishment for telling lies to him. “We had to buy 5 chickens for a total of 15,000 (each worth 3000 Kyats), and arrange for 4 porters from the village,” the village headman told Chin Human Rights Organization.
Since 1998, Burmese troops deployed in Chin State never carried rations with them, depending only on villagers along their journey to supply them with rations and porters.
Two High School Students Arbitrarily Detained for Suspected Ties to Rebels
Aizawl: 3 February, 2006
Two high school students from Auk Pin Ti Village of Palatwa Township, Southern Chin State are in army custody after being arrested by Burmese troops on January 17, 2006 on suspision of being sympathetic to Chin rebels. The arrests were carried out by Burmese amry company currently stationed at Lailente Village of Matupi Township. The company is from Mapupi-based Light Infantry Battalion 140.
The two students are still in detention at the time the report was received from a local resident of the boys’ native village, who wished not to be identified by name.
The detaines are identified as a 9th grader Pa Pa Tha (Son of Ze Ba De) and a 10th grade student Maung Shwe (Son of A Hlao). The two boys were on their way to dynamite-fishing at Tisi river, located between their native village of Auk Pin Ti and Pathian Tlang Village, when they were picked up by Burmese troops and taken to Lailenpi army camp on suspision of having ties to the Chin National Army.
Parents and relatives of the two boys tried to get the boys out by bribing 500,000 Kyats to the army camp commander at Lailente. But they were told to bring in an additional 300,000 Kyats in exchange for the boys’ freedom.
“The parents came back with the rest of the money only to find out that their children had already been sent to Tactical Operation Command Headquarters in Matupi and there was nothing they could do to help free the boys,” the villager continued.
“The parents still have no clues as to exactly where they are being detained. They have sent on their behalfs two Matupi residents to plead for the boys’ freedom along with some bribe money. But nothing is heard from them as of yet,” he further explained.
Since a fatal shooting incident during a closing ceremony of a soccer tournament in Matupi last November, Colonel San Aung, Commander of Tactical Operation Command No. II has reportedly instructed each army outpost in his command jurisdiction to capture and produce at least one member of the Chin National Army.
Forced Labor & Extortion
45 Civilians Forced as Porters
Aizawl: 27/01/2006
Major Thant Yin Oo from Light Infantry Batallion LIB 268 currently stationed in Vuangtu Village of Thantlang Township, forced 45 civilians from three villages to porter army supplies, a Cawnthia villager reported to Chin Human Rights Organization.
On 27 November 2005, Major Thant Yin Oo and his troop of 17 men, along with 13 civilian porters conscripted from Hmawngtlang village arrived to Cawngthia Village at 6:00 p.m. in the evening. As soon as they got to the village, Major Thant Yin Oo summoned Pu Thawng Dawi, Chairman of the village Peace and Development Council and asked him to arrange another 15 villagers for porters. After he arranged another 15 porters, they left from the village at 9:00 p.m. for Kuhchah village which is 7 miles away. They arrived in that village midnight. The soldiers conscripted another 17 civilians from that village and continued their journey on to Thantlang Town overnight, a nine mile distance.
The porters carried rations and soldiers’ rucksack, each weighing about 15 Kgs. The army was in patrolling rotation.
More than 200 Civilians Forced to Work in Road Construction
Aizawl: 9 January, 2006
More than 200 civilians from three villages in Matupi Township were forced to work in road construction for five days starting from 15 December, 2005, U Lai Maung, headman of XXX Village told Chin Human Rights Organization. The forced labor order came from Captain Aye Lwin, Commander of Lailenpi Camp under the Matup-based Light Infantry Battalion 140.
By order of Capt. Aye Lwin, 100 civilians from Lailenpi Village, 50 civilians from Aru Village and 70 from Lailente Village were conscripted to work in expanding and repairing the road connecting three military camps near the Indian border (Lailenpi Camp, Dar Ling Camp and Sabawngte Camp) in preparation for the visit of Colonel San Aung, Commander of Tactical Operation Command No. 2 based in Matupi, who was coming to inspect the three camps on 20 December, 2005. The civilian forced laborers were instructed to finish the work within 5 days and to bring their own tools and enough ration to last for the duration of the work.
Colonel San Aung’s visit to the area came as Tactical Operation Command No. 2 reportedly made strategic plans to launch a final military offensive on Camp Victoria, the main military base of the opposition Chin National Army, which was evacuated in July following an assault by Indian security forces.
SPDC Forced Villagers to Clear over 600 Acres of Forested Land for Tea Plantation
Aizawl: 8 February, 2006
Villagers from four villages in Hakha Township were ordered to clear trees from more than 600 acres of forest for government’s tea planation, a villager of Hniarlawn who participated in forced labor informed Chin Human Rights Organization. The order was issued by Chin State Peace and Development Council Chairman Colonel Tin Hla, who is also Commander of Tactical Operation Command No.1 for Chin State.
