PFB - Report - An Introduction to the Situation in Burma

[TIN KYI <tinkyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peoples' Forum on Burma
Report - An Introduction to the Situation in Burma
Easy answers to three questions:
 
When did the Burmese democracy movement begin? Why?
What is the political situation under the military regime?
What impact has the political situation had on peoples? lifestyle?
 
1.The 1988 Democratic Movement
The national scale democracy movement in Burma began in 1988. I was 31 years old at the time, a post-graduate university student, who had just returned a few months previously from 2 years in Burma as an exchange student. How old were you?
1988. One year before the Tiananmen Square incident in China. Two years after the Marcos dictatorship fell at the end of the mass uprising in the Philippines in 1986. At the same time, Korea made a declaration of democracy. There was a huge groundswell towards democracy in East and Southeast Asia.
 
The Burmese democracy movement had its beginnings in the movement opposing the Burmese socialist system. This was a strong revolt by the people against the dictator Ne Win (born 1911). Ne Win was a former top commander of the national army who seized power over Burma in a military coup d?etat, and for 26 years used the power of the army and intelligence agencies to rule Burma according to his own personal socialist ideas. However, this Burmese style socialism brought about severe economic depression, corruption amongst the ruling class, which centred on military officers, and human rights abuses, leading to discontent amongst the people. This situation erupted in 1988.
 
No specific date in 1988 can be pinpointed as the day the people took action. The movement was precipitated in March of that year, when students at the Rangoon Institute of Technology began resisting the regime, putting their lives at risk. Although they were fired upon, beaten to death, suffocated in police cars, raped in jail, and subjected to other oppression by the police and other authorities, they did not deviate and continued their activities. Many other university and high school students became involved, and in August of the same year, the general public also joined the movement.
 
From the latter half of August and the beginning of September the movement developed from a struggle against Ne Win to a struggle for democracy based on three pillars; realisation of a multi party system, establishment of human rights, and liberalisation of the economy. Almost daily tens of thousands of people participated in demonstrations in the capital Yangon, and, with the backing of the students, the woman who was to become the symbol for the democracy movement in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi (born in 1945), took the stage. In the regional cities as well many people took part in gatherings and demonstrations, and the storm spread to the villages. The movement that was started by the students developed to become a popular movement on a national scale. Many people were convinced the old regime would crumble to be replaced by a new system.
 
However on 18 September 1988, there was a sudden deterioration in the situation, with the military seizing total control in the worst development possible. The establishment of a military regime with a ruling group of 20 military leaders was declared. And the military, which until then had not publicly taken the political stage began to exercise political power openly. Naturally the students and civilians refused to recognize this, and continued with protests, but the military regime dispatched the national army in large numbers, and they suppressed the demonstrations, shooting directly and indiscriminately at the demonstrators. In little more than a week around 1000 civilians were wounded or killed and the democratic movement was suppressed. At this state, the alienation of the army and the people became evident, and many people began to fear the military. After the suppression of the democratic movement, the military leaders carried out policies of forced dismissal against public employees who had participated in the demonstrations, and many thousands of public employees lost their jobs.
 
Some of the students who had been at the center of the democratic movement were arrested or, feeling intense risk, fled to the Thai-Burmese border, where they joined with the minority peoples? armies, such as the Karen National Union (KNU), which had been at war against the government since 1948, and formed the All Burma Students? Democratic Front (ABSDF). The ABSDF and KNU were still carrying out armed resistance of the national army?s attacks in January 2001. However, the original membership of around 10000 has shrunk to a few hundred, and in fact they are reduced to living as refugees in Thailand.
 
2.The Burmese military regime ? SLORC and SPDC
The military regime that took power on 18 September 1988 took the name the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). From the inclusion in the name of the words ?Order Restoration? the message could be taken that it was a temporary regime established with the main task being to restore peace and order, and SLORC itself made proclamations at the time of their establishment that the purpose of the regime was to restore order. In fact, at the same time as they were firing at the demonstrators, they clearly promised to implement elections and a multi-party system based on the democratic wish of the people. They also demonstrated a stance of moving from a closed, state-sector focused economy to a market economy.
 
