[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Burma Lawyers' Journal #2
************************** BurmaNet **************************
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"
**************************************************************
BurmaNet Supplement: Janaury 5, 1995
Special Issue
**************************************************************
Contents:
BLC: JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
No. 2, November 1994
[57 pages in Burmese, 17 pages in English]
______________________________________________________
THE BURMA LAWYERS' COUNCIL
Press Release
1. The Burma Lawyers' Council is an independent organisation. It is
neither aligned nor is it under the authority of any political
organisation. It has been formed by individual Lawyers and legal
academics, who have joined together of their own free will to form this
organisation.
2. The aims and objectives of the Burma Lawyers' Council are as follows:
(a) To promote and assist in the education, implementation, restoration,
and improvement of basic human rights and democratic rights, and the
Rule of Law in Burma.
(b) To assist in the drafting and implementation of a draft constitution,
in accordance with the wishes of all ethnic nationalities and people, and
in accordance with international basic legal principles, and to also assist
in all matters of legal education.
(c) To seek the assistance and the support of similar organisations in
Burma and overseas, and to cooperate and work with them in the
implementation of the above-mentioned aims and objectives.
3. The Executive Council of the Burma Lawyers' Council, that was
formed on 19 October 1994, at Manerplaw in the liberated area, are as
follows:
(1) U Thein Oo Chairman
(2) U Aung Htoo Secretary
(3) Mr Philip Smyth Member
(4) Saw Reginald Shwe Member
(5) Khun Okka Member
(6) U Maung Maung Latt Member
(7) Naing Pe Thein Zar Member
(8) U Khin Maung Win Member
(9) U Win Maung Member
(10) U Myint Thein Member
(11) U Myo Win Member
4. The Burma Lawyers' Council has formed the following Sub-
Committees:
(a) Constitutional Sub-Committee
(b) News and Information Sub-Committee
(c) Legal Training Sub-Committee
(d) Human Rights Sub-Committee
(e) Foreign Relations Sub-Committee
[Photo caption: The members of the Executive Council of the Burma
Lawyers' Council.]
______________________________________________________
THE BURMA LAWYERS' COUNCIL
Background
After the military seized power in Burma in 1962, and after the
students' uprising on 7 July, the pro-democracy resistance movement
against the military, consisted mainly of students who were committed
to the path of armed resistance, and the townspeople of different levels
of society, who were also committed to resisting the militarythrough
various means at their disposal. In this society, the lawyers formed an
integral part of the pro-democracy resistance movement.
In the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) era (1962-1988),
where all private enterprise was nationalised and banned, the youth
who sought to avoid employment as government servants in the military
led BSPP, planned their alternative private professional employment,
which resulted in a number of them studying law, and entering the
legal profession.
The Lawyers in private practice, consisted of persons who's sole purpose
for entering the legal profession was to secure a livelihood, and those
actively sought to oppose the oppressive legal system and its laws, and to
represent and assist the people who were suffering adversity, due to the
oppressive legal system and its laws. In the legal profession, there were a
large number of senior Lawyers, who regularly represented the people
who were arrested and prosecuted for their dissent activities against the
military regime, and in doing so these Lawyers took an active stand
against the military regime, and risked their own liberty.
During the BSPP era, Burma Bar Council and all lawyers' associations in
the whole country have never at any time cooperated, or supported the
activities of the BSPP.
During 1988, emergence of the Four Eights' mass movement, senior
Lawyers of Burma Bar Council joined hands with the students and the
people and actively took part in the uprising, and issued statements and
declarations in support of the movement for democracy. Burma Bar
Council's declarations and statements were a driving force for the
lawyers all over the country to participate in the people's uprising. The
lawyers' associations in cities big and small, embracing the declarations
and the statements of the Bar Council, joined the students and the
people in their respective towns and districts, and actively took part in
the uprising.