Hniarlawn, Chun Cung, Hran Hring and Nabual villages were affected by the order. Each village was ordered to clear 160 acres of forested land within a week the order was issued. The work began in the first week of January, 2006.
“It took one person from every household in the village to finish the work in one week. The designated site was 2 miles away from our village and we had to bring our own ration and tools for the work,” said a Hnairlawn villager.
“We don’t know how much money each household will be required to “contribute” to buy the tea seeds,” he explained, saying that in a similar occasion in 1995 each household contributed 200 Kyats.
Under the slogan, “Chin State Shall Become a Place of Tea Abundance,” since 1993, Burma’s ruling State Peace and Development Council has arbitrarily designated Chin State for vast tea plantation project. “Nothing has been produced out of this government’s project except for wasted time and labor for the local people,” complained the villager.
Advance Christmas Celebration Disrupted by Forced Labor Conscription
Aizawl: 7 January 2006
An advance Chrismas celebration in a rural village of Southern Chin State was disrupted when the Burma Army forcibly conscripted more than 50 villagers to pull out a downed vehicle carrying Tactical Operation Command No. 2 Commander Colonel San Aung who was touring the area.
On 23 December, 2005, Lailenpi villagers celebrating advance Christmas were forced to pull a down vehicle carrying Colonel San Aung, who was returning from a tour through the area to his base in Matupi Town. Colonel San Aung was visiting three army camps in the area under his command, reportedly to help put together strategic plans to launch a military offensive on Camp Victoria, the former Chin rebel army’s stronghold.
“Fifty people being conscripted out in a small village like ours meant conscripting the whole village. The advance Christmas celebration was naturally disrupted,” explained Mr. XXX.
“We killed a mithun to make a feast for the whole village. We were enjoying the celebration when the Sergeant from the army camp told us he needed 50 people to push out the Commander’s vehicle. Every body had to go. I didn’t even had a chance to eat the festive dinner,” he further explained. He said that villagers had to pack up their own ration to supply themselves with enough food for a two-day return journey. The downed Commander’s vehicle was located at a distance of overnight walk at the time.
Burmese Police Illegally Extort Money from a Woman Trader
Aizawl : 26/01/2006
According to a woman cross-border trader (name withheld for security reason), on 18 November 2005 a Burmese police officer extorted from her Kyats 15,000, while on her way to sell goods to India’s Mizoram State.
The woman trader was en-route to Mizoram border when officer Ko Ko Lat, station chief of Hmawngtlang police camp and is men stopped her between Cawngthia and Hmawntlang villages of Thantlang Township.
“The officer asked me where I was from and whether I was going to a foreign country. And I told him I was on my way to India,” explained the woman. “And that’s when they took me and the nine horses that carried my goods to the station.”
Upon arriving at the police station, the officer asked her to pay 2000 Kyats for each of the horses in border tax. “I only carried with me 15,000 in cash for the journey and pleaded with him to reduce it to 10,000. But he only let me go after taking all the cash I had.” She said.
“My goods aren’t worth that much. I run this business with a small capital of 300,000 Kyats. I have to pay over ten thousand Kyats for each horse I hired. There is absolutely no hope for profit after paying that much money in taxes,” she further explained.
SPDC Troops Extort Money from Traders
Aizawl: 2 February, 2006
A Burmese Army patrol unit from Light Infantray Battalion 266 based in Hakha extorted money from three villagers. Testifying to Chin Human Rights Organization, the victims said that on January 4, 2006 the troops confiscated 48,000 Kyats in cash.
Ral Ceu, Biak Pum and Hrang Pum, residents of Ruavan village, were on their way to the Indian border to sell pigs when an army patrol unit of 14 soldiers led by a Sergeant (name unknown) arrested them and took custody of 23 pigs they were herding.
The three traders had been on the journey for two days when they met with the Sergeant and his troops who threatened to take them and their pigs to the army’s battalion headquarters in Hakha unless they paid 50,000 Kyats. The traders ended up paying 48,000 Kyats after a long pleading and negotiation with the Sergeant.
“We are not even traders by profession. We are just farmers who struggle very hard to make end meet. We decided trading in pigs as a means of supplementing our family income by borrowing capitals from friends and relatives. We were sell the pigs to Mr. Khen Cin, a broker based in Ralpel Village on Burma’s side of the border. We were to divide up any profits we made among us three. Now that excessive money have been squeezed out from us, there is little hope we will be left with any profit at all,” explained Ral Ceu.
Villagers Forced to Contribute Tin Roofing Plates to Build Army Barrack
Aizawl: 18 January, 2006
Eight villages in the vicinity of Lailenpi village were ordered to ‘donate’ tin roofing plates to construct an army barrack at Lailenpi army camp, reported U Tei Chia, headman of XXX village, one of the villages affected by the order.