Nine years later, on 15 November 1997, SLORC became the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). However this was not a change in the regime, only a change in name, and a shuffle of membership. There was no change to the framework of the military regime, and the people were not mislead.  But in the new title, which included the words ?peace? and ?development?, the message of a temporary regime conveyed in the naming of SLORC was lost. Instead the message was that this was the genuine government. In fact, it can be seen that in the 12 years 4 months from the SLORC era until the present, (January 2001), the actions of the military regime were designed to convey the impression both domestically and internationally that it was the authoritative Government of Burma.
 
3.The military regime?s philosophy and actions ? ignoring the results of the election and establishing the National Convention
One year and seven months after the military regime emerged after the suppression of the democratic movement, on 27 May 1990, for the first time in 30 years democratic elections based on a multi-party system were held in Burma. This was in fulfillment of the promise by the military regime at its establishment, and aside from the strict control of, and interference with election activities before the event, there were no problems with the election itself, including the maintenance of independence on voting day, and the fairness of the counting of the votes. For instance, foreign journalists were allowed to enter the places where the counting of the votes took place and conduct interviews.
 
The results of the election were that the National League for Democracy (NLD), established after the military regime took power and at the center of the democracy movement activities, won in a landslide victory. Although the Secretary General of the party Aung San Suu Kyi was restrained under house arrest by the authorities, out of a total of 485 seats the NLD won 392, or 81%. The participation rate was 72.5%, with 65% support for the NLD. While taking 81% of the seats is of course significant, the support rate of 65% is remarkable (in Japan, even at its peak it is rare for the Liberal Democratic Party to exceed 50% support). This fact demonstrates just how much the people hated the military regime and placed their hopes in Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD.
 
However, SLORC did not recognise this result, and began their stance of extending their regime indefinitely. It goes without saying that this violates one of the most important principles of democracy. As of today, when SLORC is now the SPDC, it has not shown any signs of rectifying this violation. It could be said that while the basic defect in the legitimacy of the Burmese military regime lies in the seizure of power by military force on 18 September 1988, this shocking response in direct violation of the will of the people with respect to the results of the election is an even greater defect.
 
How then did the military regime justify its actions following the general election? Precisely, how did it excuse its position of ignoring the results of the election? Its argument was that rather that cede power immediately, it was necessary to first create a new, stable constitution, to be achieved in the following 6 stages:
 
1  The representatives chosen at the election were nothing more than representatives of a parliament formed to create the constitution (Constitutional Parliament);
2  The Constitutional Parliament would not be convened for the present;
3  Instead, a National Convention made up of members chosen by the military regime would be established separately, and draft the new constitution (the guidelines for which would be presented by the military regime)
4  When the National Convention had completed the draft constitution, the Constitutional Parliament of elected representatives would be convened to consider the draft;
5  The draft discussed and approved by the Constitutional Parliament would be finally checked by the military regime, and adopted as the new constitution
6  The new constitution would be put to the people?s vote for approval.
 
As to how long this 6 stage process was supposed to take, the military regime to this day has only given non-committal answers. With respect to when the National Convention will finish their debate, the usual response is ?after about 2 years?. As at January 2001 8 years has already passed. Further, with respect to the question as to whether, if the new constitution is approved by the people, a new general election will be held or the people elected in the election of 1990 will automatically be recognized as members of parliament, the military regime has given no indication.
 
Based on this position, the people elected in the May 1990 general election were only elected for the limited purpose of creating a new constitution, and further, until the separate institution the National Convention has completed the draft of the constitution, they have no role. Such a situation was not publicly announced before the election. Further, even if the military regime?s argument about the need to give priority to establishing a new constitution could be understood, why could this not be done by soon opening parliament with the elected representatives and debating the new constitution there? With respect to this question, in press conferences soon after the general election, the military regime stated, ?in a parliament overwhelmingly made up of members of one specific party, it would be impossible to create a stable constitution that reflected the interests of the various ethnic minorities and sectors that make up Burma.? This can only be taken as a statement that the regime did not trust the NLD, even though it represented three quarters of the population.
 