During the demonstrations, extensive references were made to the
chapter "The positive aspects of democracy" in the book "OUT Union of
Burma" written by Dr Maung Maung in 1959, by the Lawyers'
Associationwhen conducting its campaign of dissent and agitation
against Dr Maung Maung, a legal academic who was then the President
of Burma and who protected the military ruleresulting in an uprising
that spread throughout the nation. Due to the Lawyers' active
involvement in the Four Eights' Uprising, the State Law and Order
Restoration Council (SLORC) after seizing power, arrested and tortured
Lawyers throughout the country. Prominent in such arrests were U Ne
Min, a Supreme Court Senior Lawyer, who was arrested for contacting
and sending reports to the British Broadcasting Corporation, and U
Htun Tin, a Supreme Court Senior Lawyer and one of the leaders of the
National League for Democracy (NLD) Party. Due to the SLORC military
junta's substantial pressure, the activities of individual Lawyers and the
voice of the Lawyers' associations in Burma were suppressed and
silenced. With the aim of reactivating the activities of the Lawyers and
Lawyers' Associations and to challenge and fight the military
dictatorship before the law, the Burma Lawyers' Council was founded in
the revolutionary area.
In Burma, under the oppressive military dictatorship system, the unfair
and oppressive laws, and the system of justice, the common people are
denied their basic rights under the Rule of Law. It is the Burma Lawyers'
Council's aim to vigorously oppose all such unfair and oppressive laws,
and to restore the basic principles of the Rule of Law. We believe that
only when the basic principles of the Rule of Law are put into practice
and adhered to, it will assist and support the emergence of a modern,
advanced, peaceful, and a new democratic Union in Burma.
The Burma Lawyers' Council was established by Lawyers, who have
actively opposed the military dictatorship and arrived in the
revolutionary areas before and after the Four Eights' Uprising, and also
Lawyers who have for various reasons ended up in overseas countries.
The current political situation in Burma and overseas has now created
the need for its formation to continue the Lawyers' struggle, and from
March 1994, a group of Lawyers working together have now been
instrumental in forming the first Executive Council of the Burma
Lawyers' Council on 20 October 1994 and a declaration was issued in
this regard.
The practical work carried out by the Lawyers' Council was the recent
assistance given to the National Council of the Union of Burma at its
"Constitutional Seminar on the Constitution of the Union of Burma. "
The Council regularly publishes a bi-monthly magazine, dedicated
specifically to the constitution, and constitutional matters. It is the
Council's aim to contact and communicate with overseas Legal
associations, and legal academic to obtain their advice, assistance and
cooperation. It is also the aim of the Council to assist the democratic
forces to the best of its ability in all legal matters, when such requests for
assistance are made to the Council.
Dated: 20 October 1994
Contact,
Executive Council
Burma Lawyers' Council
PO Box 7
Maesariang District
Mae Hong Son Province 58110
THAILAND
Fax, 6653 681 813 (temporary)
______________________________________________________
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE UNION OF BURMA
Press Release
On Constitutional Seminar Concerning Constitution
of the Union of Burma
In Burma, (1) Deprivation of democratic rights and (2) Deprivation of
rights of equality of the ethnic nationalities are the main political
problems. Inability to resolve them has led to the civil war of over 40
years long and, because of the civil war, wide-spread violations of
human rights have occurred.
Though the resistance organizations of the ethnic nationalities have
earnestly and consistently called for the resolution of the main political
problems politically by peaceful means in constitution and unity with all
parties concerned, the SLORC has not accepted it. The SLORC has
refused to meet the resistance and democratic forces in a general
conference for consultation and settlement of the problems. Though it
has reached cease-fire agreements with some armed organizations
individually, it has not addressed the political problems in any manner.
At the same time, the SLORC has been carrying on with its fraudulent
National Convention in an attempt to frame a state constitution. By
allowing representatives of the organizations with which it has reached
cease-fire agreements, the SLORC is trying to gain some measure of
legitimacy for its National Convention.