Captain Aye Lwin, Lailenpi Camp Commander from Matupi-based Light Infantry Battalion 140 sent notices to eight villages in the area to bring in 5 tin roofing plates per village by 5 December, 2005. Each village was to send in 5 able persons, along with the designated roofing materials, to work in the construction of the barrack. The workers were told to carry their own food supplies enough to last for at least five days.
“Tin roofing plates are rare materials in the rural areas. We were only fortunate enough to have one person in our village who was building a house. We had to borrow the materials from him,” U Tei Chia explained. He said that his village had to hire 5 local carpenters to work at the barrack at the expense of the villagers.
Burmese army stationing along the Indo-Burma borders started the practice of demanding tin roofing materials from local villagers for construction or renovation of army camps and barracks since the beginning of last year.
The following villages in Matupi Township were forced to ‘contribute’ the roofing materials;
(1) Aru Village (2) Tinam Village (3) Sungsen Village (4) Sakai Village (5) Pamai Village (6) Lailenpi Village (7) Tisi Village and (8) Tongbu Village.
Burmese Soldiers Robbed Chin Women Traders of over Half a Million Kyats
Major Win Htut, Company Commander from Falam-based Light Infantry Battalion 268, stationing at Vuangtu Village of Thantlang Township, forcibly took away 350,000 Kyats from a group of Chin women cross-border traders making their way to sell garments and assorted goods to India, one of the robbery victims (name witheld) testified to Chin Human Rights Organization.
On 3 December, 2005, a group of six Chin women traders transporting their goods to the Indian border with 50 horses met with a Burmese amy column led by Major Win Htut on the way between Thantlang Town and Thlualam Village. After stopping the women traders, the commanding officer ordered the unloading of all goods from the horsebacks, then threatened to confiscate them unless the women paid him 350,000 Kyats.
“The soldiers had originally asked for 20 per cent of the price of our goods, but after a great length of pleading, they agreed for a 10 per cent, which is 350,000 Kyats,” one of the women said. “One of the junior officers, a 2nd Lieutenant, later made us sign on a piece of paper in which he wrote ‘We paid up this money as a fine for selling goods to foreign countries without authorization of the State’,” she continued.
The woman said that she and her group paid 4000 Kyats to hire each of the fifty horses to transport their goods to the Indian border. She further explained that the same army officer and his troops had arleady taken 100,000 Kyats from the horse owners prior to their departure to the Indian border.
In another incident on 4 December, 2005, an army Sergeant (name unknown) and 4 of his men extorted 300,000 Kyats from two women traders from Phai Khua Village. The troops are also from Vuangtu army camp. The women were told they were being fined on account of “shipping their goods through an unauthorized route.”
SPDC Collecting Forced Donations to Support Disabled Army Veterans
Aizawl: 10 January, 2006
Tlanglang Township Peace and Development Council Chairman U Shwe Soe issued a signed order dated 15 August 2005 directing all village administrations in the Township to collect 1500 Kyats from every household for ‘Disabled Veteran Funds,’ specifically to support the cost of buying prosthesis legs for army veterans who lost their limbs in the defense of their country. The matter was reported by U Lian Hram, headman of XXX Village of Thantlang Township, Northern Chin State.
The order reads: “It is hereby notified that donations be made by organizations, governmental departments or by individuals, as a deep guesture of humane compassion, for veterans who have lost their body parts for the defense of the country.”
“Although the written order implied a voluntary donation, we, the Village Council members were told verbally to collect a 1500 Kyats per household at the latest by December 20, 2005,” explained the headman of Village XXX, who said that he personally delivered his village’s share to the Township authorities on 12 December, 2005. He further explained that members of his village who could not afford to pay the money were covered by contributions of more well-to-do villagers to avoid punishment.
“Such arbitrary requirement for donations, coupled with constant demand for forced labor, portering and all other arbitrary measures have compelled many of our villagers to migrate to India across the border or to move to urban places like Mandalay and Rangoon. If the out-migration from our village continues at this pace, there will be nobody left in the village in five years from now. I must say that I know of at least five households here in the village right now who are moving out in a very short while,” the headman explained.
SPDC Forcibly Collects ‘Donation’
Aizawl: 9 February, 2006
Every household from 19 villages in Southern Chin State’s Rezua Sub-Township were ‘asked to donate’ 100 per household for “Artistic Talent Competition,” U Peng Uk, headman of XXX Village reported to Chin Human Rights Organization.
A signed order by U Tin Htun, Chairman of the Rezua Sub-Township Peace and Development Council reads:
“In accordance with a directive that has been relayed to this office by telegram, this Sub-Township has been asked to contribute 100,000 Kyats for instructors of hopeful competitors at the Artistic Talent Competition [to be held in Rangoon]. Therefore, it is hereby notified that without failure every household in the Sub-Township jurisdiction donate 100 Kyats, which has to be delivered by 15 September 2005.”