The NLD naturally opposed the attitude of the military regime. However, the authorities suppressed the opposition by arresting the NLD representatives and other members, and disqualifying their selection.  As of 27 May 2000, 10 years after the election, according to the records of the military authority, the number of representatives elected in 1990 who had been disqualified was more than 185, most of whom belonged to the NLD. In total, calculating them and representatives who have died, or resigned as a result of pressure from the authorities, there are currently no more than 110 free NLD representatives. This is only 28% of the total number of the NLD members who were elected in the general election.
 
The National Convention established by the military regime was set up in January 1993, 2 years and 8 months after the election. With numerous long recessions, it continues its prolonged debate on the draft of the constitution. The military regime continues to defer the question of when the draft will be completed. According to the authorities, 701 people were chosen to act on the National Convention. However, of these, only 99 were people who were elected in the 1990 general election (the majority of whom were NLD members) and the remainder were made up from other parties (parties that had participated in the election but did not have any people elected), and representatives of ethnic minorities, farmers, labourers, intellectuals, and artists etc, as chosen by the military regime. The representatives chosen in the 1990 elections made up only 14% of the National Convention, and only 20% of the people who were elected in the general election were chosen to be on the National Convention. Thus it cannot be said that the committee reflects the will of the people.
 
Further, in November 1995 when 86 of the committee members who belonged to the NLD took the strategy of boycotting the National Convention on the basis that the process was undemocratic, the military regime expelled them all from the National Convention and as a result, since then the percentage of the National Convention made up of representatives elected in the 1990 election is almost zero. It can be said that the National Convention has diverged completely from the will of the people.
 
The essence of the guidelines presented to the National Convention by the military regime includes such things as that of the three people who hold the offices of the president and the vice presidents, at least one person must be from the military, and that people related to the military must make up at least 25% of both the upper and lower houses. Thus the military clearly plans to continue to intervene in and oversee Burmese politics. For the NLD who appeals for a politically neutral army, it is impossible to accept these guidelines.
 
4.The NLD position and activities ? using appropriate means for appropriate goals
Since the NLD establishment in September 1988, in order to break the impasse caused by the military?s opposition to democracy in Burma, it sought unconditional talks with the authorities on numerous occasions. In July 1995, when Aung San Suu Kyi, Secretary General of the NDA was released 6 years after being detained under house arrest under the State Protection Law in July 1989, she stepped up efforts to start talks with the military. However, the unfair response of the military regime was to increase pressure on the NLD, and official talks were not held.
 
What does the unfair action of the military regime mean? While specifically rejecting meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi, Secretary General of the NLD, the military regime picked out specific other members of the NLD management and unilaterally specified a time and place to meet. When those NLD representatives (Chairman Aung Shwe etc) went as directed, the military side declared their opinion without listening to the opinion of the other side. The conditions set by the military for talks were thus that Aung San Suu Kyi would be excluded, the military would express their opinion, and the NLD would listen and follow that opinion. Given the talks were not unconditional the NLD opposition increased.
 
As the military regime refused to respond to numerous requests to convene the parliament, on 16 September 1998 the NLD independently established a 10 member Committee Representing the People?s Parliament, (CRPP) basing its legitimacy on the majority vote received by the NLD in the May 1990 election, as an ?acting parliament?. Of course this differed from the ordinary parliament. However as a party seeking democratization by non-violent means, through the acting parliament the NLD made specific and concrete declarations as to the illegitimacy of the various orders made by the military regime, and independently launched work on drafting the new constitution. Also known as the Committee of 10, the CRPP prepares a report every year (however as it cannot publish or distribute it in Burma, it is secretly carried out and distributed to interested parties overseas).
 
The establishment of the CRPP however served to increase the pressure on the NLD from the military regime. By harassing family members they caused NLD party members to leave the party, continuously slandered Aung San Suu Kyi and other party officials in articles and cartoons in the nationally owned paper, and held meetings of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), which was set up as a wing of the military regime, where members were forcibly made to pass resolutions criticisng the NLD and seeking Aung San Suu Kyi?s banishment from Burma and publishing these in the media daily. They prevented Aung San Suu Kyi from leaving the capital Yangon. If she tried to visit the regions with other members of the party she would be physically restrained and forcibly returned to her home. This happened three times, in August 1998, and in August and September 2000. After the third time she was placed under house arrest, and until the present time, 11 January 2001 she is only permitted to leave her house in exceptional circumstances.
 