Recently, the SLORC announced its intention of meeting with Daw Aung
San Suu Kyi and then held talks with her briefly. It is the desire of the
NCUB to see the emergence of a general conference of the all resistance
and democratic forces, in subsequent of the meeting between the SLORC
and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, so as to be able to collectively solve the
main political problems of Burma. If the SLORC, in fact, wanted to find a
solution politically by peaceful means, it should allow the media to
attend the negotiations, release information on the matters discussed
and announce the stages of negotiation program. Contrary to that, the
practice of just making announcement of the fact that a meeting takes
place needs much thought and analysis.
By giving an appearance of finding solution politically on the hand and
by continuing its National Convention on the other, the SLORC could
nefariously contrive to rule legally in accordance with the constitution
its National Convention would produce. If she SLORC had an honest
desire to resolve problems by political means, it should completely stop
its National Convention. However, if the SLORC continues its National
Convention and is determinedly striving only to implement the result
the will ensue, the SLORC's agenda to negotiate with Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi or with the resistance forces of the ethnic nationalities is certain to
be a ploy to deceive.
A constitution should be based on the free will of the people and with
provisions guaranteeing their rights and, as they themselves would
protect it, only then would it be durable. It would also engender peace,
progress and prosperity in the country. A National Convention that does
not include Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and representatives of the
democratic and resistance forces of the ethnic nationalities, and permits
only 99 out of the 485 elected representatives of the people, cannot in
any way be regarded as a convention representing the will of the people.
The basic principles laid down by that convention also would never be
able to materialize and protect the rights of the people. In order to
rigorously discuss and analyses these matters the Constitutional
Seminar, attended by delegates from democratic and ethnic
organizations based at home and abroad, was commenced on October
democratic 1994, in Marnaplaw.
In order to study and analyses freely, frankly and in detail, the matters
mentioned above, the NCUB has invited delegates from various
democratic forces at home and abroad, and the resistance forces of the
ethnic nationalities. It is believed that the delegates from various
organizations, by having discussion together on constitutional matters in
this Seminar, would create unanimity of views among the revolutionary
forces for democracy.
As the previous constitutions in the history of Burma had not only failed
to realize and protect the democratic rights of the people and the rights
of equality of the ethnic nationalities but they had also been abused by
the military dictatorships to protect their privileges and as an
instrument of oppression, the people of Burma has little faith or interest
in constitutional matters. Taking advantage of this situation, the military
dictatorships have been able to use the constitution to perpetuate their
power. For that reason, all the democratic forces, all the resistance forces
and the ethnic people are urged not to ignore constitutional matters and
to collectively make an effort for:
(1) Prevention of the emergence of a constitution that would eternalize
military dictatorship,
(2) The emergence of a constitution with provisions relating the rights
of citizens to human rights and guaranteeing the rights of equality of all
the indigenous nationalities by instituting a system of Federal Union.
We would like especially to urge all concerned, in various places, to hold
discussions or seminars on the SLORC's National Convention that would
give birth to a constitution perpetuating the military dictatorship, and
distribute the position statements and analyses domestically and
internationally.
National Council of the Union of Burma
October 11, 1994
______________________________________________________
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE UNION OF BURMA
Constitutional Seminar on Constitution of
the Union of Burma
Extracts from Analyses of SLORC's National Convention
(October 10- 21, 1994)
Background History
Military Coup in 1962
Before 1962, almost all the political parties in Burma were weak in the
exercise of democratic principles. The leading parties such as the Union
Party, Anti-Fascist Freedom League and National United Front
themselves had an unclear conception of federalism and were much
reluctant to exercise the principle of equality with regard to the non-
Burman ethnic nationalities. The majority of the people were also not
well familiar with the idea. The racial chauvinist military clique led by
Gen. Ne Win seized power on March 2,1962 when there was a
movement for federalism and abolished the 1947 constitution the next
day. With the seizure of power, the military clique heightened its
propaganda that federalism would lead to secession and the
disintegration of the Union.