The affected villages were:
(1)Rizua, (2)Cal Thang, (3)Saw Ti, (4)Sia Ngo, (5)Rua Va , (6)Hring Thang, (7)Sia si, (8)Khua Tua, (9)Ti Nia, (10)Hriang Thang, (11)Thawng Lang, (13)Ram Sai, (14)Lung Phia Lia, (15)Thang Dia, (16)Ti Bing, (17)Lawng than tlang, (18)Zua Mang and (19)Sai tlai
National Convention
Mass-Signing’ Event Held in Support of the National Convention
Chin Human Rights Organization
Aizawl: 20 January 2006
Chin people living in and around the State capital of Hakha were compelled to attend a special event organized by Chin State Peace and Development Council Colonel Tin Hla on 13 January to show their supports for the ongoing National Convention, a local resident who requested anonymity reported to Chin Human Rights Organization.
Colonel Tin Hla, Tactical Command No. 1, ordered town residents and villages in Hakha Township to attend the event in Hakha with warnings of dire consequences for failure of compliance. 50 individuals from villages with 100 households were to come to the ‘mass-signing’ event, and 100 individuals from ones with more than 150 households.
“It was our ‘patriotic duty’ to endorse the National Convention. Whether you actually approve the Convention or not, you simply have no choice. We were afraid of the penalties,” said the local man.
Similar events are reported to be being held in each township across Chin State, in accordance with directives from the ‘top.’
International Campaign
Canada Should Work More Aggressively to Affect Positive Change in Burma
Brief Submitted to Foreign Affairs Canada
by
Chin Human Rights Organization
at the
18th Annual Foreign Affairs Canada-NGO Human Rights Consultations
February 7-8, 2006
Venue: Palais des Congres
200 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Gatineau
Chin Human Rights Organization is a non-profit, non-governmental organization working to protect and promote the rights of Chin people and to promote democracy in Burma. CHRO monitors, documents and reports on human rights situations in Chin State and western parts of Burma.
Chin Human Rights Organization is grateful to the Canadian government for its continued supports for the promotion of human rights and democratic governance in Burma. Canada’s co-sponsorship of several UN General Assembly and Commission on Human Rights’ resolutions on Burma helps keep deplorable situations in Burma under international scrutiny and attention. At its last meeting in April of 2005, the Commission on Human Rights renewed condemnation of Burma’s human rights practices and reiterated calls for an immediate end to atrocities and systematic abuse of human rights in that country. The Burma Motion adopted last year by the 38th Parliament was a significant gesture of renewed commitment to supporting human rights and democracy in Burma by the Canadian people. The Government of Canada now has a unique opportunity to act aggressively on this motion.
Despite growing international condemnation and pressures, Burma’s military junta continues its stranglehold on political opponents and has, in recent months, intensified repression and atrocities in areas inhabited by ethnic nationalities. The resumption last year of the National Convention without the participation of pro-democracy forces and ethnic representatives was a symbolic gesture on the part of the State Peace and Development Council that it will not allow genuine and participatory democracy to take hold in Burma. In the context of growing consolidation of power at the top of the SPDC leadership and increasing level of repression and human rights abuses, Chin Human Rights Organization is concerned that without sustained and effective international efforts human rights conditions will continue to further deteriorate. Canada is uniquely placed to lead aggressive international effort to affect positive change in Burma.
Human Rights Conditions in Burma: A Focus on Chin State and Western Burma
As an organization that has been documenting human rights situation in Burma’s western region for the last ten years, Chin Human Rights Organization continues to be concerned about the trend in steady deterioration of human rights situations over the last several years. Human rights violations and abuses of civilians associated with militarization have significantly increased during the last several months. There are also heightened concerns about growing abuse of religious freedom by the State and government agents against non-Buddhist religious groups, particularly Christian and Muslim communities.
Forced Labor on the Increase
The expansion of troop deployment in Chin State and immediate areas is a major factor for increased use of forced labor in the region. Despite promises made to the international community to fully cooperate with the ILO in the eradication of forced labor practices, Burma’s military regime still uses forced labor on a massive scale. Since the beginning of 2005, more than fifty instances of forced labor have been documented by Chin Human Rights Organization in Chin State alone, many of them involving hundreds of civilians at a time. Many of the forced labor conscription incidents are directly related to military purposes, but the use of massive civilian populations for developmental purposes is also a very common practice. The following report is a typical example of the use of forced labor by the Burmese army in Chin State:
Major Tin Moe, patrol column commander from Burma Army Infantry Battalion 304 (under Chin State’s Tactical Command No. 2 based in Matupi) temporarily stationed at Dar Ling village of southern Chin State’s Matupi Township requisitioned compulsory labor to build a new military post at Dar Ling village. More than one thousands civilians from 20 villages in the area have been working at the site since the first week of July, 2005.
Starting form 11 to16 July 2005, U Tin Maung and 50 of his villagers were forced to dig a 150-feet long drainage measuring 3 feet in width and 4 feet in depth.
Another 50 civilians and members of the Village PDC from Khuapi village were forced to supply 4,000 round bamboos. Each stick of the 4000 bamboos has to be 10 feet in length. The work to collect the bamboos lasted from 9 to 16 July, 2005.