Why did the NLD, despite being forced into this difficult position, not resort to violent means, or slightly more ?wily? tactics, using money and tricks. Because the NLD, acting according to the philosophical leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi, was committed to democratization through non-violent means, and absolutely refused to take up arms. They considered the correct end (democratization) could only be achieved through the correct means (means appropriate to democracy), the philosophy being that the basis of judging the means and the ends could not be separated. They consider that if inappropriate means were used (violent struggle, cunning, and revenge), the right goal (democratization) would never be achieved. The philosophy is the same as Mahatma Gandhi of India who said ?Without good seeds, it is impossible to grow a good tree.? They thus considered that, even if through an armed conflict they managed to overthrow the military regime, the new system that is introduced would be the same as the previous regime, and take the undemocratic stance that, when in trouble it is all right to resort to arms.
 
It is also mistaken to think that the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi are hostile to the national military and consider them enemies. Aung San Suu Kyi?s father was General Aung San (1915-1947) and is respected for his role in gaining Burma?s independence from Britain. Moreover he is credited with laying the foundations for the military, and his daughter Aung San Suu Kyi does not hold bad feelings towards the army created by his father. Rather she feels strong feelings of respect for their contribution to the battle for independence. The NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi?s criticism is limited to Ne Win and the current members of the military regime who have lead what used to be the army of the people in this mistaken direction. It is thus possible to believe that there is potential for the NLD and the military to reconcile and work together in a new regime that aims for democratization. If this was to occur, it would be of no loss to the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi, but to the members of the military regime who have a deep dislike of the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi.
 
On 9 January 2001 the United Nations, which for many years has been positively involved in the Burmese problems, announced through its information bureau that the military regime and Aung San Suu Kyi had been having secret talks since October 2000 in a bid to improve their relationship. The announcement was made following a visit to Burma from 4-9 January 2001 by Mr Razari, the special envoy for Burma to the United Nations Secretary General, who met with both the relevant authorities of the military regime, and Aung San Suu Kyi and was able to confirm the talks were continuing to Secretary General Annan. On the side of the military, the first secretary of SPDC Khin Nyunt, is attending the talks with Aung San Suu Kyi, so it may be that it could lead into full talks. Considering the entrenched positions of both sides until now, it is possible to be optimistic that the start of these secret talks demonstrates a thaw in the relationship, and raise hopes of a reconciliation. On the other hand, given the depth of the antagonism between the parties, a more pessimistic outcome can also be anticipated, and no predictions can be made.
 
5.Life under the military regime ? unseen fears in the land of smiles
The above sets out the political situation until now, January 2001. Continuing, I will explain the living conditions of Burmese under the military regime. Let?s consider their situation from the perspectives of human rights and economic conditions.
 
Firstly human rights. As people who visit Burma do so for work or tourism purposes, they are generally unable to see behind the screens to the real situation, and many of them come away considering that unlike the impression given in the media, in fact Burma is peaceful, and the people smile and seem to be living a peaceful existence. Of course, the country appears peaceful, and even myself, who specializes in Burmese research, could see the smiling people and believe they are leading a peaceful existence. However if you spend a long time with various Burmese people getting to know them well, the suppression of human rights that is the subject of critical resolutions passed by the United Nations Committee for Human Rights almost annually since 1991 will become obvious.
 
Specifically the following types of events are occurring:
 
1.Local people are forced to assist building roads and railways (forced labour);
2.Residents are forcibly relocated to new settlements;
3.Monitoring and control of public servants? opinions;
4.People who carry our political activity except in support of the military regime are subject to late night raids, arrest without warrant and detention;
5.Torture at the hands of the police and military special units;
6.Court hearings without access to a lawyer, and cases decided after just one hearing;
7.Insanitary conditions in prisons and sexual harassment by prison officers.
 