Emergence of 1974 Constitution
The economy of Burma started to deteriorate from the year 1966 under
the military rule. The regime tried to get foreign assistance for solving
the economic problem. Due to the absence of a constitution, it did not
make much headway. Accordingly, it drafted a constitution for forming
a one-party state which fully guaranteed the perpetuation of military
dictatorship. A referendum was held on the draft constitution in 1974
and the people were forced to support it. Then a general election was
held and the so-called civilian government, dominated by military and
ex-military officers, was formed according to the constitution and
widely publicised.
SLORC's Chairman's Promise
After 1988 military coup and the formation of SLORC, the Chairman of
SLORC announced, "All the armed forces personnel, my colleagues and I
would like to solemnly promise not to hold on power for a long time. We
will not break this promise for any reason. Moreover, we additionally
promise that the armed forces, after transferring power to a
democratically elected civilian government which will emerge from a
free and fair election, shall only perform its principal tasks of defence,
security of the state and maintaining law and order and etc."
(Speech by Gen Saw Maung on Sept. 23, 1988)
Abetting by SLORC to National Unity Party (NUP)
before and during Election
1. According to Political Party Registration Act promulgated on Sept. 27,
1988 paragraph (c) of Article (3) said that any party which had used
directly or indirectly state owned money, buildings, vehicles and
properties would not be allowed for registration.
Many political parties objected to the registration of NUP on the ground
that it had inherited throughout out the country all the Burma Socialist
Programme Party (BSPP) buildings, vehicles and money which were
state properties. However, the election commission refused to disqualify
the NUP on the ground that the properties had been legally transferred
to NUP.
2. The NUP also benefited from the project called " "lakes - 100
plantation. " (Which was a large-scale agricultural and fish-breeding
project)in the Pegu division over a period of one year.
3. Although SLORC's martial law and curfew orders prohibited the
people to go outside their homes after 10 P. M. The SLORC also
arranged for the NUP to have public gathering places for election
campaigns. On election day, political parties were banned from
canvassing within 100 yards of the poll-booths. However, in some
places of the Shan state, the NUP was allowed to hang up posters inside
the poll-booths on election day.
For reasons given above, it was clear that the SLORC abetted the NUP by
all possible means, so as to make it have unfair advantages over the
others in the election.
SLORC's Repression of other Parties
1. The NUP Objected to the candidacy of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, citing
paragraph (c), Article (10) of the election law and put pressure on the
Election Commission, which disqualified her as a candidate of Bahan
constituency.
2. The SLORC's Decree # 4/ 88 prohibited the gathering of more than 5
persons in open air and 50 persons in a building, and thus political
parties were deprived of freedom of organization and assembly.
3. paragraph (c) of Order # 31 90 said, "the speeches and publications
presenting ideologies, positions, programs and etc. by political parties
and independents shall not violate the existing laws, prohibitions, and
limitation or rules of relevant orders." So, speeches in writing and
publications had to be submitted to the Information Ministry, 9 days in
advance, and only the censored versions were allowed for presentation.
thus the political parties were deprived of the freedom of speech.
4. limitations imposed by Order # 3/ 89 saying, "political parties shall
not be exempted form the 1962 Printing and Publishers Registration
Law, and shall register with the Home and Religious Ministry. Tracts
and statements issued by political parties shall be published only when
they are accompanied by literary and publication Exemption license",
deprived the freedom of thought and the press.
5. For a period of 19 months up to April 20, 1990, 50 political parties
were summoned for 340 times and intimidated. Advance arrangements
were systematically made to exclude from the election such political
leaders as NLD Chairman U Tin Oo, Gen. Sec. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,
former Prime Minister U Nu, Bo Hum Aung and etc. Thousands of
leaders and members of pro democracy parties were thrown into prison
prior to the election. some died in prison because of torture. Though the
NUP, which was in violation of the Political Parties Registration Act, was
not abolished, many pro-democracy parties were abolished on flimsy
charges.