From 16 to 21 July 2005, for a total of 5 days, 50 civilians and members of the Village PDC from Hlung Mang village (Matupi Township) were forced to dig trenches and bunkers for the army camp.
Civilians from Fartlang village (Thantlang Township) were compelled to supply 50 sticks of wood measuring 10 feet in length. Civilians from other villages engaged in other works such as fencing and building barracks, digging trenches and bunkers, and collecting woods and bamboos.
The work occurs on a daily basis and all workers are required to supply themselves with food and tools for the job. The work starts at 5:00 am in the morning and lasts until 6:30 in the evening. Workers are given breakfast break at 11:00 am and dinner at 7:00 p.m. The work was projected for completion in the month of July and workers are not exempt from working on Sundays, said U Ni Hmung, Chairman of the Village PDC from Khuapi village, Thantlang Township.
“The expansion of military establishment in our areas only brought hardship to the local people who rely on farming for our survival. Now that the new army camp is only 5 miles away from our village, it is predictable the kinds of hardship we will have to keep up with,” complained the village head of Hlung Mang village.
“The patrol column commander has already ordered us to raise chickens, pigs and other livestock. He might even call us for another round of forced labor. He said that we cannot ignore his order because it is our civic duty to comply with army orders. Many people from our village are already fed up with the perpetual forced labor and are contemplating to escape to Mizoram across the border,” he added.
Another instance of forced labor involved children as young as those in primary schools conscripted to porter army supplies during the same period.
On 15 July 2005, commander of Lailenpi army camp Sergeant Tin Soe from Burma Army Infantry Battalion 305 based in Matupi, southern Chin State, forced underage primary school children to carry army rations and supplies.
The ration loads carried by the ten boys included 10 tins of rice, 10 bottles of cooking oil, 10 viss (15 kgs) of fish paste and 5 Viss of dried chili. They traveled a 12-mile distance before being substituted by the 5 villagers.
Even girl children are not exempt from being forced to carry supplies for army patrol units as the following report indicates:
5 girls under the age of 15 were among 18 civilian porters forced to carry army supplies in Matupi Township, a local villager told Chin Human Rights Organization. On 2 August, 2005, Sergeant Thein Win, commander of Sabawngte army outpost from Matupi-based Light Infantry Battalion (304) ordered 18 Sabawngte villagers including 5 teenaged girls to transport army goods.
“Each person, including the girls, was given about 15 Viss to carry. The load was already heavy enough even for men so eveybody had to take a little extra off of the girls. There was no way the girls could’ve travelled 12 miles with such heavy loads on their backs,” explained one of the adult porters.
Abuse of Religious Freedom
The State Peace and Development Council continues to subject non-Buddhist religious communities to discriminatory treatment and persecution. The United States Department of State, since 1999 has singled out Burma as a ‘Country of Particular Concern’ severely violating religious freedom of its citizens. In Chin State, where the inhabitants are overwhelmingly Christians, restrictive and discriminatory measures are still actively in place for Christian churches. The SPDC has still not lifted conditions placed on Christian communities to freely construct or renovate church buildings and religious sites. Christian crosses erected beside major towns in Chin State have been removed one after another by order of high ranking military and administrative officials. As recently as in January of 2005, one of the last remaining crosses planted by local churches near Matupi town of southern Chin State was removed by direct order of Colonel San Aung, the second highest ranking military official in Chin State, prompting an international protest by Chin communities worldwide and condemnation by international religious organizations and rights groups.
Torture, Arbitrary Arrests and Extrajudicial Executions
The State Peace and Development Council routinely arbitrarily arrests, tortures and even executes civilians suspected of involvement with, or being sympathetic to, ethnic opposition groups, in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to which Burma is a party. In December of 2005, Colonel San Aung, military commander of Chin State’s southern region, and Vice Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council for Chin State, reportedly issued a direct order instructing troops under his command to ‘eliminate’ any civilians with suspected ties to Chin rebels. On 15 December, 2005, a 17 year-old local boy was summarily executed by Burmese troops from Light Infantry Battalion (140). Information received by Chin Human Rights Organization on February 1, 2006 describes the incident as follows;
A boy, identified as Maung Yan Naing Soe, was picked up at his native village of Hringthang and brought to Rezua Town by government troops by order of Lt. Colonel Ye Myint during the first week of December 2005. The Burmese troop also took along the boy’s stepfather.
On 15 December, the two civilians were taken to a secluded hill, located just one mile outside of Rezua. Upon arrival, the stepfather was made to dig the ground with a hoe. Seeing his stepfather tired and exhausted from digging, the boy volunteered to take over. The troops commanded the stepfather to walk home. Moments later, the stepfather heard two rounds of gunfire.
