Written by လူထုစိန္၀င္း >>

ျမန္မာလူမ်ဳိးေတြ သည္းခံႏုိင္လြန္းတာနဲ႔ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံ တိုးတက္သင့္သေလာက္ တုိးတက္မလာဘဲ ေနာက္က်န္ေနရစ္တာဟာ ကိုးကြယ္တဲ့ဘာသာတရားနဲ႔မ်ား သက္ဆုိင္ေနမလား ဆိုတဲ့ေမးခြန္းကို ႏိုင္ငံျခားသား သတင္းသမားေတြ၊ စာေရးဆရာ ေတြနဲ႔ေတြ႕တဲ့အခါတိုင္း အေမးခံရေလ့ရႇိတယ္။

 

ျမန္မာလူမ်ဳိး ပညာတတ္လူငယ္တခ်ဳိ႕လည္း တစ္ခါတစ္ေလ ဒီလို ေမးတတ္တယ္။ဗုဒၶဘာသာက ဘယ္အရာမဆို မိမိျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့တဲ့ ကုသိုလ္၊ အကုသိုလ္ကံအေလ်ာက္ျဖစ္ရတယ္လို႔ဆိုတဲ့အတြက္ ႀကိဳးစားသင့္သေလာက္ မႀကိဳးစားၾကဘဲ ေရာင့္ရဲ တင္းတိမ္ေနၾကတယ္လို႔ ထင္ေနၾကတယ္။ တကယ္ေတာ့ ဘာမႇမဆိုင္ပါဘူး။ ဗုဒၶဘာသာဟာ 'ဃရာ၀ါသ ကိစၥမ်ားေျမာင္ လူတို႔ေဘာင္ႏိႈက္' ဆိုတဲ့အတိုင္း ႐ႈပ္ေထြးေပြလီလႇတဲ့ လူ႔ေလာကရဲ႕ ေလာကီကိစၥေတြထဲ ပါ၀င္ စြက္ဖက္ျခင္း လံုး၀မရႇိတဲ့ ဘာသာျဖစ္တယ္။ ကေလးေမြးဖြားတဲ့ကိစၥမႇာ မပါသလို၊ မဂၤလာေဆာင္ကိစၥမႇာလည္း ၀င္မပါဘူး။ ကြာရႇင္းျပတ္စဲကိစၥမႇာလည္း ၀င္မပါဘူး။ လူေသတဲ့အခါ ဘုန္းႀကီး ပင့္ၿပီး 'သရဏဂံု' တင္ၾကတာလည္း ဗုဒၶဘာသာက သတ္မႇတ္ထားတာမဟုတ္ဘူး။ လူေတြက ဆႏၵရႇိၾကလို႔ လိုက္လုပ္ေပးတာသာျဖစ္တယ္။ ဗုဒၶဘာသာက ေသမႇ သရဏဂံုတင္ခိုင္းတာ မဟုတ္ဘူး။ အသက္ရႇင္ ေနသမွ် ကာလပတ္လံုး၊ အခါမလပ္ သရဏဂံုသံုးပါး ေဆာက္တည္ေနဖို႔သာ ဆံုးမတာျဖစ္တယ္။ တင္လို႔ဘာမႇမထူးသလို မတင္လို႔လည္း ဘာမႇမျဖစ္ဘူး။

သည္းခံစိတ္ရႇိတယ္ဆိုတဲ့ကိစၥမႇာလည္း အမ်ားထင္ၾကသလို တျခားလူမ်ဳိးေတြထက္ ထူးထူးျခားျခားႀကီး ပိုေနတယ္လို႔ မထင္ပါဘူး။ တျခားလူေတြရဲ႕သည္းခံႏိုင္မႈမႇာ အတိုင္းအတာရႇိသလို ျမန္မာလူမ်ဳိးေတြမႇာလည္း အတိုင္းအတာရႇိတာပါပဲ။ သည္းခံႏုိင္မႈရဲ႕ အျမင့္ဆံုးအတိုင္းအတာက ေက်ာ္လြန္သြားၿပီဆိုရင္ေတာ့ အမ်ဳိးသမီးေတြေတာင္ ဓားဆြဲၿပီး ထတတ္ၾကတယ္။နယ္ခ်ဲ႕စစ္တပ္ေတြ မႏၲေလးကိုသိမ္းၿပီးေနာက္ အညာေက်းလက္ ေဒသေတြကို ၿငိမ္၀ပ္ပိျပားေရးအတြက္ဆိုၿပီး ခုခံတုိက္ခိုက္သူရႇိတဲ့ေက်းရြာ မႇန္သမွ်ေျမလႇန္မီး႐ိႈ႕လုပ္တဲ့အခါမႇာ အမ်ဳိးသမီးေတြဓားဆြဲၿပီး ကုလားျဖဴေတြကို၀င္ခုတ္ၿပီး ခုခံတုိက္ခိုက္ခဲ့ၾကတယ္။

ဆရာစံရဲ႕ ေတာင္သူလယ္သမား  သူပုန္ထမႈႀကီးမႇာလည္း အမ်ဳိးသမီးေတြ ေရာ၀င္ေရာက္တိုက္ခိုက္ၾကတယ္။ ေရနံေျမ အလုပ္သမားသပိတ္ႀကီးမႇာလည္း အလားတူပါ၀င္ၾကတယ္။ ဂ်ပန္ေခတ္ေရာက္ေတာ့လည္း ပါး ႐ိုက္နား႐ိုက္ အႏုိင္က်င့္မႈေတြ လြန္လြန္းလာတဲ့အခါေရာက္ေတာ့ သည္းခံႏိုင္မႈဂိတ္ဆံုးျဖစ္ၿပီး တစ္ႏိုင္ငံလံုး အမ်ဳိးသား၊ အမ်ဳိးသမီး၊ ရဟန္းရႇင္လူမႇန္သမွ် လႇည္းေနေလႇေအာင္း ျမင္းေစာင္းမက်န္ ရရာလက္နက္စြဲကိုင္ၿပီး အံုႂကြေတာ္လႇန္ခဲ့ၾကတယ္၊ ဒါအထူးအဆန္းေတာ့ ဟုတ္မထင္ဘူး။ တျခားလူမ်ဳိးေတြလည္း ဒီလိုပဲရႇိမႇာ ေသခ်ာတယ္။

ေနာက္ၿပီးေတာ့ ဗုဒၶဘုရားရႇင္ကိုယ္ေတာ္တိုင္က ေရာင့္ရဲတင္းတိမ္မေနဘဲ အခ်ိန္ရႇိသမွ် ႀကိဳးပမ္းအားထုတ္ဖို႔ အျမဲေဟာေျပာဆံုးမေနခဲ့တယ္။ ဘယ္သူမဆို ႀကိဳးစားရင္ဘုရားျဖစ္ႏိုင္တယ္လို႔ လမ္းညႊန္ခဲ့တယ္။ ကိုယ္ေတာ္ တိုင္လည္း ကပ္ကမၻာေပါင္း အသေခ်ၤနဲ႔ အနႏၲႀကိဳးစားအားထုတ္ခဲ့ရၿပီး ေနာက္ဆံုးဘ၀မႇာေတာင္ ပင္ပန္းႀကီးစြာနဲ႔ ေျခာက္ႏႇစ္ၾကာ ဒုကၠရစရိယာ က်င့္ၾကံခဲ့ရတယ္။ တျခားဘာသာမ်ားမႇာက ဘုရားသခင္ဆိုတာ ဘယ္က လာတယ္၊ ဘယ္သူဘယ္၀ါ ျဖစ္တယ္ဆိုတာ ဘယ္သူမႇမသိၾကဘူး။ ဘယ္ေလာက္ ဆင္းရဲပင္ပန္းခံၿပီး က်င့္ၾကံအားထုတ္လဲ ဘယ္သူမႇ ဘုရားမျဖစ္ႏိုင္ဘူး။ ႀကိဳးစားအားထုတ္ရင္ ဘုရားျဖစ္ႏုိင္တယ္ဆိုတာ ဗုဒၶဘာသာ တစ္ခုပဲရႇိတယ္။

ဗုဒၶဘာသာက မႇန္တယ္၊ ေကာင္းတယ္လို႔ဆိုခ်င္တာ မဟုတ္ပါဘူး။ ဗုဒၶဘာသာေၾကာင့္ လူေတြသည္းခံေရာင့္ရဲၿပီး လည္းစင္းေခါင္းငံု႔ခံေနၾကတာမဟုတ္တဲ့အေၾကာင္း ေျပာခ်င္တာပါ။ ၿငိမ္ေနတိုင္း ဘာမႇမလုပ္ဘူးလို႔ေတာ့ မထင္နဲ႔။ ပင္ လယ္ျပင္မႇာ ေလလံုး၀မတုိက္ဘဲ ၿငိမ္သက္ေနရင္ သိပ္ေၾကာက္ဖို႔ေကာင္းတယ္။ မၾကာခင္မႇာ ေၾကာက္စရာေကာင္းတဲ့ မုန္တိုင္းႀကီးလာေတာ့မယ္ဆိုတဲ့ နိမိတ္လကၡဏာပဲ။ ထိုးေတာ့မယ့္ဆင္ဟာလည္း ေနာက္တစ္ လႇမ္းဆုတ္ၿပီး ၿငိမ္ေနေလ့ရႇိတယ္။ ဗုဒၶဘာသာအေၾကာင္း၊ ျမန္မာလူမ်ဳိးမ်ားအေၾကာင္း ေသေသခ်ာခ်ာမသိတဲ့ ႏုိင္ငံျခားသားမ်ားက ဘာသာတရားေၾကာင့္ ျမန္မာေတြဒီဘ၀က မကြၽတ္မလြတ္ေသးတာလို ႔ေျပာတာကို နားလည္ သည္းခံႏုိင္ပါတယ္။ ျမန္မာလူမ်ဳိးေတြကိုယ္တိုင္က သံေယာင္လုိက္ေျပာတာမ်ဳိးကိုေတာ့ နည္းနည္းမႇ သည္းမခံႏိုင္ဘူး။ အားႀကီးစိတ္ဆိုးတယ္။

စီးပြားေရးမဖြံ႕ၿဖိဳးတာလည္း လူေတြက ေရာင့္ရဲတင္းတိမ္ေနလို႔ မဟုတ္သလို၊ ပ်င္းလို႔ ဖ်င္းလို႔လည္း မဟုတ္ပါဘူး။ ႏႇစ္ကာလေတြကို လက္ခ်ဳိးေရတြက္ၾကည့္လိုက္ပါ။ လြတ္လပ္ေရးရၿပီးတာ ၆၃ ႏႇစ္ရႇိၿပီ ဆိုေပမယ့္ တကယ္တမ္း လြတ္လြတ္လပ္လပ္ စီးပြားေရးလုပ္ခြင့္ရႇိတာ ဘယ္ႏႇႏႇစ္ရႇိလို႔လဲ။ ၁၉၄၈ခုႏႇစ္က ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏႇစ္တြင္း ၁၄ ႏႇစ္ လုပ္ခဲ့ရတယ္။ ရန္ကုန္အစိုးရေခတ္လို အခ်ိန္ကာလေတြၾကံဳေတြ႕ခဲ့ရတာေတာင္ အမ်ားႀကီး တိုးတက္ခဲ့တယ္။ အဲဒီေခတ္က 'တက္ထရြန္' ဆိုတဲ့ ပိတ္စေခ်ာေခ်ာ ျဖဴျဖဴထုတ္လုပ္ႏုိင္တာ အာရႇတိုက္တစ္ခုလံုးမႇာ ဂ်ပန္ၿပီးရင္ ျမန္မာပဲရႇိတယ္။ အဲဒီေနာက္ 'ဒက္ကရြန္' တို႔ 'ႏိုင္လြန္' တို႔လည္း ထုတ္ႏုိင္တယ္။

စီးကရက္မႇာေတာ့ အာရႇတစ္ခြင္လံုးမႇာ ျမန္မာကိုဘယ္သူမႇ မမီဘူး။ ဂ်ပန္လည္းမမီဘူး။ ဘားမား စတိတ္၊ ကပၸီတန္၊ လန္ဒန္႐ိုးဖလိတ္၊ ဘလက္ကက္ဆိုတဲ့ စီးကရက္တံဆိပ္ေတြကို အိမ္နီးခ်င္းႏုိင္ငံအားလံုးဆီ တင္ပို႔ ေရာင္းခ်ရတယ္။ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္က စက္မႈလုပ္ငန္းအမ်ားႀကီး တိုးတက္ခဲ့တယ္။ ေနာက္ေတာ့ ျမန္မာ့ဆိုရႇယ္လစ္ဆိုတဲ့ ေခတ္ေရာက္သြားၿပီး၊ ရပ္ကြက္ထဲက ကုန္ေျခာက္ဆိုင္ကေလးေတာင္ အရင္းရႇင္လို႔ သတ္မႇတ္လိုက္တယ္။ ေတြ႕သမွ် ျမင္သမွ် ျပည္သူပိုင္သိမ္းပစ္လိုက္တယ္။ စာသင္ေက်ာင္းေတြေတာင္ မခ်န္ဘူး။ ငါးဆယ္ခုနစ္မ်ားအတြင္း အရႇိန္အဟုန္နဲ႔တုိးတက္လာတဲ့ တိုင္းရင္းသားလုပ္ငန္းရႇင္ေတြအားလံုး ၿပိဳလဲက်ဆင္းသြားခဲ့ရတယ္။