Victory of NLD
The NLD was voted overwhelmingly because of the people's:-
-Detestation of and opposition to the military dictatorship,
- Conviction that the NLD Gen. Sec. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi would be
able to realize the establishment of human rights, promotion of
democratic system and the rights of the ethnic nationalities,
- Acceptance, in general, the political out- look and conviction of the
NLD.
Endeavours for Power Transfer
Since the SLORC military clique had had no intention to transfer power
to the NLD which had won a majority of seats in the election in spite of
various repressive measures and limitation, it started taking steps to
delay the power transfer.
The SLORC's Order # 1/90 declared that the formations of a
government, on the basis of a provisional constitution, for the take over
of state power would not in anyway be accepted, and that effective
actions would be taken against any movement for it.
On July 28- 29, 1990, elected MPs from the NLD assembled for
consultation in the Gandhi Hall in Kyauktada township, Rangoon and
issued the declaration called "Gandhi Hall Declaration."
In it, the elected NLD MPs unanimously called upon the SLORC to
convene a parliament meeting in the month of September 1990.
As it became absolutely impossible to call a meeting of the majority of
elected MPs and from a government in a situation of relentless
repression under the SLORC's martial law, the effort to form a
government in the liberated area was made.
Order 1190 and Track for Constitution Framing
Paragraph (c) of the SLORC's Order # 1/90 says, "therefore, the
representatives elected by the people have the duty to frame a
constitution for the future democratic state". thus, to avoid the transfer
of power, the SLORC laid down the track for constitution farming.
Emergence of National Convention
Since the seizure of power, the SLORC has no intention of returning it to
the people. The holding of May 27, 1990 election was also an act by the
SLORC to prolong its hold on power. With the slogan of creating a
multi- party system, it created situation for the emergence of numerous
political parties to fragment the vote. By assisting the NUP and
suppressing the other political parties by various means, the SLORC was
manipulation for the victory of NUP in the election. Had the NUP won in
the election, the SLORC would have transferred power and made
arrangements for the rule of military dictatorship to become legal and
the long-term hold on power.
When the NUP had a defeat in the polls, the SLORC reneged on its
promise. the scheme of the SLORC to obviate the transfer of power, the
National Convention organised by it, occupies a major role.
With the heading of "convening of a National Convention," the SLORC
issued order # 11/92, dated April 24 1992. Only when that
announcement was made, the people and the international community
started to hear the expression, "National Convention" being used by the
SLORC. This came only when a period of 2 years had elapsed after the
election. All the analyses show that the SLORC is attempting to gain the
right to legally prolong its rule by framing a state constitution based on
the basic principles, which its National Convention has been laying
down, guaranteeing the perpetuation of military dictatorship.
______________________________________________________
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE UNION OF BURMA
Constitutional Seminar on Constitution of
The Union of Burma
Manerplaw
October 13, 1994
Extracts from Analyses on Selection of SLORC's National Convention
(N.C.) Delegates
1. The SLORC's N.C. includes no elected representatives from either
political parties or organizations representing Kachin, Karen, Chin,
Arakan or Mon state. Therefore, it is concluded that the SLORC's N.C.
does not in fact represent the ethnic nationalities.
2. There are no organizations of the ethnic nationalities, the peasant, the
worker, the civil service personnel or the intelligentsia. The SLORC has
merely set up a false facade to hoodwink the international community.
3. Of the 702 delegates attending the N.C. held by the SLORC, more
than 600 have been selected according to SLORC's preference.
4. Accordingly, the SLORC's N.C. is dominated by fraudulent delegates.
Extracts from Experiences at SLORC's N.C.
1. The SLORC's N.C. is simply a pretense pre-arranged and controlled
strictly at every level.
2. The N.C. Work Committee is regulating and dominating every aspect
of the N.C. For example, 9 members of the Panel of Chairmen
(Presidium) had to read for 5 days the 830-page paper written in
advance by the N.C. Work Committee. Based on that paper, detailed
principles under the headings of Composition and Structure of state, and
head of state, were derived.
