A one-sided and repressive law

Tuesday, 16 March 2010 13:23 Myint Maung (Interview)

New Delhi (Mizzima) - Election-related laws recently announced by Burma’s military junta cannot be construed as anything other than one-sided and extremely restrictive, claim two notable Shan leaders.

Spokesperson for the Shan National League for Democracy (SNLD), U Sai Leik, said the laws are one-sided and he hopes that two detained party leaders will be freed before the party reaches a decision on contesting the upcoming elections.

Meanwhile, veteran Shan politician U Shwe Ohn assesses that the election laws are exceptionally restrictive, but if his party decides to contest the elections it will do so as the Union Democracy Party.

Myint Maung, a Mizzima reporter, interviewed these two Shan leaders on their opinions regarding the junta’s proposed elections and the prospect for ethnic nationalities under these circumstances.

Twenty-three SNLD members were elected as Members of Parliament in the 1990 general elections. But the party was later banned and its chairman, U Khun Htun Oo, Secretary Sai Nyunt Lwin and many central executive members sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

U Sai Leik

Q. How do you see the 2010 election laws?

A. The elections will be held this year based on the 2008 constitution. We didn't participate in the national convention and we don't believe the referendum for this constitution earned the true consent of the people, so we haven’t made any decision yet to participate in the 2010 elections. Another reason is our party Chairman and Secretary are still in prison. We wish our leaders, U Khun Htun Oo and Secretary Sai Nyunt Lwin, to be released and demand the onset of dialogue. If these conditions are met, we will consider whether or not to join the elections and re-register our party.

Q. What is your party’s opinion on paragraphs 6 and 10 of the 2010 Political Parties Registration Law?

A. I would like to say these laws are one-sided and are simply unjust and unfree. In regards to founding a political party, it must be based upon the aspiration of the party founder and he or she deserves freedom to make their own decision. The issues of who will be party members and who will be elected as president must be based upon the free decision of the party founders. The decision must not be interfered with or ordered by any authorities or individual. For that reason, we can't accept such restrictive laws.

U Shwe Ohn

Q. What rights can ethnic nationalities enjoy and what rights will they lose under the 2010 Election Law?

A. In the view of ethnic nationalities, they can enjoy so few rights. I don't like it that the Union is divided into States and Divisions; rights honoring the State-level parliament are insignificant and very limited, with important policies retained by the Union Hluttaw (parliament). There are some representatives in the Union parliament, but when the military manipulates it with its representatives and sets the process there are few who can represent and actually lead the States. According to this constitution, the representatives from the States enjoy almost no authority.

Q. What is your opinion on the paragraphs 6 and 10 of the 2010 Political Parties Registration Law?

A. The Political Parties Registration Law allows only very small openings. The law is so restrictive, as it mentions that people under detention are not allowed to join a political party. Many prisoners are detained for criminal offenses, but many others were arrested for political reasons. If someone was arrested for a political reason he or she must have the right to compete in the election.

Elections in the past were free and fair, the election process democratic and we could assume the elections were fair since people enjoyed freedom of speech and expression. We can say the 1990 general election was a free and fair election since it was held freely and fairly in the country and the international community recognized it similarly. But nothing came from the elections. While there were some defects in past elections, we could proceed after the elections (with their results). But it was different in the 1990 general elections, the result showed something and the outcome turned out a different thing. We don't know what will happen after this election.

During colonial rule the process was different. If someone was a convicted criminal he or she couldn't join the election, since he or she did not deserve respect and his or her political integrity was questioned. But it didn't say politicians couldn't join the elections. Persons detained for political reasons were not arrested for immoral reason. People who were disliked by the government for their political activities could still join in the elections. But under the 2010 laws, such people can forget to join the elections, not even being allowed to be members of a political party.

Q. Anything else you want to add?

A. After the election laws came out many people who were positive to join in the elections became reluctant to do so. The laws are extremely restrictive. Many say they can't proceed with party functions under these laws. We can say the 2008 constitution is very unusual. It cannot be that the following laws adhere to international norms and principles.

Since the 2008 constitution is not a good one, it cannot become good in the future. If we don't like it, since it is bad, we can sit idly by and do nothing. My opinion, however, is whether it is good or not, whether we like it or not, we should pursue it in the little space available. What would happen if we don't do anything? We don’t want to go to neighboring countries. With however much space is available I will give all my effort. If I join the elections, I am considering forming the Union Democracy Party.