၁၉၈၈ ခုႏႇစ္ေနာက္ပိုင္းမႇာ ေစ်းကြက္စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ကို ျပန္လည္အသက္သြင္းခဲ့တယ္။ ဒါေပမဲ့ အဓိကက်တဲ့ ႏုိင္ငံေရးစနစ္က စစ္တပ္အုပ္စိုးတဲ့ အာဏာရႇင္စနစ္ဆိုေတာ့ စနစ္ႏႇစ္ခု သဟဇာတမျဖစ္တဲ့အတြက္ ေအာင္ျမင္ သင့္သေလာက္ မေအာင္ျမင္ခဲ့ဘူး။ အာဏာရႇင္စနစ္မ်ားနဲ႔ ဖြားဖက္ေတာ္လို အျမဲတဲြပါလာတတ္တဲ့ 'ကပ္ပါးေကာင္' လူတန္းစားသစ္ တစ္မ်ဳိးေၾကာင့္၊ ေစ်းကြက္စီးပြားေရးဟာ မ်က္စိႀကီး၊ နားႀကီးတို႔ရဲ႕ 'ဇီးကြက္စီးပြားေရး' ျဖစ္သြားခဲ့ရတယ္။ အက်ဳိးဆက္က ခ်မ္းသာဆင္းရဲကြာဟမႈ အလြန္႔အလြန္ ႀကီးမားသြားၿပီး ျမန္မာလူ႔အဖြဲ႕အစည္းရဲ႕ အစဥ္အလာ 'ေက်ာ႐ိုး' ျဖစ္တဲ့ 'လူလတ္တန္းစား' လံုး၀ ကြယ္ေပ်ာက္သြားတယ္။

မရႇိမရႇားဘဲ

ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမႇာ ဘယ္ေခတ္ဘယ္အခါကမႇ အိမ္နီးခ်င္းႏိုင္ငံေတြမႇာလို ငတ္ေသေလာက္ေအာင္ ဆင္းရဲမြဲေတတဲ့လူတန္းစား မရႇိခဲ့ဘူး။ အလားတူပဲ သူတို႔ဆီမႇာလုိ 'ဘီလ်ံနာ' သူေဌးေတြလည္း မရႇိဘူး။ လူလတ္တန္း စားတိုင္း ျပည္ျဖစ္တယ္။ အားလံုး 'မရႇိမရႇား' ဘဲ။ အခုေတာ့ တစ္ပါတီတစ္ဖြဲ႕ အာဏာရႇင္စနစ္ေနရာမႇာ ဒီမိုကေရစီအစိုးရမ်ဳိးနဲ႔ အစားထိုးဖို႔ စတင္လုပ္ေဆာင္ေနၿပီျဖစ္တယ္။ အာဏာရႇင္စနစ္ကို စြန္႔လႊတ္လိုက္သလို 'ကပ္ပါးေကာင္' ေတြကိုပါ တစ္ပါတည္း ဖယ္ရႇားရႇင္းလင္းပစ္ဖို႔ မျဖစ္မေန လုပ္ေဆာင္ဖို႔လိုတယ္။ ဒါမႇ ေစ်းကြက္စီးပြားေရး ပီပီျပင္ျပင္ ေပၚထြက္လာႏုိင္လိမ့္မယ္။ ကပ္ပါးေကာင္မ်ားအစား ႐ိုး႐ိုးသားသား စီးပြားရႇာစားတဲ့ တုိင္းရင္းသား လုပ္ငန္းရႇင္မ်ား အမ်ားအျပား ေပၚထြက္လာေအာင္ တြန္းအားေပးရမယ္။

ခ်ဳပ္ကိုင္ခဲ့တယ္

ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံ လြတ္လပ္ေရးရခ်ိန္က ဆိုရႇယ္လစ္ 'ဒီေရျမင့္ခ်ိန္' ျဖစ္တယ္။ ဖဆပလအစိုးရကလည္း ဆိုရႇယ္လစ္ႏုိင္ငံ ထူေထာင္မယ္လို႔ ေႂကြးေၾကာ္ခဲ့တယ္။ လယ္ပိုင္ရႇင္ကေလးေတြနဲ႔ တုိင္းရင္းသားလုပ္ငန္းရႇင္ေလးေတြကို ေျမရႇင္ယာရႇင္ႀကီးေတြ၊ အရင္းရႇင္ႀကီးေတြအျဖစ္သတ္မႇတ္ၿပီး လုပ္စားကိုင္စားခြင့္ေတြကို ခ်ဳပ္ကိုင္ခဲ့တယ္။ ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏႇစ္ေနာက္ပိုင္း ျမန္မာ့ဆိုရႇယ္လစ္အစိုးရလက္ထက္ေရာက္ေတာ့ ခ်ဳပ္ကိုင္႐ံုမကေတာ့ဘဲ လံုး၀ ႏႇိပ္ကြပ္ ပစ္လုိက္တယ္။ ကြမ္းယာ ဆိုင္ကအစ ျပည္သူပိုင္သိမ္းလိုက္တယ္။တုိင္းရင္းသားလုပ္ငန္းရႇင္ မ်ဳိးဆက္လံုး၀ ကြယ္ေပ်ာက္သြားခဲ့တယ္။

၁၉၈၈ ေနာက္ပိုင္းမႇာ ေစ်းကြက္စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ စတင္ကူးေျပာင္းခဲ့တယ္ဆိုေပမယ့္ တုိင္းရင္းသား လုပ္ငန္းရႇင္ မ်ဳိးဆက္ကြယ္ေပ်ာက္ခဲ့ၿပီဆိုေတာ့ အင္တုိက္ အားတုိက္ ပါ၀င္လာမယ့္သူ မရႇိေတာ့ဘူး။ အဲဒီေနရာမႇာ 'ကပ္ပါးေကာင္' ေတြ ေပၚထြက္လာၿပီး ရသမွ် လက္၀ါးႀကီးအုပ္ၾကတယ္။ ဒီမိုကေရစီစနစ္ကို ကူးေျပာင္းတဲ့အခါမႇာ ႏုိင္ငံေရးစနစ္နဲ႔ စီးပြားေရးစနစ္ သဟဇာတျဖစ္ဖို႔လိုတယ္။ ႏုိင္ငံသားအားလံုး အားတက္သေရာ ပါ၀င္လာဖို႔ လည္း မရႇိမျဖစ္လိုအပ္တယ္။ အထူး သျဖင့္ တုိင္းရင္းသားလုပ္ငန္းရႇင္ေတြ ယံုၾကည္စိတ္ခ်စြာနဲ႔ ပါ၀င္လာဖို႔လိုတယ္။ တိုင္းရင္းသားလုပ္ငန္းရႇင္ေတြအေနနဲ႔ ႏုိင္ငံျခားသားေတြနဲ႔ ယႇဥ္ၿပိဳင္ႏိုင္ေအာင္ အစိုးရက ကူညီ ေထာက္ပံ့မႈ ေတြ ေပးရမယ္။ အေရးၾကံဳတဲ့အခါ တုိင္းရင္းသားလုပ္ငန္းရႇင္က သာ အားကိုးရမႇာျဖစ္တယ္။ ႏုိင္ငံျခားသားဆိုတာကေတာ့ သာတုန္း နားၿပီး မသာရင္ ခြာသြားၾကတာပဲ။

တိုင္းရင္းသားလုပ္ငန္းရႇင္ေတြ ႏုိင္ငံျခားသားေတြနဲ႔ ပခံုးခ်င္းယႇဥ္ လုပ္ႏုိင္ကိုင္ႏုိင္ဖို႔၊ အစိုးရဘက္ေတြက ေငြလံုးေငြရင္း ထုတ္ေခ်းမႈမ်ဳိးေတြ လုပ္ေပးဖို႔လိုတယ္။ လုပ္သာကိုင္သာျဖစ္ေအာင္ အတိုးႏႈန္း နည္းနည္းနဲ႔ ႏႇစ္ရႇည္ ေခ်းေငြမ်ဳိး ျဖစ္ဖို႔ လည္းလိုတယ္။ တကယ္အလုပ္လုပ္တဲ့အခါ ငါးႏႇစ္၊ ေျခာက္ႏႇစ္ အတြင္း အၿပီးဆပ္ဆိုတာမ်ဳိးနဲ႔ ဘယ္လိုမႇလုပ္လို႔ မျဖစ္ႏုိင္ဘူး။ အေရးႀကီးတာက တုိင္းရင္းသားလုပ္ငန္းရႇင္ေတြကို ေရႇးယခင္ ျမန္မာ့ဆိုရႇယ္လစ္ေခတ္ကလို အရင္းရႇင္ႀကီးေတြလို ျမင္ၿပီး 'အရင္ရႇင္း' မပစ္ဖို႔ျဖစ္တယ္။ 'အရင္ရႇင္း' ပစ္ရမႇာက တုိင္းရင္းသား အရင္းရႇင္မဟုတ္ဘဲ 'ကပ္ပါးေကာင္' ဇီးကြက္စီးပြားေရးသမားေတြသာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

Credit : weekly media

YANGON, Myanmar — The United States' special envoy to Myanmar has arrived for his second visit in two months amid hope that Myanmar's government is serious about political reform.

A Myanmar official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to release information, says Derek Mitchell arrived in Yangon on Monday and will travel to the capital, Naypyitaw, to meet with government leaders.

Mitchell said last week after Myanmar released about 200 political prisoners that Washington sees encouraging signs of openness in the country, which was under military rule for decades until this past March.

The U.S. Embassy, which declined to confirm Mitchell's arrival, says Mitchell will visit frequently to engage with the government while continuing to express concerns about repression.

(This version corrects that Myanmar official, not U.S. Embassy, confirmed Mitchell's visit.) 

Credit : Huffinton Post

FOR MANY YEARS advocates of engagement with Burma’s dictators have argued that economic sanctions, which are intended to promote democratic change in that Southeast Asian nation, could boomerang by forcing the regime into China’s welcoming arms. Even advocates of sanctions, like this page, have acknowledged the risk, since China’s Communist Party has no qualms about dealing with dictators and is hungry for Burma’s natural resources and its access to the Andaman Sea.

Recent changes in Burma, though, suggest that the interaction between sanctions and China relations may be more complex. Like China’s other neighbors, Burma’s rulers may be chafing at China’s increasing assertiveness. They may see a growing advantage in having the United States and its allies play a balancing role. And they may understand that the West will not do so unless Burma’s regime becomes less repressive.
 

That, at least, is one explanation for recent, welcome changes in this nation of 50 million or so people. The regime continues to rule through intimidation and violence. Lately, though, there have been signs of a thaw. The generals wrote a new constitution, held (mostly fraudulent) elections and installed a (nominally) civilian government. The new government in turn has held a series of meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s foremost pro-democracy leader and a prisoner under house arrest for most of the past two decades. It suspended plans to build a massive dam that was opposed by much of Burma’s embattled civil society — and that was designed to produce electricity primarily for China. Most recently it freed more than 200 political prisoners.

None of these steps is sufficient. Perhaps 10 times as many peaceful opponents of the regime as were freed remain in prison. Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, remains banned from politics. Media are still tightly controlled. The Burmese army continues to commit atrocities, including rape and forcible displacement, against ethnic minorities.

Still, the changes are not minor. The questions, then, are what is motivating them and how can the West encourage more? Some Burma hands speak confidently of a battle between hard-liners and pro-democracy reformers and want to rush to the reformers’ aid. Others, as we suggested earlier, believe that the regime may be looking for a way to lessen its dependence on its giant neighbor to the north. Given the opacity of the regime, any explanation should be viewed cautiously — and any response formulated with modesty about outsiders’ ability to affect change.

For the most part, that is how the Obama administration is responding. U.S. officials have stepped up their level of engagement, including by inviting Burma’s foreign minister to Washington for the first time in memory. But they also have said that substantive change in U.S. policy depends on substantive, irreversible change in Burma’s: a freeing of all prisoners and a change of political environment to allow true debate and full participation. The challenge is to encourage change without too quickly removing the incentives that may be propelling it.

