[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