3. The delegates are attending the SLORC's N.C. with uncertainty and
poorly defined hope.
4. Though the real delegates of the people lodged protests by various
means, the SLORC's N.C. consistently ignored them.
5. Through the real organization known as the Union Solidarity and
Development Association it had formed, the SLORC forced the people to
make a show of support for the so-called 104 basic principles laid down
by the N.C.
6. With the creation of the areas known as self-administered zones, the
SLORC has tried to entice the smaller ethnic nationalities.
7 The number of delegates (over 700 originally) is seen to decrease
steadily.
8. The army generals manipulate the N.C. by using coercive power.
9. At the N.C. the SLORC sow dissension among the different social
classes, on purpose.
10. There are cases of one principle contradicting another among the
principles laid down by the SLORC's N.C. For instance, under the
heading Aims of the State, item # 4 affirms the promotion of multi-
party democracy but #6 affirms the participation of the military in the
leading role in national politics of the State.
11. The SLORC's N.C. is performing with the aim to legalise all the
human rights violations committed by the SLORC.
12. The SLORC has been attempting, by manipulation and coercion, to
have a provision allowing the military to participate in the leading role
in national politics, in the constitution of Burma it is trying to draft.
Extracts from Analyses of SLORC's N.C. Procedural Code
1. The 6 aims mentioned in Article 1 of the N.C. Procedural Code are the
cardinal principles circumscribing the whole of N.C. There is no
permission to use history as a background to debate for the cessation of
civil war which has been the main cause of human rights violations in
Burma. For the SLORC, it is immaterial whether to have constitutional
provisions guaranteeing the equality of all the indigenous ethnic
nationalities or to define where and how the sovereignty. The aim of
participation by the military, in the leading role, in the national politics
of the state is the attempt by the SLORC military clique to national
politics of the state is the attempt by the SLORC military clique to have
the constitutional rights to interfere in civil administration.
2. The Panel of Chairmen is composed of 45 members representing
delegate groups of the 45, only 4 from the N.C. Convening Work
Committee are the principal ones with real powers. The political parties
and elected representatives of the people groups were allowed altogether
10 members. However, in practice, only 3 elected representatives were
included. The 3 were:-
(a) U Daniel Aung - Lahu National Development Party (Minnebyin
constituency)
(Burma) U Maung Maung Gyi - Union Pa-O National League (Pinlaung
constituency)
(Commission) U San Tha Aung - Myo (a.k.a.) Kami Solidarity
Organization (Kyauktaw constituency)
As only 3 elected representatives were included in the Panel of
Chairmen having 45 members, the three had hardly any voice. When U
Daniel Aung left for the liberated area, only 2 were left on the Panel.
3. The freedom of speech of the delegates is totally prohibited by Articles
1, 5 (c), 8 (j), 37, 45 (a) - (b) - (c) and (j).
4. Though the expression N.C. discussions was used, in actual practice
only papers were read and there had been no free discussions. When the
stage for laying down the basic principles approached, the discussion
papers had to be submitted to the Panel of Chairmen. The Panel, if
necessary, summoned the delegate concerned and asked to make
changes in the paper. If the delegates refused, his paper was sent to the
Work Committee which made changes as desired and handed down for
representation in the meetings. The representation had to be exactly in
accordance with the edited version. Article 45 (j).
5. Though the SLORC strictly controlled the N.C. with its N.C. Procedural
Code, if it was necessary for the protection of its interest, it acted outside
of the Code for action against the delegates.
6. Articles (8) has been included as it fears criticism against the armed
forces.
7. An overall analysis of performances in practice, in accordance with
the Procedural Code, we see that Article 19 of the Human Rights
Provisions has been entirely denied.