Credit :Washington Post

ဒီတပတ္ ျမန္မာ့ဒီမုိကေရစီေရးရာ ေဆြးေႏြးခန္းမွာ လူထုအံု႔ၾကြမႈနဲ႔ ဒီမုိကေရစီေျပာင္းလဲမႈ ဘယ္လိုဆက္ႏႊယ္မႈရွိ၊ ျပည္သူလူထုအေနနဲ႔ ဘယ္လို ပါဝင္လုပ္ေဆာင္သင့္သလဲဆိုတာကို ဦးသန္းလြင္ထြန္း က ၿဗိတိန္ႏိုင္ငံ မဟာဗ်ဴဟာေလ့လာေရးဌာန က ျမန္မာ့အေရး သံုးသပ္သူ ေဒါက္တာဇာနည္ ကို ဆက္သြယ္ေမးျမန္း ေဆြးေႏြးထားပါတယ္။

ဦးသန္းလြင္ထြန္း ။ ။ လစ္ဗ်ား (Libya) ႏိုင္ငံ အာဏာရွင္ေခါင္းေဆာင္ Moammar Gadhafi ေအာက္တိုဘာလ ၂၀ ရက္ေန႔ကပဲ လက္နက္ကိုင္အံု႔ၾကြေတာ္လွန္သူမ်ားရဲ ႔ လက္ခ်က္နဲ႔ ဇာတ္သိမ္းသြားခဲ့ပါသည္။ အာရပ္ေတာ္လွန္ေရး လိႈင္းတံပိုးနဲ႔အတူ တူးနီးရွား (Tunisia)၊ အီဂ်စ္ (Egypt) ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြ ျပဳတ္က်ခဲ့ၿပီး အခု ဂဒါဖီရဲ ႔ အျဖစ္ကေတာ့ အဆိုးဆံုးပါ။ အာရွတိုက္က ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာလည္း လူထုအံု႔ၾကြမႈေတြ ျဖစ္လာမလားလို႔ ေမွ်ာ္လင့္ၿပီး အာဏာပိုင္ေတြကို ျဖဳတ္ခ်ႏိုင္ဖို႔ စိတ္ကူးယဥ္ေနသူေတြ ရွိေနပါတယ္။ ဒါေပမဲ့လည္း ဒီအေျခအေနေတြ တူႏိုင္မလားဆိုတာကို ၿဗိတိန္ႏိုင္ငံ မဟာဗ်ဴဟာေလ့လာေရးဌာနက ျမန္မာ့အေရးေလ့လာသံုးသပ္ေနသူ ေဒါက္တာဇာနည္ ကို က်ေနာ္ ဆက္သြယ္ေမးျမန္းထားပါတယ္။

ကိုဇာနည္ ။ ။ နံပတ္တစ္ သင္ခန္းစာကေတာ့ ျပည္သူ႔ရဲ ႔ ေထာက္ခံမႈ၊ ျပည္သူ႔ရဲ ႔ ၾကည္ညိဳမႈ၊ ေလးစားမႈ မရွိဘဲနဲ႔။ ဆိုလိုတာကေတာ့ ျပည္သူ႔ေမတၱာခံယူမႈ မရွိဘဲနဲ႔ အာဏာယူထားတဲ့ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြ ဗမာျပည္မွာျဖစ္ျဖစ္၊ တျခားႏိုင္ငံမွာပဲျဖစ္ျဖစ္ သူတုိ႔မွာ ေၾကာက္လန္႔၊ က်ီးလန္႔စာစာ ဘယ္ေလာက္ပဲ ခ်မ္းသာခ်မ္းသာ၊ ဘယ္ေလာက္ပဲ လက္နက္အင္အားေတာင့္ေတာင့္ က်ီးလန္႔စာစာ ေနရတဲ့ဘဝက ဘယ္ေတာ့မွ လြတ္မွာမဟုတ္ဘူး။ အဲဒါကေတာ့ ရွင္းတယ္ - ဆဒမ္ဟူစိန္ (Saddam Hussein) ႀကိဳးစင္ေပးခံရတာကိုပဲၾကည့္ၾကည့္၊ ေနာက္တခါ ဂဒါဖီ (Gaddafi) 

ေခြးေသ၊ ဝက္ေသ ေသတဲ့ပံုစံမ်ဳိးပဲျဖစ္ျဖစ္ အာရွတိုက္မွာဆိုရင္ ပတ္ခ်ဳန္းဟီ (Park Chung Hee) ဆိုရင္ ၁၉၇၀ ပတ္ဝန္းက်င္မွာ ညစာ ထမင္းစားပြဲမွာ သူ အသတ္ခံရတယ္။ ဆူဟာတို (Suharto) ဆိုရင္လည္း အက်ယ္ခ်ဳပ္ခံရတယ္။ ျပည္သူ႔ေမတၱာ ခံယူမႈ မရွိတဲ့ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြကေတာ့ အထူးသျဖင့္ေတာ့ က်ီးလန္႔စာ ေနရတယ္လို႔ ျမင္မိတယ္။

ဦးသန္းလြင္ထြန္း ။ ။ အခု ဒီအေျခအေနမွာ စိတ္ဝင္တစားနဲ႔ သံုးသပ္လာၾကတာက အထူးသျဖင့္ အာရပ္ဖက္မွာ ျဖစ္ခဲ့တဲ့ အျဖစ္အပ်က္ေတြကို ၾကည့္မယ္ဆိုရင္ ဒါက ႏွစ္ေပါင္းၾကာရွည္ အာဏာရွင္ေတြရဲ ႔ ဖိႏိွပ္မႈေအာက္မွာ ေနေနရတာကေန အေျပာင္းအလဲ တစံုတရာကို ေတာင့္တလာၿပီးေတာ့ ဖိႏိွပ္ခံရလို႔ အံု႔ၾကြလာတဲ့ လူထုအေနနဲ႔ အာဏာရွင္ေတြကို ျဖဳတ္ခ်လိုက္တဲ့ အေနအထားအထိ တခ်ဳိ ႔ႏိုင္ငံေတြမွာ ေရာက္ခဲ့တယ္။ အေနာက္ႏိုင္ငံေတြရဲ ႔ ကူညီအားေပးမႈေတြ၊ ျပင္ပေဘး ႏိုင္ငံေတြရဲ ႔ ကူညီမႈေတြလည္း ပါေကာင္းပါလိမ့္မယ္။ ဒါေပမဲ့ ဒီလို အေျခအေနမ်ဳိးေတြဟာ အာရွတိုက္၊ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံလို ေျမာက္ကိုရီးယား လို ႏိုင္ငံမ်ဳိးေတြမွာ အလားတူျဖစ္လာႏိုင္မယ့္ အေနအထားေတြ ရွိသလား။

ကိုဇာနည္ ။ ။ က်ေနာ္ ထင္တာကေတာ့ လူထုထၾကြၿပီးေတာ့ ပုန္ကန္လို႔၊ လက္နက္ကိုင္တာပဲျဖစ္ျဖစ္။ အႏုနည္းနဲ႔ ဂႏၵီ (Gandhi) ပံုစံမ်ဳိး၊ မာတင္လူသားကင္ (Martin Luther King) တုိ႔လို႔ ပံုစံမ်ဳိး၊ အႏုနည္းနဲ႔ အာဏာဖိဆန္ၿပီး။ က်ေနာ္တို႔ဆီမွာလည္း ရွိပါတယ္။ ဝံသာႏု ဂ်ီစီဘီေအ ေခတ္ထဲက စၿပီး ရွိခဲ့တာ - သပိတ္ေမွာက္တယ္ဆိုတာ။ အဲဒီလို အႏုနည္းနဲ႔ျဖစ္ျဖစ္၊ အၾကမ္းဖက္နည္းနဲ႔ျဖစ္ျဖစ္ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္မႈက ယိုးယြင္းပ်က္ဆီးၿပီး၊ မတရား ျပည္သူကို ဖိႏိွပ္ၿပီး ျပည္သူ႔စားဝတ္ေနေရး အဆင္မေျပဘူး။ ႏိုင္ငံရဲ ႔ ဂုတ္ေသြးစုပ္တဲ့ အေနအထားေရာက္လာရင္ေတာ့ ဒါအၿမဲတမ္း အဲဒီအေျခအေနက ရွိတယ္။ ဘာျဖစ္လို႔လည္းဆိုေတာ့ သံဃာအေရးအခင္း ၂၀၀၇ မတုိင္ခင္ေလးမွာ ၾသဂုတ္၊ စက္တင္ဘာလမွာ ကိုမင္းကိုႏိုင္၊ ကိုေဌးၾကြယ္ နဲ႔ တျခား ၈၈ ေက်ာင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ေဟာင္းေတြနဲ႔ တျခားေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြေပါင္းၿပီးေတာ့ ကုန္ေစ်းႏႈန္းေတြ က်ေရးလုပ္ခဲ့တာရွိတယ္။ အဲဒါၿပီးတဲ့ေနာက္မွာ သံဃာေတာ္ေတြရဲ ႔ အေရးအခင္း ၂၀၀၇ မွာ လာတယ္။ အဲဒီေတာ့ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္တုန္းက ဘယ္သူကမွ ပညာရွင္ေတြဆိုရင္ က်ေနာ္အပါအဝင္ David Steinberg, က်ေနာ္ ပညာရွင္ ၉၉.၉ ရာခိုင္ႏႈန္းက ဗမာျပည္မွာ လူထုအံု႔ၾကြမႈ လံုးဝမျဖစ္ႏိုင္ဘူးလို႔ သတ္မွတ္ထားၿပီးသာ။ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္မွာ ထပ္ျဖစ္တဲ့ဆိုေတာ့ က်ေနာ္တို႔လည္း ရွင္းရွင္းေျပာရရင္ လူထုထက္ ႏွစ္ရက္သံုးရက္ ႀကိဳသိတဲ့အေနအထားကလႊဲလို႔ရွိရင္ တကယ္တမ္းမွာ က်ေနာ္တို႔မွာလည္း ဒိဗၺ စကၡဳဥာဏ္ မရွိေတာ့ အဲဒါကို ျဖစ္မလာ မျဖစ္ဘူးလားဆိုတာကို မေျပာႏိုင္ဘူး။ ဒါေပမဲ့ ျဖစ္ဖို႔အေျခအေနရွိလာဆိုရင္ေတာ့ လံုးဝရွိတယ္။

ဦးသန္းလြင္ထြန္း ။ ။ ႏိုင္ငံတႏိုင္ငံမွာ ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္ကို အသြင္ေျပာင္းၾကဖို႔ အေျခအေနေတြ ေစ့ေဆာ္လာၿပီဆိုရင္ တခ်ဳိ ႔ကေတာ့ ေအာက္ေျခလူတန္းစားကေန အံု႔ၾကြၿပီးေတာ့ ေတာင္းဆိုလာတဲ့အတြက္ေၾကာင့္ ဖိႏိွပ္တဲ့ စနစ္ႀကီးတရပ္ ၿပိဳလဲၿပီး ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္ကို ေျပာင္းလဲသြားတယ္။ ေနာက္တမ်ဳိးကေတာ့ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြပိုင္းက သေဘာေပါက္ နားလည္လာၿပီး လူထုေတြလည္း သိပ္မေက်နပ္ဘူး။ အဲဒီေတာ့ သူတို႔ကိုယ္တုိင္က ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲေရးကို လိုလားပါတယ္ဆိုၿပီးေတာ့ အထက္ပိုင္းကေတာ့ သေဘာေပါက္ၿပီးေတာ့ အေျပာင္းအလဲေတြ စလုပ္လာတဲ့သေဘာ။ ဒီလို အေတြးအေခၚ ႏွစ္ရပ္။ အဲဒီလို အေျခအေနမ်ဳိးမွာ တခ်ဳိ ႔ ပညာရွင္တရပ္ကေတာ့ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ စစ္တပ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြက ဗမာႏိုင္ငံမွာ ေျပာင္းလဲမႈကို လိုေနပါၿပီဆိုတာကို သေဘာေပါက္တဲ့အတြက္ေၾကာင့္ ေျပာင္းလဲမႈေတြကို တျဖည္းျဖည္းလုပ္ေနၿပီ။ အလားတူပဲ အတိုက္အခံေခါင္းေဆာင္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္နဲ႔ ေတြ႔ဆံုမႈေတြဘာေတြ လုပ္လာေနၿပီ။ တျဖည္းျဖည္းေပါ့။ အခုအေျခအေနမ်ဳိးမွာ လူထုဆႏၵျပမႈေတြ လမ္းမေပၚထြက္ အံု႔ၾကြမႈေတြျဖစ္လာရင္ ဒီလို ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲမႈအရွိန္ကို ထိခိုက္သြားေစလိမ့္မယ္လို႔ေတာင္ ေတြးေခၚၿပီး ေျပာလာၾကတာရွိတယ္။ ဒါနဲ႔ ပတ္သက္ၿပီး ေဒါက္တာဇာနီအေနနဲ႔ ဘယ္လိုျမင္ပါသလဲ။

