Panel Discussion 2 -Myanmar’s Sham Election: Why the Junta Wants It—and What Comes Next – Key Points

The following are the key points of the second of four panel discussions held at Thai PBS studio in Chiang Mai, Thailand on 28 December 2026 to mark the first phase of the Myanmar junta-run election.

2nd Panel Discussion Key Points

Title: Myanmar’s Sham Election: Why the Junta Wants It—and What Comes Next

Moderator/Facilitator: Kyaw Zwa Moe, Executive Editor, The Irrawaddy

Panelist:          Htin Kyaw Aye, Executive Director, Spring Sprouts

Panelist:          Dr. Surachanee Sriyai (Hammerli), Visiting Fellow, ISEAS Yusof-Ishak Institute

Panelist:          Khin Ohmar, Veteran Burmese Activist

Panelist:           Htaike Htaike Aung, Director, Myanmar Internet Project

Kyaw Zwa Moe, acting as the moderator, framed the 28 December election not as a democratic exercise but as a calculated  political exit strategy for the military regime. He highlighted several critical observations based on real-time reports from within Myanmar, specifically noting a heavy security buildup as early as 2:00 am on election day despite sparse turnout at polling stations. He interpreted the empty lines as a “silent rejection” or strike by the general public, estimating that more than 90% of the population remains entirely disinterested in the process.

According to his observation, the military has already pre-planned the formation of a new government, including specific ministerial positions, which he expects to be announced by the end of March 2026. This strategy is intended to transition the junta into a so-called civilian government by April 1, 2026, where the same generals will simply operate in civilian attire.

He pointed out that the junta failed to honour landslide democratic victories in 1990 and 2020 and rigged the 2010 election, leading the populace to view today’s proceedings as nothing more than a repeat performance. By framing the event as a sham, he set the stage for the panelists to discuss how this manufactured political landscape will impact digital freedom, regional geopolitics, and Myanmar’s long-term democratic prospects.

Htin Kyaw Aye, Executive Director of the monitoring group “Spring Sprouts,” identifies this election as a calculated effort to institutionalize military control rather than a democratic transition.

• Massive and Intentional Disenfranchisement: He points out that the junta has cancelled elections in 65 whole townships – one-fifth of the country – and thousands of village tracts. By redrawing constituency boundaries (gerrymandering), the military is attempting to hide the fact that they have lost control of half the country while still claiming they can fill 88% of parliamentary seats.

• A “Mixed-Member” Tool for Manipulation: He explains that the new electoral system is designed to favour the USDP by using a single vote for both the First-Past-The-Post and Proportional Representation systems. This ensures that even with low turnout, the military-aligned party can maximize its seat count and dominate the legislature.

• Total Lack of Legitimacy and Participation: He highlights the “Silent Strike” and the extremely low number of advance votes from the millions of Myanmar citizens abroad (only about 5,000) as proof of a nationwide boycott. He also warns that electronic voting machines are being used for mass surveillance and potential fraud rather than efficiency.

• Suppression of Both Critics and Loyalists: The analysis notes that the junta is not only disbanding popular parties like the National League for Democracy (NLD) but is also suppressing its own loyalist candidates and smaller parties if they show any independence. He concludes that this election marks a “new political front” in the military’s strategy to suppress the people.

Dr. Surachanee, a Thai social and political scientist, analyzed how the international community’s fractured response to the 2025 election serves the junta’s interests.

• US Policy Contradictions: She identifies a “painful” mixed signal from the United States, where the Senate denounced the election as a sham just days before the administration revoked Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 4,000 Myanmar nationals. This revocation was justified by claiming “progress” in governance, a move Dr. Surachanee argues inadvertently legitimizes the junta’s narrative.

• ASEAN’s Implicit Support through Silence: While ASEAN as a bloc has not sent official observers, Dr. Surachanee notes that the individual decisions of member states like Vietnam and Cambodia to send representatives provide the junta with the minimal global legitimacy it needs to claim an “exit strategy.”

• China’s Determined Stance: She highlights China as the primary regional hegemon actively pushing for the election to succeed, contrasting Beijing’s clear, self-interested determination with the fragmented or distracted responses of Western powers.

• Thailand’s Vulnerability and Miscalculation: Regarding her own country, she warns that Thailand’s traditional “swaying bamboo” diplomacy (avoiding picking sides) is a dangerous miscalculation. She predicts that if the election leads to further instability and a mass exodus, Thailand is policy-wise unprepared for the fallout.

Ma Htaike Htaike Aung, a digital rights advocate from the Myanmar Internet Project (MIP), identifies the current election period as a high-risk moment where digital repression has become more automated, coordinated, and aggressive.

• The PSMS Surveillance System: The military has implemented the “Person Scrutinization and Monitoring System” (PSMS), an AI-powered database that fuses biometric data, SIM registration, and social media activity. This system is actively used at checkpoints and hotels to identify and arrest dissidents in real time, with reports indicating over 1,600 arrests linked to this software in early 2025 alone.

• Importing China’s “Great Firewall”: Ma Htaike Htaike Aung points to the regime’s use of “Geedge Networks,” a Chinese surveillance-for-hire system that mimics the Great Firewall. This technology allows the junta to conduct deep packet inspection to block VPNs, track individual network traffic, and pinpoint the geographic locations of mobile subscribers.

• Information Control and Throttling: The regime is moving away from nationwide shutdowns toward “selective connectivity,” where internet speeds are throttled in specific townships to disrupt communication during key moments. This is paired with “information flooding,” where pro-military networks utilize platforms like TikTok to spread propaganda, designed to exhaust and confuse the public.

Ma Khin Ohmar, a legendary figure from the 1988 uprising and founder of Progressive Voice, argues that the 2025 election is a “plan of deception” far more dangerous than the 2010 polls. She warns that unlike the previous transition; this one is designed solely to trick the world into lifting sanctions and resuming investment without making any genuine democratic concessions.

• The Deception of Legitimacy: She asserts the junta’s primary goal is to shed its “illegal entity” status. Having been barred from UN and ASEAN summits for four years, the military views a post-election “civilian” government as a gateway to lifting international sanctions and reopening the doors for foreign investment.

• 2010 vs. 2025 — A False Parallel: Ohmar critiques “fanciful thinkers” who compare today to the 2010 transition. She argues that while former leader Than Shwe was strategic enough to offer a power-sharing model with the NLD and open space for civil society, Min Aung Hlaing’s regime has focused only on total destruction of the opposition.

• The Revolution is Inward, Not Bordered: A major difference she identifies is the geography of resistance. In 2010, revolutionary forces were largely confined to the borders. Today, the entire country is in a state of revolution with effective resistance control over more territory than the military – a reality she says international actors continue to underestimate.

• Warning Against “Business-First” Diplomacy: Reflecting on past mistakes, she warns the international community against repeating the post-2010 error of prioritizing “economy and development” over human rights. She specifically calls out past “peace donors” who funded military-led agendas while silencing civil society’s calls for justice regarding military atrocities and sexual violence.

• Fragmentation of Resistance Forces: A key part of the military’s plan is to create friction between different factions, specifically targeting the divide between original signatories of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) and those who have since joined the revolution. She warns that the military will attempt to sow discord between established Ethnic Resistance Organizations (EROs) and the newer People’s Defense Forces (PDFs).

The panel’s conclusion is stark: Today is not a day of voting; it is a day where the military initiates a new, high-tech front in its war against the people. The “civilian” government promised for 2026 is a mirage, designed to hide a digital cage built with foreign tools and fueled by the blood of the resistance.