Analysis of SLORC's N.C. as a Whole
The SLORC's National Convention analyzed on the basis of:-
(a) The historical background
(b) The fact that the N.C. has been dominated by sham delegates;
(c) The Procedural Code of the N.C.;
(d) The experiences of U Daniel Aung in the N.C., who had served as a
member of the Panel of Chairmen;
is seen to be nothing but an illegitimate and fraudulent show staged by
the SLORC for the domination and perpetuation of military dictatorship
in the future Burma.
______________________________________________________
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE UNION OF BURMA
Position-Statement of the Constitutional Seminar
Under the aegis of the NCUB, the constitutional seminar on the
constitution of the Union of Burma was successfully held from October
10 to 21, 1994 in Manerplaw. Over 160 delegates from 47
organizations attended the seminar, and NCUB chairman Saw Bo Mya,
NDF chairman Naing Shwe Kyin, U Khun Marco Barn (M.P.), U Maung
Maung Latt (M.P.), U Maung Maung Aye (M.P.), Dr Zalat Htan (M.P.),
and Gen Tamlabaw (KNU) had served as chairmen of the meetings, in
turn.
In the seminar, the delegates held discussions and consultations, freely
and cordially, on the current political problems of Burma and basic
principles relating to the institution of the future Federal Union. This is
the position statement of the seminar based on discussions of the various
delegates.
1. Position on the National Convention being held by SLORC
As the SLORC is not legally elected, it has no right to convene a
National Convention. The National Convention being held by the
SLORC is merely a fraudulent one. It is concluded that the basic
principles for a state constitution laid down by the convention are for
the legalisation of the rule of the military dictatorship. Therefore, all the
delegates unanimously reached the position to totally repudiate the
SLORC's National Convention and the results emanating from it.
2. Position on the Institution of the Future Federal Union
All the delegates attending the seminar unanimously judge that
Burma is in need of a constitution. The seminar determine that the
necessary basic law with regard to the Future Federal State should
provide for:
(a) the derivation of sovereignty of the state from the people;
(b) The institution of Burma as a Federal Union on the basis of the
intents of the Panlong Agreement reached between Gen Aung San and
the ethnic nationalities who have been struggling for over 40 years, the
Bo Aung Jaw street declaration, agreement reached between the
National League for Democracy (NLD) and United Nationalities League
for Democracy (UNLD), the Manerplaw agreement, and the historical
developments of co-inhabitation of various ethnic nationalities.
(c) The national equality and right of self-determination of all the ethnic
nationalities, with firm guarantees;
(d) Institutionalization of the multi-party democratic system and human
rights;
(e) The proper division of powers between the Federal and State
Governments;
(f) The system of bi-cameral legislature in which there is a National
Assembly composed of representatives from the States, the Peoples
Assembly consisting of representatives of the people;
( g) The system in which the Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers
are exercised separately;
(h) The subordination of the Armed Forces to civilian control, and
treatment of it only as one of the departments in the services of the state,
with no right whatsoever to interfere in politics.
3. The seminar recognizes that in the framing of a constitutional law
guaranteeing democracy and a federal system, it is expressly necessary
to hold a genuine national convention in which the people, composed
of various nationalities, can freely and frankly conduct discussions and
consultations.
4. The seminar pronounces that to solve the prevailing political
problems politically, it is necessary for the SLORC:
(a) To release unconditionally Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political
prisoners;
(b) To officially announce a nation-wide cease-fire;
(c) To lift all the unjust laws it has enacted:
(d) To recognize the result of the May 1990 election.
October 21, 1994
______________________________________________________
INVITATION
The Burma Lawyers Council, every two months, publishes the Journal
of Constitutional Affairs. The Council itself will endeavour to present
the articles which may share the constitutional knowledge. At the same
time, the outlook of the academics, politicians and political organizations
on the future constitution of Burma are welcomed to freely submit in
this journal. On account of that, persons who would like to write the
articles in this journal are cordially invited to send it accordingly to the
following mailing address:
The Burma Lawyers Council
Publication Sub-Committee
P.O. Box 7
Maesariang District
Mae Hong Son Province 58110
THAILAND