ကိုဇာနည္ ။ ။ ေအာက္ေျခက ဆႏၵျပတာ၊ ေအာက္ေျခက မေက်နပ္မႈ၊ ခံစားမႈေတြနဲ႔ အံု႔ၾကြလာလို႔ ေျပာင္းတာကတမ်ဳိး။ ေနာက္တခါ အထက္ကေန ဦးစီးဦးေဆာင္လုပ္ၿပီးေတာ့ တိုင္းျပည္ကိုေျပာင္းဖို႔ လုပ္တဲ့ေနရာမွာ က်ေနာ္ထင္တယ္ ideas ႏွစ္ခု။ အေတြးအေခၚႏွစ္ခုက တကယ္တမ္းၾကေတာ့ အဲဒီ ႏွစ္ခုကို ခြဲဖို႔ဆိုတာ ေရကို ဓါးနဲ႔ ခုတ္သလိုပဲ။ အဲဒီ ႏွစ္ခုက လံုးဝ ဆက္ႏႊယ္ေနတယ္။ က်ေနာ္တို႔ႏိုင္ငံအေနအထားမွာ ၾကည့္လိုက္လို႔ရွိရင္ အခုေျပာေနတဲ့ သမၼတသိန္းစိန္တို႔၊ သူ႔အနားမွာရွိတဲ့ သူရေရႊမန္းတို႔ တျခားလူေတြ အကုန္လံုးက ထိပ္ပိုင္းကေန သမၼတရဲ ႔ အႀကံေပးဆိုတဲ့ ပုဂိၢဳလ္ေတြေျပာတာကိုလည္း နားေထာင္ၾကည့္လိုက္ပါ။ ေနဇင္လတ္၊ ဦးကိုကိုလိႈင္ တုိ႔ေျပာတာကို နားေထာင္ၾကည့္လိုက္ရင္ က်ေနာ္တို႔ႏိုင္ငံက သူမ်ားႏိုင္ငံေတြနဲ႔ မတူတာက ဘာလဲဆိုေတာ့ လူႀကီးေတြကိုယ္တိုင္က တိုင္းျပည္ကို ေကာင္းလာေအာင္ ေျပာင္းေနပါတယ္ဆိုတာ။ တကယ္တမ္းက အဲဒါက မွားတယ္။ အတိအက် မမွန္ဘူး။ ဘာျဖစ္လို႔လည္းဆိုေတာ့ က်ေနာ္တို႔က ဒီလူႀကီးေတြက တိုင္းျပည္မွာ အာဏာယူထားတဲ့ ပုဂိၢဳလ္ေတြက ထိပ္ကေန ေျပာင္းဖို႔လုပ္ေနတယ္ဆိုတာ တကယ္တမ္းၾကလို႔ရွိရင္ ေအာက္ကေန တက္လာတဲ့ ဖိအား။ ျပည္တြင္းမွာရွိတဲ့ ျပည္သူေတြရဲ ႔ စားဝတ္ေနေရး၊ ႏိုင္ငံေရး မေက်နပ္မႈေတြ ဒါေတြ။ အဲဒီ ဖိအားေတြကို ျပည္တြင္းဖိအားေတြကို တံု႔ျပန္တာျဖစ္တယ္။ အဲဒါမ်ဳိးၾကေတာ့ က်ေနာ္တို႔က Georgetown က David Steinberg တို႔ဘာတို႔ ေျပာတဲ့ဟာမ်ဳိးကို မွန္တယ္လို႔ ေျပာလို႔မရဘူး။ က်ေနာ္အေနနဲ႔ လံုးဝလက္မခံဘူး။ ဘာျဖစ္လို႔လည္းဆိုေတာ့ ေအာက္ကလာတဲ့ ဖိအားနဲ႔ အထက္ကေန တံု႔ျပန္မႈ အဲဒီႏွစ္ခုက အၿမဲတမ္း ဆက္ႏႊယ္ေနတယ္။ အဲဒါကို က်ေနာ္တုိ႔ ခြဲၾကည့္လိုက္ၿပီးတဲ့အခါၾကေတာ့ အထက္ကလူေတြ လုပ္ေနလို႔ ေအာက္ကလူေတြ ေခါင္းေလးငံုၿပီး ေနာက္ကေနၿပီး ဘယ္လိုေျပာမလဲ ေရွ ႔ကႏြားသြားတာကို ေနာက္ကေျဖာင့္ေျဖာင့္လိုက္ပါဆိုတဲ့ ဗမာေရွးထံုးပံုစံနဲ႔ လုပ္ရင္ မွားမယ္။ ဘာျဖစ္လို႔လည္းဆိုေတာ့ ဒီမိုကေရစီျဖစ္တယ္ဆိုတာ ျပည္သူက ကိုယ့္အားကိုယ္ကိုး ကိုယ့္အျမင္နဲ႔ ကိုယ့္ရဲ ႔ဂုဏ္သိကၡာနဲ႔ ကိုယ့္ရဲ ႔ idea နဲ႔ ငါတို႔က လူသားအစစ္အမွန္ ျဖစ္တဲ့ လူစိတ္နဲ႔ သြားေနတဲ့အခါမွာ ေရွးတုန္းကေျပာသလို အစိုးရဆိုတာ ဘဝရွင္မင္းတရားႀကီးက တိုင္းသူျပည္သားေတြအားလံုး၊ ျပည္သူျပည္သားေတြအားလံုးကို ေက်ာသားရင္သား မခြဲဘဲနဲ႔ဆိုၿပီး သူ႔ကိုယ္သူ အေဖလိုလို၊ ပေထြးလိုလို အျမင္နဲ႔ ဆက္ဆံတယ္။ အဲဒီ စိတ္၊ အဲဒီ ေခါင္းေဆာင္မႈ model မ်ဳိးနဲ႔ က်ေနာ္တို႔ကသြားလို႔။ အဲဒါကို လိုက္လို႔မရဘူး။ ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္ဆိုတာ ျပည္သူက ဦးေဆာင္တဲ့စနစ္။ အေရးႀကီးဆံုးက ဘာလဲဆိုေတာ့ Steinberg တို႔ တျခား ပညာရွင္ေတြဆိုတဲ့ ဗမာျပည္ရဲ ႔ အေရးကို ေလ့လာတဲ့လူေတြ အကုန္လံုးေျပာေနၾကတာ ဘာလဲဆိုေတာ့ ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲေရး reform လုပ္တဲ့လူေတြ နားလည္းၾကည့္။ အဲဒီလုပ္တဲ့လူေတြကို ထပ္မတြန္းပါနဲ႔ ဖိအားမေပးပါနဲ႔ ဘာျဖစ္လို႔လည္းဆိုေတာ့ အဲဒါဆိုရင္ hardliner ဆိုတဲ့ မေျပာင္းခ်င္တဲ့လူေတြရဲ ႔ လက္ထဲကို အာဏာျပန္ရသြားမယ္ဆိုတာ တကယ္တမ္း အဲဒါမွားတယ္။ ဘာျဖစ္လို႔လည္းဆိုေတာ့ ျပည္သူရဲ ႔ ဖိအားေၾကာင့္၊ ျပည္သူရဲ ႔ မေက်နပ္မႈေၾကာင့္ေတြမို႔ သူတုိ႔က ဒါကိုတံု႔ျပန္တာကို လိုအပ္တာက ျပည္သူက ပိုၿပီးထပ္တြန္းရမယ္။ ကိုယ္လုပ္ခ်င္တာ ကိုယ္လုပ္ရမယ္။

ဦးသန္းလြင္ထြန္း ။ ။ ဒါေပမဲ့လည္း အဲဒီလို တြန္းတဲ့အခါမွာ တြန္းတဲ့ေနရာမွာ လမ္းမထြက္ ဆႏၵျပမႈေတြ ေပၚလာတယ္။ ဒါမွမဟုတ္ ရုန္းရင္ဆန္ခတ္မႈေတြ ျဖစ္လာတယ္ဆိုလို႔ရွိရင္ အေျခအေနက ပိုမဆိုးသြားႏိုင္ဘူးလား။

ကိုဇာနည္ ။ ။ က်ေနာ္ထင္တယ္ ဆႏၵျပတယ္ဆိုတာ အမ်ဳိးမ်ဳိးရွိတယ္။ ဆႏၵျပတယ္ဆိုတာ ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္ကို ေရာက္ေအာင္သြားေနတယ္။ အဲဒီ ဒီမုိကေရစီဘက္ကို ဦးတည္ၿပီးေတာ့ စသြားေနၿပီ။ ဦးတည္ထားရံုမကဘူး။ ဦးကိုကိုလိႈင္၊ ဦးေနဇင္လတ္ တို႔ ေျပာေနတာကို ၾကည့္လိုက္မယ္ဆိုရင္ ရထားႀကီးက ဘူတာထဲက ထြက္သြားပါၿပီ။ သူတုိ႔ဆိုလိုတာက က်ေနာ္တုိ႔ ႏိုင္ငံမွာ လက္ရွိ စနစ္ႀကီးက ဒီမုိကေရစီဘက္ ေခါင္းတည္စသြားေနၿပီ။ သြားေနတဲ့အခါၾကရင္ က်ေနာ္တို႔ ဒီမုိကေရစီ ဘယ္ေန႔ ဘယ္အခ်ိန္ၾကမွ နကၡေဗဒပညာေတြနဲ႔ တြက္ၿပီးမွ ဒီမိုကေရစီရပါၿပီဆိုၿပီး ေၾကညာၿပီး စည္းေတြေမာင္းေတြနဲ႔ လုပ္စရာအေၾကာင္း မရွိဘူး။ ဒီမုိကေရစီဘက္ကို စသြားၿပီးဆိုရင္ ဒီမုိကေရစီနည္းအရ ျပည္သူေတြကလည္း လိုက္ရမယ္။ ျပည္သူလိုက္မယ္ဆိုရင္ ဒီမုိကေရစီနည္းထဲမွာ ဘာပါလဲဆိုရင္ ျပည္သူက လြတ္လပ္စြာ ေျပာဆိုပိုင္ခြင့္ရွိတယ္။ ဆႏၵျပပိုင္ခြင့္ ရွိတယ္။ အစိုးရ အေဆာက္အဦးေတြကို မီးရိႈ ႔မယ္၊ ရဲေတြကို ခဲနဲ႔ေပါက္မယ္။ ဒါဆိုရင္ေတာ့ အၾကမ္းဖက္တဲ့လိုင္းကို ပါသြားမယ္။ ဒါေပမဲ့ ျပည္သူက ႏိုင္ငံေရးအက်ဥ္းသားေတြကို လႊတ္ေပးပါဆို ဆႏၵျပတာမ်ဳိး။ ဒါမွမဟုတ္လုိ႔ရွိရင္ အလုပ္ျပဳတ္တာ မတရားလို႔ ဒါကို ဆႏၵျပမယ္။ ေနာက္တခါ လုပ္ခနည္းတာကို တိုးေပးဖို႔ ဆႏၵျပမယ္။ လုပ္ခြင့္ရေအာင္။ ေနာက္တခါ ျမစ္ေတြမွာ ဆည္ေတြမတရား ေဆာက္ၿပီးေတာ့ ျပည္သူေတြ ဒုကၡေရာက္မယ့္ စီမံကိန္းေတြကို စိုးရိမ္လို႔ ဆႏၵျပမယ္။ ဒါေတြ ဆႏၵျပတယ္ဆိုတာက ဒီမုိကေရစီအစိုးရအေနနဲ႔ ဒါကို လက္မခံဘဲနဲ႔ လံုးဝမရဘူး။ က်ေနာ္ဆိုလိုတာက ဆႏၵျပတာက ျပႆနာ မဟုတ္ဘူး။ ဒီမိုကေရစီ လိုလားတဲ့ အစိုးရဆိုလို႔ရွိရင္ ဆႏၵျပတာက ျပည္သူ႔ရဲ ႔ အခြင့္အေရး။ ဆႏၵျပသူကိုလည္း ရိုက္စရာလည္း မလိုဘူး။ အိပ္တဲ့အခ်ိန္မွာ သြားဖမ္းစရာလည္း မလိုဘူး။ ၅ (ည) နဲ႔ ေထာင္ခ်စရာလည္း မလိုဘူး။ အာဏာကို ျပည္သူ႔လက္ထဲမွာပဲ ရွိတဲ့ဆိုတဲ့ စိတ္ဓါတ္ကို ႏိုင္ငံေရး အေဆာက္အအံုထဲမွာေရာ၊ ႏိုင္ငံေရးေခါင္းေဆာင္လုပ္တဲ့ တပ္မေတာ္ ပုဂိၢဳလ္ေတြရဲ ႔ ေခါင္းထဲကို မေရာက္မခ်င္း ဒီမိုကေရစီဘက္ကို သြားေနတယ္လို႔ ေျပာရမွာက အေတာ္ခက္ေနမယ္။

ဦးသန္းလြင္ထြန္း ။ ။ အဲဒီေတာ့ ေဒါက္တာဇာနည္ရဲ ႔ သေဘာက လက္ရွိအခ်ိန္မွာ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ တို႔လို အတိုက္အခံေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြ၊ ဒါမွမဟုတ္ရင္ ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္ထဲမွာ ေရာက္ေနတဲ့ ႏိုင္ငံေရးသမားေတြအေနနဲ႔ အစိုးရနဲ႔ ညိွႏႈိင္းၿပီးေတာ့ ဒီမုိကေရစီ လမ္းဖက္ကို ေရာက္ေအာင္ ညိွႏိႈင္းယူ လုပ္ေနတဲ့အခ်ိန္မွာ ျပည္သူေတြအေနနဲ႔လည္း ကုိယ့္ရဲ ႔ ရပိုင္ခြင့္၊ အခြင့္အေရးေတြကိုသံုးၿပီး ဆႏၵျပစရာရွိတာျပ၊ လုပ္စရာရွိတာလုပ္။ ဒါေပမဲ့ စည္းကမ္းတက် လုပ္ေဆာင္ၾကဖို႔ဆိုတဲ့ အခ်က္ကို မီးေမွာင္ထိုးျပခ်င္တဲ့ သေဘာေပါ့။