A childhood friend of the murdered boy who wished not to be identified by name explained. “Although I did not witness the execution with my own eyes, I am certain they murdered my friend. I’ve tried to gather as much information as I could on this incident. The stepfather’s account and words from the Battalion corroborated the fact that he was actually executed in cold blood.” He said villagers of the boy’s native place have already performed rites and built a grave for the boy in his village.
On 14 November 2005, a Chin villager accused of supporting rebels was severely tortured by Burmese soldiers under the command of Lt. Thant Zin Oo from Light Infantry Battalion (268).
A local villager (identity withheld), reporting the incident to Chin Human Rights Organization, identified the tortured victim as Ngun Hu, a 32 year-old civilian from Zephai (B) village. He was accused of delivering a letter for Chin National Army. “The cruelty inflicted on him was so severe he might not become a normal person again, that is if he ever recovers at all,” explained the unnamed villager. “All his front teeth were knocked down and the extreme swelling in his face makes him unable to even open his eyes,” he said of the victim’s condition.
The victim was reportedly carried to a local clinic by his relatives. But Lt. Thant Zin Oo threatened to send him to jail in Thanglang instead. Only impassioned plea by his relatives deterred the Lieutenant from imprisoning his victim. “He would probably be dead had he been sent to jail in that condition,” the village said. Each household from the victim’s native village donated Kyats 100 for his medical treatment.
Pu Hmet Lian, telephone operator from Salen village in Thantlang Township was beaten to death by the Burmese army on 18, March 2005.
Captain Aung Naing Oo and his troop from Burma Army Light Infantry Battalion (266) came to Salaen village on the night of March 18 to look for the village Administration Officer Tin Uk. At around midnight, the Burmese Captain and his troops summoned village council members and the headman of the village, along with the village telephone operator Hmet Lian. They were accused of failing to report the activities of the Chin National Front members and supporting the rebels.
Captain Aung Naing Oo and his troops kicked, punched, and smashed the face of Hmet Lian with their riffle butts. Hmet Lian was killed on the spot. The other four village council members and the headman were also badly beaten and torture by the Burmese troops. The four village council members and the village headman are now in critical condition. According to CHRO source, the village headman is vomiting bloods and he may not survive.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Canada is uniquely placed to lead aggressive international efforts to address growing problems of human rights and democracy in Burma. The recent move of Burmese government’s headquarters from Rangoon to Pyinmana, and the reorganization and strengthening of military power base demonstrates a willingness on the part of the State Peace and Development Council to consolidate its dictatorial power at all costs, further pushing away any hopes for genuine democratic reforms in Burma. The SPDC unilateral and unceremonious postponement of high level ASEAN Envoy seeking to assist in Burma’s peaceful transition to democracy points to the fact that the SPDC is uninterested in any kind of substantive political dialogue, even with its traditional soft-spoken ASEAN allies, that will pave a way for national reconciliation and democratic transition. Given such conditions, it is increasingly painfully clear that current international measures in place against Burma are not adequate and effective enough to encourage positive change in that country. Efforts to promote human rights and democracy in Burma need to be multi-dimensional—one that embodies effective economic measures with sustained multilateral diplomatic pressure exerted on the regime.
The passage of Burma Motion on May 18, 2005 by the Parliament provided a legal basis for the Government of Canada to aggressively act on Burma. The United States Congress has already imposed comprehensive economic sanctions on Burma in order to encourage speedy transition to democracy. A broader and more effective economic pressure from the international community is needed to produce any significant result in Burma. To this end, Canada should implement fully recommendations made by the previous Parliament in the Burma Motion. More specifically, as recommended in the Burma Motion, the Government of Canada should review the effectiveness of the Export and Import Act to ensure that Burma’s military regime does not profit from lenient measures and legal loopholes. Efforts need to be focused on the economic and financial resources of the military junta, which enable and sustain repressive machinery to operate in Burma.
Canada should also use its influence to persuade current members of the United Nations Security Council, especially those undecided non-permanent members to support a Security Council resolution on Burma.
Opinion
Rethinking a Parliamentary-Federal Proposal for Burma*
Dedicated to the memory of Dr. Vumson Suantak,
a Chin patriot and tireless advocate for federalism in Burma
Salai Za Uk Ling**
Chinland Guardian
Introduction
Most observers and participants of Burma’s democracy movement generally agree that federalism provides the best option for the future political arrangement for a country so diverse as Burma. Even among ethnic Burmans, who have traditionally tended to view federalism as a recipe for disintegration and an end to Burman majoritarian rule, there seems to be increasing cognizance of the fact that rebuilding a successful Union of Burma would not be possible without embracing the principles of federalism. The rationale for federalism has been convincingly and effectively argued by both activists and academics alike, and has become widely accepted and endorsed by the international community as the most viable solution to political crises in Burma. Despite the popularity of a federal solution, however, few people have actually looked into what a federal-parliamentary system might entail once it is instituted. There exists little literature, scholarly or otherwise, that looks at in details each area of key components of federalism as they apply to the case of Burma—such studies that will help propel further discussion and speculation on exactly how the different power structures might operate within a federal-parliamentary framework. Among the area of great interests, and perhaps the most important concern in Burma, is the relative power of a federal second chamber to the popularly elected first chamber, in the area of formulating national policy agendas, which affect all constituent members of the federation.