ကိုဇာနည္ ။ ။ ဟုတ္တယ္။ ၁၉၄၆-၄၇ အဂၤလိပ္ျပန္ဝင္လာၿပီး လြတ္လပ္ေရး ညိွႏိႈင္း စၿပီး။ အဂၤလိပ္နဲ႔ လြတ္လပ္ေရး စတင္ေဆြးေႏြးတဲ့အခ်ိန္မွာ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္း၊ သခင္သန္းထြန္း၊ ဦးသိန္းေဖျမင့္၊ သခင္စိုး တို႔ အကုန္ပါတယ္။ အားလံုးက အေစာပိုင္းမွာ ဒီဟာကို ေပါင္းၿပီး။ ဦးႏု တို႔ ဖဆပလေခတ္မွာ လုပ္တဲ့ဟာကို ၾကည့္ပါ။ လူေတြက ကိုယ့္အလုပ္ကို ကုိယ္လုပ္ေနၾကတာ။ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းမွာ ျပည္သူ႔ရဲေဘာ္ဆိုၿပီး ဖြဲ႔ထားတဲ့တပ္လည္းရွိတယ္။ ေနာက္တခါ ဗမာျပည္ရဲ ႔ Burma Army ဆိုၿပီး ထပ္ေပၚလာတယ္။ ေနာက္တခါ သခင္သန္းထြန္းတို႔၊ သခင္စိုးတို႔ ကလည္း အလုပ္သမား၊ လယ္သမားေတြကို စည္းရံုးတာေတြ ရွိေနတယ္။ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းကလည္း ဘုရင္ခံရဲ ႔ အတိုင္ပင္ခံ အဖြဲ႔ထဲမွာ ဝင္ၿပီးေတာ့ ဒုတိယ ဥကၠ႒အေနနဲ႔ ဝင္လုပ္ေနတယ္။ အဲဒီေတာ့ ဆိုလိုတာက က်ေနာ္တို႔က ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ က သမၼတဦးသိန္းစိန္ နဲ႔ ထိုင္စကားေျပာေနလို႔ က်န္တဲ့လူေတြက ၿငိမ္ေနရမယ္။ ကိုဇာဂနာ က ဘာလုပ္ေနလို႔ က်န္တဲ့လူေတြက ကိုဇာဂနာ ဆီက ေျပာတာက နားေထာင္ၿပီး နားစြန္႔ၿပီး သူေျပာသမွ်ကို အေနာက္က လိုက္လုပ္ပါဆိုတာ ဒါက ဒီမုိကေရစီ လႈပ္ရွားမႈလည္း မဟုတ္ဘူး။ ဒီမိုကေရစီ ထိုက္တန္တဲ့ လူထုသေဘာမ်ဳိးလည္း မဟုတ္ဘူး။ ေခါင္းေဆာင္လုပ္သမွ်ကို ထိုင္ေစာင့္ၿပီး ေခါင္းေဆာင္လုပ္မွ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ေျခလွမ္းလွမ္းမွ ေနာက္ကလိုက္တယ္ဆိုတာ အဲဒါက ေနာက္လိုက္ျပည္သူ၊ ဒီမုိကေရစီနဲ႔ တန္တဲ့ ျပည္သူမဟုတ္ဘူး။ ဘာျဖစ္လို႔လည္းဆိုေတာ့ ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္ကို ေရာက္ဖို႔က ျပည္သူက ဒီမုိကေရစီစနစ္ အေတြးအေခၚမ်ဳိး၊ စဥ္းစားမႈမ်ဳိး မရွိဘဲနဲ႔ ေနတိုင္း အဲဒီလိုမ်ဳိး မလုပ္ဘဲနဲ႔ ဘယ္ေတာ့မွ မျဖစ္ႏိုင္ဘူး။

ဦးသန္းလြင္ထြန္း ။ ။ ၿဗိတိန္ႏိုင္ငံ ဗဟာဗ်ဴဟာ ေလ့လာေရးဌာနက ျမန္မာ့အေရးသံုးသပ္သူ ေဒါက္တာဇာနည္ ကို ဆက္သြယ္ေမးျမန္းခဲ့တာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

Credit: VOA Burmese

ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ ထံ သို႕ ၈၈ မ်ိဳးဆက္ေက်ာင္သား ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ကိုေဌးၾကြယ္ (ဘူးသီးေတာင္) ေထာင္တြင္း ၌ ေရးဆြဲေသာ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္း ပုံတူ ဆီေဆး ပန္းခ်ီကား ဓာတ္ပုံကို ၁၂.၁၀.၂၀၁၁ ဘူးသီးေထာင္ မွ လႊတ္ေျမာက္လာေသာ ၈၈ မ်ိဳးဆက္ေက်ာင္းသား အဖြဲ႔ မွ ကိုသိန္သန္းထြန္း(ခ) ကိုကိုႀကီး မွ ေပးအပ္ေနပုံ (Photo- Tinhlaing)

အမ်ဳိးသားဒီမိုကေရစီ အဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ ျပန္ၾကားေရးဌာနႏွင့္ျပင္ပပန္းခ်ီပညာရွင္မ်ားမွ ဒီကေန႕ ပူးေပါင္းခင္းက်င္း ျပသေသာ “ THE PORTRAITS OF MYANMAR PEOPLE ART SHOW ပန္းခ်ီျပခန္းမွပံုမ်ားအနက္ အထူးအစီအစဥ္အေနျဖင့္ျပသထားေသာ ဘူးသီးေတာင္ အက်ဥ္းေထာင္တြင္ ေထာင္ဒဏ္က်ခံေနရေသာ ေက်ာင္းသားေခါင္းေဆာင္ ကိုေဌးၾကြယ္က ေရးဆြဲၿပီးေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ထံေပးပို႔လိုက္သည့္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းပံု ဆီေဆးပန္းခ်ီကား

ပန္းခ်ီကား၏ ညာဖက္ေအာက္ေထာင့္တြင္ အဂၤလိပ္လို ေ႒းၾကြယ္ဟု ေရးထိုးထားေသာ လက္မွတ္ ပါရွိပါသည္ ..
Photo..Ah Bayah facebook

Credit : Dawnmanhon

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the population in Arakan grew to 173,000 in 1831, 248,000 in 1839, 461,136 in 1871 and 762,102 in 1901. For the total population in Arakan to grow to those numbers it would have required yearly annual growth rates of 11.59%, 7.24%, 3.46%, and 2.74% within the first 5, 13, 45 and 75 years, respectively, since 1826. Since the first two growth rates (until 1839) cannot be explained away from natural growth, one must look at huge influx or migration from outside to Arakan as the key contributor to understand the phenomena.

K.M. Saw shares the table below about the demography in Akyab (the first 4 columns).

The above table from Burma Gazeteer, Akyab District (p. 86), clearly shows that there were at least 58,000 Rohingyas, who had identified themselves as Muslims, back in 1871, challenging, thus, Saw’s disingenuous claim that they were a product of the late 19th century British immigration policy for rice cultivation, and railway construction, etc. The Muslim population in the Akyab district should not come as a surprise given the fact that soon after the annexation of Arakan by the East India Company (EIC) in 1826, Mr. Paton, the British official who was the Controller of the Civil Affairs in Arakan, prepared an official report in which he mentioned that the total population of Arakan did not exceed 100,000 of which 60,000 were Maghs (Arakanese Buddhists) and 30,000 (Rohingya) Muslims. Here again, in contrast to Saw’s devious claims, there were already 30,000 Rohingyas living inside Arakan back in 1826. They could not have been planted by the EIC.

As the other three columns in the table above show from my calculation, the Muslim population within the district, which was 21% in 1871, became 33.7% in 1911, i.e., after 40 years. During the same period, Burmese population had jumped from 1.67% to 17.4%. Is this growth reasonable for both these population groups? What could also explain the negative growth rates amongst the Arakanese and Hilly people between 1901 and 1911?

A comparison of the population data in 1871 for the Akyab District vis-à-vis the Arakan Division shows that nearly 60% of the Division’s population lived inside the Akyab District, which had transformed itself from a fishing village in 1826 to a fast-growing town. As noted by the Imperial Gazeteer of India, nearly half the Muslim population of the province lived within the Akyab District, their total number could have been well over 100,000 (or at least 97,092) in 1871, thereby constituting nearly a quarter of the total population of 461,136 (per Britannica). The Muslim proportion in 1901 and 1911 census data is close to Mr. Paton’s report, albeit nearly three-quarter of a century later!

Assuming 62% share of the total population, the Rakhine population inside Arakan could have been at least 286,010 in 1871. It would take the Muslim (Rohingya) and Buddhist (Rakhine) population to grow annually by 2.64% and 3.53%, respectively, to reach those figures of 1871.

It must, however, be pointed out that owing partly to cultural norms of being celibate and/or marrying late, the fertility rate (~ 1%) amongst Buddhists has always been lower than Muslims and Hindus. The figure of 3.53% for the Rakhine Buddhist population is simply untenable by any measure, and could not have been possible without external factors like immigration from outside the territory. On the other hand, as we shall see below, the annual growth rate of 2.64% (between 1826 and 1871) amongst the Rohingya Muslims is not unrealistic at all. Even in this age of family planning (21st century), the yearly population growth rate amongst Muslims is about 2%, and figures as high as 3% are not too uncommon.

Amongst the racist elements within the Rakhine and Burmese Buddhist communities, much fuss has been made about the so-called influx of Muslim peasants from Chittagong. Given the EIC’s prime desire to increase its coffer, it is natural that it encouraged migration to Arakan of the descendants of the former refugees who had settled in Chittagong. Jacques Leider’s research does point out that “The major interest of the East India Company in Arakan lay in the extension of rice cultivation in the Kaladan and Lemro Valleys. This plan succeeded because the scores of Bengal Muslim labourers who had been imported from Chittagong in the middle of the nineteenth century, Akyab, the new capital, had indeed become a major port of export of rice for Europe.” One can notice that Leider mentions scores, and not thousands, of these laborers from Bengal. Such a small influx obviously did not alter the size of Muslim proportion. It is also possible that these seasonal migrant workers returned to Muslim-majority Bengal.

The sudden rise in population within the first few years of British occupation strongly suggests that there were more such ‘immigrants’ from within the Arakanese Buddhist population than any other community. For instance, there were extra 73,000 individuals in Arakan just within the first five years of British occupation, suggesting very strongly that they were recent immigrants from outside, notably from Bengal. Within the next eight years, another 75,000 individuals had added to the list of which probably 60,000 had moved from other places (the remainder being natural growth). As the law and order condition inside Arakan improved, especially after the second and third Anglo-Burmese wars, many other descendants of former refugees moved into Arakan.

As can be seen from the table below the annual growth rate of 7.8% between 1871 and 1911, esp. 10% between 1901 and 1911, amongst the Burmese population cannot be explained through natural process of procreation, and must have been influenced by external factors like migration to Arakan. The positive economic environment in Akyab must have contributed to such an influx of the Burmese people moving into the district. One can also notice that many Arakanese Buddhists had moved away to other places between 1901 and 1911. Thus, it is no accident that their percentage fell to 39.52% of the population in 1911 from being 47.9% in 1901. Could they have migrated to Chittagong Division? Since the 10% increase within the Burmese community seems unreasonable, is it possible that many of the Rakhines had identified them as Burmese and not as Arakanese Buddhists? Whatever may be the real answer, suffice it to say that the huge gain within the Burmese population (56,434) and loss (21,217) within the Rakhine population in 1901-1911 cannot be explained away without considerations or possibilities of such external factors. So is the case with the Hilly and Shan peoples of Arakan.

Interestingly, while Khin Maung Saw cries foul about the declining Arakanese (Rakhine) and Hilly population -- becoming only 45.94% (=39.52+6.42) of the total population in Akyab in 1911, he pretends to suffer from selective amnesia about why there was the loss of 21,217 individuals amongst the Rakhines between 1901 and 1911. His silence about the loss of Hilly people whose numbers had steadily declined by 4557 from 1871 to 1911 (and 1469 between 1901 and 1911) is also strange. Only a half-educated intellectual fraud could ignore such obvious signs!

In the same period (1901-11) the Rohingya Muslim population in Akyab had only increased its share from 32.16% to 33.71%, which can be explained by 1.437% annual growth rate within the community. And this rate is only half the yearly growth rate common amongst Muslim population, and may suggest that some of the residents of the district could have moved elsewhere (including to the Chittagong Division).

As already hinted, amongst many third world countries with a sizable Muslim population the yearly growth rate of 3% or higher is not uncommon. Consider the case of Pakistan (erstwhile West Pakistan prior to 16 December 1971) whose population grew 5-fold from a mere 34 million in 1951, shortly after the partition of India, to 170 million in 2010 (i.e. in six decades). Between 1951 and 1972, when it ceded Bangladesh, the yearly growth rate was 3.2%. Thanks to the family planning program, this rate has significantly come down to 2.5% in the period between 1972 and 2010.

For our purpose here, we need not go all the way westward to Pakistan, but can compare the growth rate of Muslims inside Arakan to that in nearby Bangladesh. As can be seen from the above table, Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) had a 2.8% yearly growth rate between 1951 and 1972. Thanks again to the family planning program, this rate has significantly come down to 1.7% in the period between 1972 and 2010.

From the above analysis, it is quite obvious that the growth rate among the Muslims in Akyab (2.841%) between 1871 and 1911 is at par with the trends shown in Bangladesh (2.8%). Thus, all the fuss about massive migration of Muslims from Chittagong or Bangladesh to Arakan during the British rule is not only wrong and baseless, it is racist, to say the least.

Even if we are to assume the conservative estimate of 2.8% growth rate amongst Rohingya Muslims since 1826, it is not difficult to estimate that their number could have grown to at least 313,716 in Arakan by 1911. The Rohingya population in Akyab District, per Saw’s table, would have then comprised only 57% of their total population inside Arakan.

So far from the utterly false claims of racist elements within the Rakhine community, the likes of Khin Maung Saw, Aye Kyaw and Aye Chan, the growth within the Rohingya Muslim community of Arakan was an organic one – a natural one, which had nothing to do with so-called influx or migration from British Bengal or Chittagong. On the other hand, much of the early increase in Rakhine and Burmese population to Akyab and Arakan do clearly show that it was due to external factors like migration.

As every student of historiography knows the borders in those days were much porous, thus facilitating population movement. It is, similarly, not far-fetched to suggest that the many of those lost from Arakan census account of 1911, could well have migrated to places like Chittagong Hill Tract and Cox’s Bazar (southern Chittagong) in today’s Bangladesh.

Conclusion:

In the above analysis of British-era demography of Arakan, in contradistinction to K. M. Saw’s bloated and unsubstantiated claims that while “Arakan was a colonie d'exploitation to the British, but to the Chittagonian Bengalis, Arakan became a colonie de peuplement” what one actually notices is a clear racist campaign by a half-educated Burmese/Arakanese Buddhist extremist who has no knowledge of demography. Unfortunately, Saw is not alone and there are many within his ethnic community that thrives on selling poison pills of racism and bigotry against the Rohingyas of Burma.

As we have noticed, the so-called influx to Arakan was caused by the Rakhines and not Rohingyas (or so-called Chittagonians from Bangladesh). The Rakhines of Arakan should be thankful that the Burmese government has not applied its highly racist and bigotry-ridden litmus test towards citizenship against them, many of whose ancestors had moved into the territory of Arakan from Bengal during the British rule. Their accusation against the Rohingyas of Arakan -- who are the true Bhumi Putras (the indigenous children of the soil) -- is like that of a criminal who accuses its victims.

Regrettably, xenophobia, sponsored by the Burmese government and aided by Rakhaing ultra-nationalists, has caused forced exodus of 1.5 million Rohingya Muslims to seek refuge outside Burma, internal displacement of at least a million, and death of another 50,000. Rohingyas are denied each and every right guaranteed under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Extra-judicial killing and summery executions, humiliating movement restriction, denial of education, job and healthcare, rape of women, arrest and torture, forced labor, forced relocation, confiscation of moveable and immoveable properties, religious sacrileges, etc., are regular occurrences in Arakan, making the Rohingya people an endangered people of our time who require special protection under international laws.

As regional specialists like the distinguished historian - Professor David Ludden of the New York University (and previously with the Ivy League school - U Penn), have repeatedly shown through the massive scholarly works that bear their names – rather than having one singular origin, South Asia and South-East Asia have always included many peoples and cultures which had different points of origin and departures and followed distinctive historical trajectories. What is promoted by ultra-nationalist, narrow-minded revisionists, pseudo-historians as the single tree of their culture, rooted in their racial and religious myths, is actually more like a vast forest of many cultures filled with countless trees of various sizes, shades, ages, colors and types, constantly cross-breeding to fertilize one another. The profusion of cultures blurs the boundaries of the forest. The so-called cultural boundaries of our time are more like an artifact of modern national cultures than an accurate reflection of pre-modern conditions.

Will the revisionist historians and charlatan scholars of Burma reflect upon this fact and amend their ways to make a more inclusive world in our time?

It is high time that the government of Burma repeal its utterly criminal, morally indefensible, repugnant and inhuman Citizenship Law that has denied the right of citizenship and belonging to the millions of Rohingyas of Arakan, who are the true children of the soil.

************ Concluded *********

[Dr Siddiqui’s book - The Forgotten Rohingya: Their Struggle for Human Rights in Burma – is available from Amazon.com]

Burma is undergoing top-down changes, we are being told.

Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, after his whirlwind trip to the country, told the Financial Times on Oct 11, “I almost left the country thinking they're moving a little too fast. I never thought I would say that about Myanmar.”

Last month, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) issued its latest report on Burma, “Myanmar: Major Reform Underway,” which brims with false hopes, unwarranted optimism, and projected possibilities for Burma—so much so that James C. Scott, Yale’s renowned Southeast Asianist, felt compelled to publicly criticize the ICG’s Burma spin in an interview with the Democratic Voice of Burma.

Driven by divergent agendas and interests, both influential external players and local commercial and technocratic interests are ignoring the country’s power and economic realities while singing the praise of Naypyidaw’s reform.

Notwithstanding the new mood music in the background, Burma's generals and ex-generals cannot conceivably succeed in frog-marching the country towards peace, prosperity and democracy. A glance at their half-century-old record of failures at playing omniscient nation-builders suffices.

The country is ranked second to last, just ahead of Somalia, on Transparency International's Corruption Index. There are pockets of local communities whose socioeconomic and humanitarian conditions are closer to those of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa than to those of an Asian country about to “take off” developmentally.

State provision of health services exists only in name, and so does public education, the largest provider of schooling. But that’s good news for global bankers such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which typically insists on drastically cutting public expenditures in exchange for massive loans.

The country’s environment and communities face serious threats to their survival from some mega-development projects such as dam construction—there are still six dams being built on the Irrawaddy after the halting of the Myitsone dam—and the two major Chinese gas and oil pipelines and Thailand’s US $13 billion Special Economic Zone construction in the country's far south.

In the midst of economically rising Asia, the country produces the fifth largest refugee population in the world. The Burma Army is still waging military operations against armed ethnic groups such as the Kachin Independence Army and the Karen National Union.

For foreign policy makers and gurus who wish to convince the Burmese public and international skeptics of the genuineness of the changes underway in Burma, they must address two outstanding issues on which they have so far been silent.

First, the current top-down changes are not going to make a dent in the most fundamental power relations between the citizenry and the exclusive ruling club of generals and ex-generals, still in service or in civilian skirts. Without both the genuine acknowledgment of and putting into practice the universal democratic ethos of “We the People as Sovereign,” no government can claim to be moving in the direction of some form of democracy. There are no signs that Naypyidaw-men have stopped viewing themselves as the country’s “divine rulers.”

On the contrary, the Nargis Constitution of 2008—so-called as it was imposed on the country amid the cyclone disaster—places the military above the law and legalizes any military coup at the whims of the commander-in-chief. This clearly violates both the spirit and letter of constitutionalism.

For the military’s Constitution is not to curb the generals’ excessive powers, but to further enshrine them.

The Asian Human Rights Commission puts it thus: “The 2008 Constitution is in terms of human rights a norm-less constitution. Under its provisions, the armed forces are placed outside of judicial authority. The military, not the judiciary, is the constitution’s guardian. The judiciary is separated from other branches of government only 'to the extent possible.'”

Second, the main economic policy changes—for what is politics without the economic?—such as attempts to readjust the country’s exchange rate with the help of the IMF and “privatizing” public assets, which in reality is a Russian-style wealth transfer into the pockets of the generals and their cronies, will neither improve the public welfare nor equitably increase the people’s stake in the economy.

In the first quarter century of the generals’ rule (1962-88), the late Gen Ne Win impoverished both the military and the public through his economically ruinous “Burmese Way to Socialism.” In the second quarter century since 1988, his successor—Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his underlings—have pursued “the Burmese Way to Capitalism.” Burma now has a new class of super-rich generals and cronies, who share the massive spoils at the expense of the multi-ethnic public and the environment.

Needless to say, the global oil, gas and mining corporations—for instance, France’s Total and the USA’s Chevron—and Burma’s Asian neighbors have gleefully grabbed as much of the loot of one of the world’s “last economic frontiers” that they can lay their hands on.

For the Burmese public, by the time they have earned their civil and political rights to organize, associate and protest, there will be nothing left worth protesting for.

Upon his release from Myitkyina jail, where he was serving a 35-year prison sentence, my friend Zarganar summed up the local disbelief when he told The Irrawaddy in an interview: “I wanted to believe in these positive changes that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi [and others] spoke about. But since this morning [upon release], I lost belief in them because I found that the government does not even have a genuine desire to release all political prisoners.”

And the comedian is speaking for the Burmese public.

Daw Suu’s positive characterization of President Thein Sein and his “want for positive changes” reminds me of former US President George W Bush and his discovery of former KGB agent Vladimir Putin‘s soul in the latter’s eyes.

Again Zarganar was spot on when he pointedly said that Naypyidaw has been handling amnesties in Burma in a fashion more akin to Somali pirates than a regime that has just had a “change of heart.”

Truth is, the same old military leadership is aggressively engaged in a well-timed and well-calculated strategy designed to placate diverse target groups, both domestically and internationally, with carefully crafted multiple spins.

Furthermore, after 20 years of trying to break, eliminate and marginalize their nemesis Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the generals have finally found an effective way to clip her wings with her own discourse of “peaceful transition” towards democracy and reconciliation.

There is arising a monumental problem with Daw Suu abandoning the streets, which were her original political home as a viable political space, in her hopeful quest for reformist needles in the parliamentary haystacks. There is neither an FW de Klerk nor a Fidel V Ramos within or outside the rubber-stamp Parliament in Naypyidaw.

Unlike de Klerk, Naypyidaw’s generals and ex-generals still do not think there is anything fundamentally wrong with them and their warped worldview. Unlike Ramos, Ferdinand Marcos’ cousin and the West Point-trained reformist who headed the Philippines’ Constabulary, President Thein Sein commands neither the military nor its respect.

It is far more important to take a glance at Naypyidaw’s old designs and new maneuvers than to look straight into the president’s eyes and find sparkles of reformism.

These include the farce of checks and balances, the establishment of a quasi-autonomous human rights commission, the emerging space for pliable presidential advisers, or “useful idiots” as Lenin bluntly put it, and launching concurrently a series of diplomatic offensives at presidential, ministerial and adviser levels to Washington, Beijing, New Delhi and Jakarta.

On the international propaganda front, Naypyidaw is now engaged in well-coordinated public relations work which includes placing well-timed opinion editorials in The New York Times, Al Jazeera, and The Bangkok Post in its quest for normalization and acceptance of the quasi-constitutional military government with a civilian face through a carefully crafted narrative of Naypyidaw’s “hardliners vs reformers.”

Under the fog of trumpeted changes, even the presidential spin regarding the decision to halt the Myitsone Dam—that the new government is acting in accord with the democratic creed—sounds far less genuine and convincing after the Oct 12 amnesty and resultant release of some 10 percent of Burma's politcal prisoners than when the Myitsone decision was first announced. In fact, in a recent interview with The Voice Weekly, the regime's Burmese-language propaganda proxy, the president’s political adviser, ex-Col Ko Ko Hlaing, made it clear that halting the Myitsone Dam wasn’t a big deal for Naypyidaw because it was just a “small component” of the entire Irrawaddy dam scheme Naypyidaw is still actively pursuing.

So, modest political relaxation as opposed to meaningful democratization is a small price the regime seems prepared to pay the West in order for the Naypyidaw regime to be able to effectively fine-tune its geopolitical interests abroad and the system’s domestic safety valves.

In less than six months, whatever its façade, the military will be celebrating its Golden Jubilee as the world’s oldest dictatorship, which has outlived its world contemporaries, including the likes of Suharto, Marcos and, most recently, Colonel Gaddafi.

It would be a grave mistake for Burma’s democrats to underestimate the ruling elite’s “will to power, control and wealth” and their boundless ability to deceive their opponents and adversaries. Indeed, bypassing Naypyidaw, the real winds of change are blowing only in places like Washington, Oslo, Brussels, Jakarta, Rangoon and Jakarta, where different interests feel an urgent need to resume business as usual in the generals’ Burma.

ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွ ေဆာ္ဒီႏုိင္ငံသို႕ ဟခ်္ဘုရားဖူးသြား ဗီဇာရရွိ ခက္ခဲရွိသူမ်ားစုေပါင္း၍ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္သမၼတ ၊ ေဆာ္ဒီသံရံုး ႏွင့္ သာသနာေရး၀န္ႀကီးဌာန သို႕ အဆိုပါအခက္အခဲကို ေျဖရွင္းေပးရန္ စာေပးပို႕ခဲ့ၿပီး ေအာက္တိုဘာလ ၂၇ ရက္ေန႕အထိ မည္သုိ႕ေသာ ေျဖရွင္းမႈမ်ိဳးမွ မလုပ္ေဆာင္ေပးပါက ၂၈ရက္ေန႕တြင္  ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းစြာ ဆႏၵျပမည္ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ဗီဇာရရွိရန္ ေစာင့္ဆိုင္းေနသူမ်ားထံမွသိရသည္။

“စာစီတာ မေန႕က မၿပီးလို႕ ဒီေန႕ အကုန္စာစီ သေဘာတူၿပီးဒီေန႕ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ သမၼတ ဆီရယ္ သာသနာေရး၀န္ႀကီးဆီရယ္ ေဆာ္ဒီသံရံုးဆီကို စာေပးပို႕ထားတယ္ အျမန္ဆံုးေျဖရွင္းေပးဖို႕ေပါ့ ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕ကလည္း ေစာင့္ၾကည့္အံုးမယ္ တကယ္လို႕ လာမယ့္အပတ္ ဗုဒၵဟူး ၂၇ ရက္ေန႕ မွာမွ မေျဖရွင္းေပးဘူးဆိုရင္ ေဆာ္ဒီသံရံုးေရွ႕မွာ ကြ်န္ေတာ္တို႕ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းစြာ ဆႏၵျပမွာ” ဟု ဟခ်္ဘုရားဖူးသြားရန္ ဗီဇာေစာင့္ဆိုင္းေနသူ တစ္ဦးက ေျပာသည္။

ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္သမၼတ၊ အစၥလမ္ဘာသာေရးရာအဖြဲ႕အစည္း ငါးဖြဲ႕ ႏွင့္ေဆာ္ဒီသံရံုးမွ၀န္ႀကီးမ်ားမွ ေတြ႕ဆံု၍ ညိွႏိႈ္င္းေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးလိုေၾကာင္း ႏွင့္ ဗီဇာရရွိရန္ ၇၀၀၀ ေက်ာ္ခန္႕ ေစာင့္ဆိုင္းေနသူမ်ားလည္း ရွိေၾကာင္းသိရသည္။

“ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ သမၼတႀကီးရယ္ အစၥလမ္ဘာသာေရးအဖြဲ႕အစည္းက ငါးဖြဲ႕ရွိတယ္ သူတို႕ေတြရယ္ ေဆာ္ဒီသံရံုးက ၀န္ႀကီးေတြရယ္ ေတြ႕ဆံုၿပီး ေျဖရွင္းေပးေစလိုပါတယ္ အရင္ေန႕ေတြက တစ္ေထာင္ေက်ာ္ရွိတာ အခု ေဆာ္ဒီသံရံုးေရွ႕မွာ ဗီဇာေစာင့္ေနသူေတြက ခုႏွစ္ေထာင္ေလာက္ရွိေနၿပီ  “ဟု ဟာရီ ဦးစိန္ျမင့္ ကေျပာသည္။

ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္သမၼတအေနျဖင့္လည္း ဘာသာေရးရာကိစၥကို ေျဖရွင္းေပးေစလိုေၾကာင္း ၊ ဒီမိုကေရစီစနစ္ကို ကူးေျပာင္းေပးေနေၾကာင္းကိုယံုၾကည္လိုေသာေၾကာင့္ ေဆာ္ဒီႏိုင္ငံဟခ်္ဘုရားဖူးသြားႏိုင္ရန္ ဗီဇာရရွိေရးတြင္ အဆင္ေျပလုိေၾကာင္း သိရသည္။

“ ေျမနီကုန္းရဲစခန္းမွာလည္း  ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းစြာနဲ႕ ဆႏၵျပဖို႕ စာတင္ထားတယ္ လႊတ္ေတာ္မွာ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းစြာ စီတန္းလွည့္လည္ခြင့္တို႕ဘာတို႕ ဥပေဒအတည္ျပဳဖို႕ လုပ္ေနတယ္လည္းၾကားတယ္ လႊတ္ေတာ္ကိုဘဲ အားကိုးေနလို႕ မရဘူးေလ အခုက လာမယ့္ ႏို၀င္ဘာ ၃ရက္ေန႕ဆို ေဆာ္ဒီႏိုင္ငံက ေလယာဥ္ဆိုက္ခြင့္ ရက္နားေတာ့မွာ ေျဖရွင္းမေပးခဲ့ရင္ေတာ့ ဒါဟာ စစ္မွန္တဲ့ ဒီမိုကေရစီစနစ္မဟုတ္ဘူး ၊ ယံုၾကည္ခ်က္လည္းမရွိေတာ့ဘူး ယံုၾကည္ခ်င္တယ္ အစိုးရသစ္လက္ထက္မွာေပါ့”ဟု ဗီဇာရရွိရန္ ေဆာ္ဒီသံရံုးေရွ႕တြင္ လာေရာက္ေစာင့္ဆိုင္းသူ တစ္ဦးက ေျပာသည္။

ဗီဇာ အခက္အခဲေၾကာင့္ ေဆာ္ဒီသံရံုးေရွ႕တြင္ ၇၀၀၀ ဦးေရခန္႕ရွိၿပီး သက္ဆိုင္ရာ အာဏာပိုင္မ်ားမွ ေျဖရွင္းေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးျခင္းကို ေအာက္တိုဘာ ၂၇ရက္ေန႕ေစာင့္ၾကည့္မည္ျဖစ္ၿပီး ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးျခင္းမရွိပါက ၂၈ ရက္ေန႕တြင္ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းစြာ ဆႏၵျပသြားမည္ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္းသိရသည္။

Credit: Myit Makha Media Group

With a nascent national human rights mechanism and freshly stated commitments to freedom and the rule of law, Myanmar stood poised to end its persistent patterns of rights violations and to consolidate democratic gains, said a top human rights expert at a Headquarters press conference today.

“This is a key moment in Myanmar’s history,” said Tomas Ojea Quintana, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Mynamar, adding, that there was a real opportunity to deepen the commitment to democracy. The country had taken a number of steps towards fulfilling its stated intention to transition towards democracy, including by forming a National Human Rights Commission and releasing some of Myanmar’s long-detained “prisoners of conscience”. But it remained to be seen if Myanmar would take tangible steps to further the transition, he warned.

Mr. Quintana briefed correspondents following the presenting his annual report yesterday to the General Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), during which he had focused on developments following Myanmar’s legislative elections of 7 November 2010 and the formation of its new Government in April 2011 (see Press Release GA/SHC/4015).

Referring to his report, Mr. Quintana said the new Myanmar administration, led by President Thein Sein, had set out a number of commitments to reform — including safeguarding human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the rule of law and an independent judiciary, respect for the role of the media and the protection of social and economic rights, among others. It had also decided to grant release and grant amnesty to a significant number of prisoners, including an estimated 200 “prisoners of conscience”, who had widely been described as political detainees.

He said the Government’s first session had addressed a number of “important and sensitive issues” relevant to the promotion and protection of human rights. Those had included land tenure rights and land confiscation, the registration of associations and trade unions, and discrimination against ethnic minorities, including the predominantly Muslim Rohingya people. The second session, in August 2011, had set up the National Human Rights Commission and other State bodies.


However, despite those strides, the Mr. Quintana noted that certain patterns of “gross and systematic violations of human rights” still existed in Myanmar, and the Government’s expressed commitments had largely not materialized through concrete actions. In drafting his report, he had undertaken several visits to Myanmar and had met with a wide array of Government officials, representatives of ethnic political parties, civil society representatives and even prisoners themselves.

He said he had focused his efforts on four key issues: the functioning of State institutions; the situation of ethnic minorities; the overall human rights situation; and truth, justice and accountability. He had also made a series of recommendations, he said.


“I called on the new Government to intensify its efforts to implement its own human rights commitments and to fulfil its international obligations”, he said, adding that, even after the important establishment of Myanmar’s National Human Rights Commission in August, there was still no way to verify that body’s efficiency or independence. Among other challenges addressed in his report were the need to address Myanmar’s longstanding social, economic and development challenges, particularly in conflict-affected and ethnic minority-dominated border areas.

Responding to several requests for further information on his meetings with prisoners of conscience, Mr. Quintana said that he had been granted access to Insein Prison in Yangon in August 2011. He had maintained, as a precondition for the visit, the need for privacy and independence from Government officials. A United Nations interpreter had also been employed for all dialogue with prisoners. Despite the recent release of some prisoners, many — including the leaders of political movements who had been imprisoned for more than two decades — remained incarcerated. “I am pushing the Government to release all remaining political prisoners by the end of the year,” he stressed.


Given the creation of the National Human Rights Commission, another correspondent wondered if the Special Rapporteur would continue to reiterate his previous calls for a commission of inquiry into the patterns of human rights violations in Myanmar. “I keep receiving allegations that [violations] are taking place”, he confirmed, emphasizing that ensuring justice and accountability was a critical way to deter such abuses. However, his calls for a commission of inquiry had been made as just one recommendation among many possible ways for the country to achieve justice, he said; instead, the national human rights body had been created.


In that connection, he again reminded correspondents that it was too early to assess the independence or effectiveness of that mechanism. According to his report to the General Assembly, he had recommended that the Commission fully comply with the Paris Principles and be equipped with the necessary resources, capacity and technical assistance, with support from the international community and particularly the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). He hoped to engage with the Commission and meet with its members, and to present, in his report to the Human Rights Council in March 2012, preliminary assessments as to how the new body could play a role in ensuring justice, accountability and access to truth.

Credit: UN news Center

By David I Steinberg

The Arab Spring, the several successful and still ongoing rebellions against authoritarian governments in the Middle East, have a mutual characteristic beyond that of having occurred in Arabic-speaking societies. All originated from below - from populations that have been frustrated by severe political and social constraints often compounded by clear economic injustices.

Beginning in Tunisia with the self-immolation of a street vendor, the movement spread to a half-dozen societies. Hope for real and positive changes in those countries is apparent both in the region and abroad. The power of such movements is inspiring. Perhaps, some thought, this would affect other authoritarian states outside the region and usher in a new democratic wave. Myanmar and North Korea were prominently mentioned in the media.

A distinguished American who visited Myanmar in the summer of 2011 commented that he thought the Arab Spring would also affect Myanmar. But this view neglected to consider the unique circumstances that make such a revolution from below unlikely there in the near term.

Contrary to many expectations that significant changes could not take place under a new but military-controlled government installed in 2011 in a flawed election and ominously designated by its leadership as a "disciplined-flourishing democracy", important and positive developments are occurring and more are promised.

These positive signs should in no way obscure where essential power rests: the military have built into their new constitution the elements of perpetual, but civilianized, control yet within the context of a somewhat more plural and popularly-responsive society.

Contrary to the Arab Spring, the potential changes in Myanmar are coming from the top. Belatedly, the military-in-mufti leadership seems finally to have understood that to keep essential power, they had to institute some socio-economic liberalization and even some modest degree of political pluralism.

Burma/Myanmar has tried revolts from the bottom - the tragic people's revolution of 1988 that failed against a single-party socialist military-dominated government only to have it replaced by a coup of other military personnel. The incipient 2007 "Saffron" revolution of Buddhist monks, widespread and important demonstrations but not a revolution, was also brutally suppressed when it became overtly political.

The history of modern East Asia demonstrates that the democracies that exist in that region were largely instigated from the bottom. "People Power" in the Philippines in 1986 that overthrew dictator Ferdinand Marcos; the popular, peaceful uprising in South Korea in 1987 that eliminated Chun Doo-hwan's authoritarian rule; demonstrations against the military in Thailand on numerous occasions; and the fall of Suharto in Indonesia in 1998 all started at the bottom of the power structure.

Only in Taiwan did president Chiang Ching-kuo, to preserve his regime, recognize that change was necessary and due, and institute reforms from the top of the political hierarchy.

The potential reforms in Myanmar are as widespread as they were unexpected. From accounts inside that state, the people generally seem to be prepared to await the possibility of political and economic evolution of their past sorry state. Economic reforms are planned. Widespread poverty is admitted officially for the first time in a half-century. Corruption is recognized as a problem.

Human rights are discussed. Minorities are given a bit more say in their affairs. Censorship has been eased, and labor unions are to be allowed. A major, and hated, Chinese dam project was stopped by the president because of public sentiment. Many political prisoners - whose existence has been denied for so long - have been released, and even Myanmar dissidents abroad have been invited back, with a few tentatively starting to return.

These planned changes are fragile, for they cut into the vested interests of many, including high-level military officials and their civilian colleagues, who prefer the old ways. So we cannot but remain concerned for the diverse peoples of Myanmar. Inside that country, the new administration has a short but indeterminate period in which it must deliver on many of these proposed reforms.

The people must feel there is a future for them that is not only though military-controlled channels. That period is not indefinite, however. Even if the reforms are implemented and life begins to improve, the ultimate power will still rest for some indefinite future with the military. It is only when diverse, alternative channels of mobility and access to better living conditions occur that the military may relax its ultimate control and modify its constitutional powers. But other states have demonstrated that life can improve under less than pristine democratic conditions. Perhaps that is a realizable goal for Myanmar in the near future.

Without illusion and hyperbole, therefore, the outside world should encourage such changes. The alternative in Myanmar of the traumas and deaths in a Syria or Yemen-like environment should be avoided. Although they had long planned for a civilianized state, perhaps the Myanmar military understood the lessons from the Middle East: if the leadership refuses to reform, society may force change. It may not be the revolution that some have desired, but it does bring the possibility of positive change in Myanmar.

David I Steinberg is Distinguished Professor of Asian Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. His latest book is Burma/Myanmar: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford). 

WE, the undersigned, who work closely with refugees and asylum-seekers from Myanmar living in Malaysia, express our deep concern over two recent immigration-related developments that jeopardise the security of refugees and asylum-seekers in Malaysia.

Firstly, whilst we laud the government for considering the issue of over-crowding at detention centres, the detainee swap initiative between the Malaysian and Myanmar governments is not the appropriate solution. In fact, it could potentially put the lives of refugees and asylum-seekers at risk.

Ethnic and religious minorities in Myanmar have over the past 20 years been fleeing oppressive conditions of forced labour, confiscation of lands/homes, systematic rape, torture and other forms of religious and ethnic persecution, which has led to the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people. The majority of Myanmar nationals in Malaysia are persons fleeing such persecution.

Under the Malaysian Immigration Act 1959/1963, refugees and asylum-seekers too are detained in immigration detention centres. Unlike migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers have a well-founded fear of persecution in their homeland; hence they flee their country of origin “and cannot return home”. The principle of non-refoulement in Article 33 (1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention states that: “No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” The deportation arising from the swap with Burma of immigration detainees contravenes this principle because of the presence of detainees in detention centres who are potentially refugees and asylum-seekers.

Secondly, during the 6P registration programme, it was highlighted that some refugee applicants received a “Slip Pendaftaran Pati” which contained a line that said “Tujuan: Pulang ke Negara Asal” (Intention: Return to Home Country). This is despite the fact that they are refugees recognised by the UNHCR. We call on the government to immediately rectify this error to prevent refugees from being refouled; and to recognise that any registration of refugees must be done in full collaboration with the UNHCR, within a framework that will recognise and protect their rights.