It goes without saying that to have a successful and cohesive Union, the shared national institutions need to reflect the internal diversity of the constituent units as well as to be truly representative of the people. One way to measure the representativeness of internal diversity is by looking at the composition, as well as constitutional decision-making powers, delegated to the federal upper house. It is common understanding that post-transitional Burma, whether it be under genuine democracy that activists advocate for, or military-dominated ‘disciplined democracy’ that may come out of the ‘National Convention,’ will have a bicameral legislature. This situation warrants a careful look and deeper analysis of the nature, prospective functions and operation of the federal upper house since it is this second chamber that will ultimately be a determinant of whether a new Union of Burma will be a successful, cohesive and effective one. The formal constitutional power of the federal second chamber and its subsequent role in important national affairs will largely determine the strength or weakness of the voice of the ethnic nationalities in the political process. Secondary to this, or perhaps even more important, is the kind of political system that will go together with federalism in Burma.
Parliamentary Traditions: Diminished Roles for the Ethnic Nationalities
It is generally assumed that Burma will have a multi-party parliamentary democratic system, a model of government that was once practiced prior to the military takeover of 1962. Clearly the general elections in 1990 were held with this system in mind. Ethnic opposition groups who have long advocated for federalism, too, have expressed support for such kind of a system. But what has long been out of consideration is the possible implications parliamentary system of government will have on the operation of federalism in Burma, especially in regard to the role of the ethnic nationalities in the political process.
Responsible Government
A careful look at the dynamics and operation of federalism in countries that practice parliamentary form of government with federalism, most notably Canada and Australia, indicates relatively weak roles of the Senate, as well as the lack of effective representation of the voices of internal political units. Parliamentary system of government is grounded on the principles of responsible government, a government that is directly responsible and answerable to the lower house of the legislature that is elected on the basis of population. This fact alone excludes any effective and meaningful role of the second chamber in important areas of political power in parliamentary systems. This, in Burma case, will translate into a weakened role for the ethnic nationalities in principal areas of political decision-making, which will put them at a position of double disadvantage since common sense tells us that the ethnic Burmans who are majority in terms of population size will already control the lower house of the legislature.
Fusion of Power in Parliamentary System
Parliamentary system of government is characterized by a unique power arrangement, which is often described as a ‘fusion of power’ by political scientists. This is to say that unlike the American system where there is a clear dichotomy of constitutional division of power among the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary, parliamentary form of government provides a ‘fusion,’ or concentration of power in the hands of a single person—the Prime Minister. In parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister controls the rein of government as well as the legislature. He also has the power to select judges to the Supreme Court. This, simply put, vests the Prime Minister with enormous and largely unfettered political power—Executive, Legislative, and to some degree, Judiciary powers. By contrast, the principles of federalism provide for a division of powers among the different branches of government, as well as between the different levels of governments, in order to allow for ‘checks and balances’ in the system.
This paints a clear picture of how parliamentary democracy system would have effect on the operation of federalism in Burma: a weakened upper house where the ethnic nationalities could have the most possible influences in important policy areas and a very powerful Prime Minister, predictably from the Burman ethnic group, who has control over both the Executive and Legislative branch of government. This will inevitably result in diminished roles and weakened voice of the ethnic nationalities whose only effective channel of direct influence in the national institutions would be through the upper house of the legislature.
Party Discipline
Parhaps one of the most notable emphases of parliamentary institutions is strong ‘party discipline.” The idea behind party discipline is to achieve cohesion and consistent voice for a political party to ensure effective implementations of policy or ideological objectives for that political party. In theory, a Member of Parliament is supposed to be representing his or her constituency and is always expected to act in the best interest of the people from a particular riding who elected that person. But this is not always the case in parliamentary system where party discipline requires an individual Member of Parliament to conform to party rules and priorities, failure of which could result in penalties such as demotion or, in extreme cases, expulsion from that party. By contrast, the American presidential-congressional form of government provides high degree of independence for individual members of the Congress, which tends to be better representative of the voices and needs of the individual constituencies, rather than of the political party to which he or she belongs.
A quick look at Burma’s political and electoral history during the parliamentary democracy era between 1948 and 1962, as well as voting outcomes in the 1990 general elections in which the National League for Democracy party won more than 80 per cent of contested seats in the People’s Assembly, suggests the [possible] dominance of a single national political party. The military junta never recognized the outcomes of that elections and continues to insist on the successful completion of the widely discredited constitutional drafting process through the National Convention, which basically seeks to entrench dominant military role in any future political process. The landslide victory of the National League for Democracy party led by Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in 1990 might have been good, both for symbolic and practical reasons, for a country trying express opposition to decades of a one-party Socialist and military rule. There was in fact a desperate need for a strong and united national political party to lead a transitional government that is trusted by both the people at large and the ethnic opposition groups. But given that the NLD had won considerable seats in the ethnic areas, and given that parliamentary form of government provides for a strong party discipline, ethnic representatives elected on NLD tickets might not have been able to able to assert the interests of their constituency as effectively as a scenario in which they are elected from locally-based political parties.