We therefore call on the government to:

-- Work in close collaboration with the UNHCR to ascertain and immediately release individuals who are refugees and especially asylum-seekers who have yet to lodge an asylum claim with the UNHCR;

-- Provide lawyers and NGOs access to detention centres to represent detainees who seek to lodge an asylum claim.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) today called on the international community to maintain pressure on the regime in Burma to implement significant and substantial change, release all political prisoners, stop war crimes and crimes against humanity and end impunity.

CSW also urges the United Nations to adopt measures to address violations of international law and ensure justice and accountability in the forthcoming General Assembly resolution on Burma. In his report to the UN General Assembly, released last week, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana, reiterated his call for a commission of inquiry into violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. An investigation, he argues, “is not only an obligation but would deter future violations and provide avenues of redress for victims.”

Since President Thein Sein took office on 30 March, at least 30 cases of rape and sexual violence perpetrated by Burma Army soldiers have been reported, and the International Labour Organisation has received over 400 complaints of the forced recruitment of child soldiers. The regime has launched a new offensive against the Kachin ethnic people, breaking a 17-year ceasefire, while continuing attacks on civilians in other parts of the country, including Karen and Shan states, and severe violations of human rights in Chin, Arakan and Mon states. At least 35 civilians have been killed in ethnic states, and the widespread and systematic use of forced labour, forced displacement, religious persecution and torture continues.

On 12 October 6,359 prisoners were released, of whom only 220 were political prisoners. Almost 2,000 political prisoners remain in prison. CSW urges the Burmese regime to recognise the existence of political prisoners, erase the criminal records of activists wrongly charged under criminal law, and announce an unconditional general amnesty for all political prisoners. In particular, CSW reiterates its call for the release of 88 General leaders Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Ko Mya Aye, Shan National League for Democracy (SNLD) leader Khun Htun Oo, and U Gambira, a Buddhist monk who helped lead the 2007 pro-democracy demonstrations. CSW also urges the regime to relocate prisoners currently in remote jails to prisons closer to their families prior to their release, so that they can be reunited with their families more easily and quickly.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) should be provided unrestricted access to prisons to assess the conditions, meet prisoners and provide assistance. The regime should also open unhindered access for humanitarian organisations to all parts of the country.

CSW’s East Asia Team Leader Benedict Rogers said, “President Thein Sein has made a few encouraging gestures, taken a few symbolic steps and adopted some reformist rhetoric. Such steps, such as meeting Aung San Suu Kyi, suspending the construction of the Myitsone dam and releasing 220 political prisoners, are in themselves welcome and should be encouraged, but they fall well short of amounting to meaningful change. President Thein Sein now needs to match his rhetoric and gestures with significant and substantive action. If real change is to occur in Burma, the regime must release all political prisoners, stop violations of international law, declare a nationwide ceasefire and enter into a meaningful dialogue with the ethnic nationalities and the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi towards national reconciliation. Until these steps occur, the international community must maintain pressure, and consider measures in the General Assembly resolution on Burma for addressing violations of international law, ensuring justice and accountability, and ending impunity.”

1. In his report to the General Assembly, available here: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/365, the UN Special Rapporteur expressed concern that “a pattern of gross and systematic violations of human rights has existed for many years and continues today, although a new political system is being established.” He emphasised that “justice and accountability measures, as well as measures to ensure access to the truth, are essential”. While responsibility for ending impunity lies primarily with the new regime in Burma, if it fails to investigate crimes, the international community has a responsibility to act. He reiterated his recommendation for the establishment of a UN commission of inquiry “into gross and systematic human rights violations that could amount to crimes against humanity and/or war crimes.”

2. The 88 Generation Students Group includes student leaders who took part in Burma’s pro-democracy protests in 1988.  Those from the Group who are currently detained in Burma have some of the longest prison sentences of all Burmese political prisoners.

Credit :CSW

by The Voice Weekly 

ဘဂၤလား ပင္လယ္ေအာ္တြင္ ၂၀၁၁ ခုႏွစ္အတြင္း ဒုတိယအႀကိမ္ေျမာက္ ျဖစ္ေပၚခဲ့သည့့္ 02B ဟု အမည္ေပးထားေသာ မုန္တိုင္းငယ္သည္ ေအာက္တိုဘာလ ၁၉ ရက္ေန႕ ညေနက စစ္ေတြၿမိဳ႕သို႔ ျဖတ္သန္းသြားၿပီး မုန္တိုင္းေၾကာင့္ ရခိုင္ျပည္နယ္ ၿမိဳ႕ေတာ္ စစ္ေတြတြင္ အိမ္ေျခ အနည္းဆုံး ၄၀ ခန္႕ ပ်က္စီးသြားခဲ့ေၾကာင္း စစ္ေတြၿမိဳ႕ ေမာလိပ္ရပ္ကြက္ တြင္ ေနထိုင္သူ ဦးခင္ေမာင္သိန္းက The Voice Weekly သို႕ေျပာၾကားသည္။

အဆိုပါ မုန္တိုင္းသည္ ေအာက္တိုဘာလ ၁၉ ရက္ေန႕ ညေနပိုင္း (၄) နာရီခြဲ အခ်ိန္ခန္႕ကစၿပီး ဘဂၤလားေဒ့ရွ္ႏိုင္ငံ ေကာ့ဗဇားၿမိဳ႕ႏွင့္ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံ ေမာင္ေတာၿမိဳ႕တို႕၏ ႀကားမွ ကုန္းတြင္းပိုင္းသုိ႔ စတင္ ဝင္ေရာက္ခဲ့ျခင္း ျဖစ္ျပီး ညေန (၆) နာရီခြဲ အခ်ိန္တြင္ ကုန္းတြင္းပိုင္းသို႔ လံုးဝဝင္ေရာက္ သြားခဲ့ၿပီျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း မိုးေလဝသႏွင့္ ဇလေဗဒပညာရွင္ ဦးထြန္းလြင္ ၏ Website မွတစ္ဆင့္ သိရွိရသည္။

" ရာသီဥတုကေတာ့ အံု႕မိႈင္းေနေသးတယ္၊ တစ္ၿမိဳ႕လုံး ေရ ၂ ေပေလာက္ တတ္တယ္၊ အခုေတာ့ ျပန္က်သြားၿပီ၊ အိမ္ သံုးေလးဆယ္ေလာက္ ေခါင္မိုးေတြ ကြၽတ္ကုန္တယ္ " ဟု ေမာလိပ္ရပ္ကြက္တြင္ ေနထိုင္သူ တစ္ဦးက စစ္ေတြၿမိဳ႕၏ မုန္တိုင္းလြန္ အေျခအေနႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍ ရွင္းျပခဲ့သည္။

စစ္ေတြၿမိဳ႕ အျခားေနရာမ်ားတြင္ ေနထိုင္သူမ်ားကမူ စစ္ေတြတြင္ မုန္တိုင္းေၾကာင့္ ထိခိုက္မႈ ဆိုးဆိုးရြားရြား မရွိဟု ေျပာဆိုၾကသည္။ သို႕ရာတြင္ မုန္တိုင္းေၾကာင့္ ေနာက္ဆုံး ထိခိုက္ပ်က္စီးမႈ အေျခအေနမ်ားႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍ The Voice Weekly က ဆက္လက္ စံုစမ္းလွ်က္ ရွိသည္။

ေအာက္တိုဘာ ၁၈ ရက္ေန႕က ဘဂၤလား ပင္လယ္ေအာ္တြင္ ျဖစ္ေပၚလ်က္ ရွိေနေသာ မုန္တိုင္းငယ္မွာ တျဖည္းျဖည္း အားေကာင္းလာေနၿပီး လာမည့္ ၄၈ နာရီအတြင္း ရခိုင္ျပည္ ေျမာက္ပိုင္းစြန္း ကမ္းရိုးတန္းသို႔ ဝင္ေရာက္ လာႏိုင္ဖြယ္ ရွိေနေၾကာင္းႏွင့္ စစ္ေတြ၊ ပုဏၰားကၽြန္း၊ ၊ဘူးသီးေတာင္၊ ေမာင္ေတာၿမိဳ႕နယ္တိုတြင္ သက္ဆိုင္ရာၿမိဳ႕နယ္ အာဏာပိုင္မ်ားမွ ပင္လယ္ျပင္ ငါးဖမ္းသမားမ်ားႏွင့္ ခရီးသြားျပည္သူမ်ားကို ညအိပ္မသြားရန္ႏွင့္ မုန္တိုင္း အႏၱရာယ္ ႀကိဳတင္ ကာကြယ္ ထားၾကရန္ သတိေပး ႏႈိးေဆာ္ေနသည္ဟု ေမာင္ေတာၿမိဳ႕ခံ တစ္ဦးက ရွင္းျပသည္။

" အပ်က္အစီး အေသအေပ်ာက္ မၾကားမိပါဘူး၊ မေန႔ကေတာ့ မိုးအရမ္းရြာတယ္၊ အခု မိုးရိပ္ေတြ ရွိေသးတယ္ " ဟု ဘူးသီးေတာင္ၿမိဳ႕ သေဘၤာဆိပ္အနီးတြင္ ေနထိုင္သူ အမ်ိဳးသမီး တစ္ဦးက The Voice Weekly သို႕ မုန္တိုင္းအလြန္ အေျခအေနႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍ တယ္လီဖုန္းမွတဆင့္ ရွင္းျပခဲ့သည္။

၂၀၀၆ ခုႏွစ္မွ စတင္၍ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံသုိ႕ မုန္တိုင္းမ်ား ႏွစ္စဥ္ ဝင္ေရာက္ခဲ့ရာ (၆) ႏွစ္ေျမာက္ မုန္တိုင္းအျဖစ္ မွတ္တမ္းဝင္ ခဲ့သည့္ 02B မုန္တိုင္းသည္ ယမန္ေန႕ ညေနပိုင္းက အညိဳေရာင္အဆင့္ မိုင္ ၇၀ ခန္႔ တိုက္ႏိုင္သည့္အဆင့္ မုန္တိုင္း ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ေအာက္တိုဘာလ ၁၉ ရက္ေန႔က ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံ မိုးေလဝသႏွင့္ ဇလေဗဒ ညြန္ၾကားမႈ ဦးစီးဌာနက သတင္း ထုတ္ျပန္ထားသည္။

Credit : The Voice Weekly 

မရမ္းကုန္းၿမိဳ႕နယ္ သမုိင္းဘူတာရုံလမ္း ၿမိဳ႕မပရိယတၱိ စာသင္တိုက္တြင္ ယေန႔နံနက္ က်င္းပျပဳလုပ္သည့္ ေမြးေန႔ပြဲကုိ ျမန္မာ့ဒီမုိကေရစီ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္လည္း တက္ေရာက္ခဲ့ၿပီး လူရႊင္ေတာ္ ကုိဇာဂနာက ကုိမင္းကုိႏုိင္ စပ္ဆုိေရးသားသည့္ ကဗ်ာတပုဒ္ကုိ ရြတ္ဆုိကာ သီခ်င္းသံၿပိဳင္ပိုဒ္ကို သီဆိုခဲ့ေၾကာင္း တက္ေရာက္ခဲ့သည့္ NLD အဖြဲ႔၀င္ တဦးကေျပာသည္။

“သမၼတႀကီး ခင္ဗ်ား ကုိမင္းကုိႏုိင္ကုိ ေမြးေန႔လက္ေဆာင္ ေပးတဲ့အေနနဲ႔ ဒီေန႔ပဲ လႊတ္ေပးလုိက္ပါ ခင္ဗ်ားလုိ႔ ေတာင္းလုိက္တယ္” ဟု ၎ကဆုိသည္။

အဆုိပါေမြးေန႔ကုိ အမ်ိဳးသားဒီမုိကေရစီ အဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ (NLD) ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားျဖစ္သည့္ သူရဦးတင္ဦး၊ ဦး၀င္းတင္၊ ၀ါရင့္ ႏုိင္ငံေရးသမားႀကီးမ်ား၊ ျပည္သူ႔လႊတ္ေတာ္ ကုိယ္စားျပဳ ေကာ္မတီ (CRPP) အဖြဲ႔၀င္မ်ား၊ ဒီမုိကရက္တစ္ပါတီ (ျမန္မာ) မွ ေဒၚခ်ိဳခ်ိဳေက်ာ္ၿငိမ္း၊ ေဒၚေနရီဗေဆြတုိ႔ အျပင္ အႏုပညာရွင္မ်ားျဖစ္သည့္ ကုိဇာဂနာ၊ ကုိရဲလြင္၊ ကိုေနဝင္း၊ ေဇယ်ာေသာ္၊ ေဆာင္းဦးလႈိင္တုိ႔ တက္ေရာက္ေၾကာင္း သိရသည္။

ျမန္မာ့ဒီမုိကေရစီ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ေဒၚေအင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္က အက်ဥ္းခ်မထားသင့္သူမ်ားကုိ အက်ဥ္းခ်ထားျခင္းသည္ မလုပ္သင့္ေသာ လုပ္ရပ္ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း၊ လူတုိင္း၏ လြတ္လပ္ခြင့္ႏွင့္ ထူေထာင္ခြင့္အတြက္ ဒီမုိကေရစီ လႈပ္ရွားမႈအတြင္းသုိ႔႔ ၀င္ေရာက္လာသူမ်ားျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ေျပာဆုိသည္။

credit : downmanhon