The 1990 general elections were meant for a unicameral legislature with the intention that those elected will lead a transitional government that will draft a permanent national constitution, presumably a federal one, which will have a bicameral legislature. The popularity of the National League for Democracy, a party which could retain considerable seats in the ethnic areas, would have important implications for the way in which the federal upper house operates. Already controlling the lower house, such a political party would also enjoy degrees of control over the behavoir of elected ethnic representatives in the upper house through the mechanism of ‘party discipline’ found in parliamentary traditions. This scenario will mean a weakened representation of ethnic voice in the already weak federal upper house. This has consistently been the case in Australia where voting patterns in the Senate have been found to be heavily ‘party-oriented,’ rather than ‘State-oriented’. The same is true with Canada where the unelected Senate, handpicked by the Prime Minister, tends to vote along party lines rather than for regional interests. In essence, this doubly ensures the success of any legislative agendas for sitting Prime Minister whose party appointed the most Senators.
Conclusion: A Strengthened Upper House for a Cohesive Federal Union
For the ethnic people to have any meaningful and productive voice in the future political process in Burma, the upper house needs to be empowered in such a way that it will have absolute or suspensive veto in all such matters of national importance. The kind of close executive and legislative relationship in parliamentary government especially warrants some sorts of ‘checks and balances’ to guard against excessive dominance of the executive. This is because the overdominance of executive power can have a corrosive effect on federal cohesion. A strengthened upper house will inevitably translate into a strengthened voice for the ethnic people. In turn, this will create a basis for trust, harmony and cooperative spirits among members of the federal constituent units. There is high degree of imbalance in both geographic and population size among the different ethnic groups in Burma. The absence of effective and equal representation in a powerful upper house could serve as a source of frustration for constituent units with smaller population size, which could over time lead to the erosion of federal solidarity. To bring this into context, Chin State, for example, had only 13 electoral constituencies during the 1990 general elections. A very insignificant number out of a total of 485 constituent seats nationally for the lower house. To borrow the words of professor Jim Foulds, a former Ontario provincial Member of Parliament, in raw political terms the 13 Chin MPs would have constituted a mere “begging block” in the lower house of Parliament. However, through equal representation in the upper house that is equally powerful as the lower house, they could easily become a “bargaining block,” a position that could compel the federal government to negotiate, rather than simply ignore the concerns of the Chins.
Scholars researching on federalism have pointed out the fundamental difference in emphasis between parliamentary form of government and federalism. The argument being that whereas the implicit vision of federalism lies in the division of powers, parliamentary system of government emphasizes a fusion or concentration of powers. A combination of what appears to be fundamentally different systems therefore, has significant impact on the political dynamics and operation of the second chamber. This led Professer K.C Wheare, a renowned scholar of federalismm, for example, to argues that “the separation of powers and a strong second chamber go together, and parliamentary government and a weak second chamber go together.”
The intent of this essay is not necessarily to advocate for one particular kind of political system over another for future political arrangement in Burma. It has been written to provide as a basis for further discussion that will explore the wisdom or demerit of a parliamentary-federal form of government for future political arrangement in Burma.
———————–
* The author originally intended this article to be an academic essay, which would provide deeper analyses of the topics presented with wider research on comparison and constrast among parliamentary, presidential, and hybrid from of political arrangements. However, due to time constraint and other personal limitation, this informal essay is written with the view of providing introductory insight into the prospective nature of operation and dynamics of federal institutions under the much approved and widely talked about parliamentary democracy in Burma. It is hoped that this article will incite further discussion on the subject.
** Salai Za Uk Ling graduated with a degree in Political Science from Lakehead University, Canada in 2005. A former General Secretary of Chin Student Union, he currently serves as News Editor for Chinland Guardian Newsgroup, and Associate Editor for Rhododendron News, a bi-monthly newsletter published by Chin Human Rights Organization, which informs current human rights situations in Chin State and western Burma.
Back Cover Poem
Unity against Colony
(Chin National Day)
By Van Biak Thang
Chinland Guardian
February 20, 2006
We were born free before the colony
In the land of beauty and liberty;
Life had its own right and identity.
We were decreed after the colony
In the hands of levy and cavalry;
Life made its own sole no more history.
We there rallied against the colony
Like a band of voices in harmony;
Life bade its own men call for legacy.
We here come and sing as a family
To the land on the day of unity;
Life has its days of yore in memory.
We here keep the day, holy and merry
For the land we did stand and stand firmly;
Life makes its own day, national and free.