Other human rights violations such as the harassment of NLD members and their families could also be added to this list. I have one acquaintance, a physicist who, simply because her husband was a member of the NLD, was fired from her university job. Many citizens fear such arrest, expulsion from their jobs, forced resettlement and forced labour. Tourists may not witness this fear but, if they have deeper contact with Burmese people, they will definitely come to see some aspect of this. If there was an  ?average? Burmese person (ie not someone connected to the military or successful in business) who had lived untouched by these kinds of human rights violations (ie including to their family, relatives and friends) that person would be extremely fortunate. Such a person would probably realize that more than anyone else. I can say this from my long experience in Burma. Please don?t conclude that because of the peaceful scenes you see when you visit Burma that the information disseminated by the mass media and human rights groups is biased. I urge you to make the effort to deepen your connections with the people you meet so that you will be able to detect the fear of the military regime that lies behind the smiles of the people of Burma.
 
It can also be said that the soldiers sent to suppress antigovernment battles by minority groups towards civilians in minority residential areas commit serious breaches of human rights. Not only are villagers forcibly conscripted to act as porters for the military, carrying arms and ammunition, but men are forced to act as human mine detectors, and made to walk in mined areas ahead of the army, and women are forced to be comfort women, according to the statements of former porters who have escaped with their lives across the border to Thailand. It is also reported by international human rights groups and the BBC that the army has burned villages merely because its orders were ignored.
 
It shouldn?t be forgotten that the law limits freedom of movement. The law requires people to register anyone who stays in their house who is not recorded on their resident register. This is the main reason why Burmese people, despite being so friendly to foreigners, rarely invite them to stay. It also should be mentioned that the system of nationality is discriminatory. The Citizenship Law provides for three levels of citizenship: national; provisional national; and naturalized national. Those who fall into the latter 2 categories are prevented from entering science faculties in universities and becoming civil servants. This has been criticised by the United Nations special rapporteur for Burma as being a human rights issue unique to Burma.
 
Connected to the human rights situation, and of grave concern, is education. After the military seized power, concerned that students would hold political gatherings and demonstrations, the military at various times closed all universities apart from those connected to the military or medicine. In particular, the universities were totally closed from December 1996 until July 2000, a period of over 3 and a half years, as a result of which higher education suffered serious damage. There was criticism from the international community and the universities reopened, however, campuses were moved from the center of towns to the suburbs, and currently unsatisfactory classes are taking places in inappropriate facilities. Travel to and from school is in buses organized by the universities, on which students and teachers ride together, and the students are forbidden from having political discussions in the buses. Due to the long closure, the academic level of the university students has fallen noticeably, which is directly related to the drop in academic level of post-graduate students and teachers. Problems don?t only exist in the universities but also in the secondary, intermediate and primary schools, and rumours of the difficulties of obtaining designated textbooks, teacher shortages, and favouring of children related to the military regime in progress tests are common among those in the education field.
 
Now let?s look at the economic situation. The military regime, regarding the grounds for the 1988 democracy movement as erupting from the discontent with the extreme economic slump brought about by 26 years of Burmese style socialist system, immediately discarded socialism on taking power, and implemented developmental economic policies. Aiming to change to market economics, it abolished restrictions on investment in private enterprise, and took steps to attract foreign capital by first establishing a foreign investment law, and setting up various economic related laws. As a result, between 1992 and 1996, there was active investment by foreign enterprises in the areas of tourism, development of resources, trade, the manufacturing industry, and the domestic agricultural industry was also positively affected. During this time the country?s yearly growth in GDP reached record rates of between 6 and 8 percent.
 
While it seemed that the Burmese economy had totally shaken off the recession period of zero growth of the socialist era, from as early as the last half of 1996 the economic growth stalled. 3 main reasons for this can be given. The first is that despite aiming for a market economy, a number of illogical restrictions and prohibitions were placed on industrial activity. As an extreme example, at the same time as inviting the Japanese firm Ajinomoto to establish a factory, when production began the government began a campaign against the danger of MSG in the government run newspaper and prohibited the import of the ingredients. As a result within a month of starting production the factors was closed and Ajinomoto was forced to withdraw from Burma. A second reason is that the government increased the domestic supply of currency by borrowing from the central bank, increasing the government debt, and inviting vicious inflation. As a third reason on the basis of a double exchange rate policy, the local currency the kyat continued to be overvalued against the American dollar, leading to a difference of over 60% between the official rate and the market rate for kyat, inviting the collapse of the currency and at the same time speeding inflation.
 
The stalling of the economy from the latter half of 1996 was exacerbated in the latter half of 1997 by the monetary crisis that struck East and South East Asia. This monetary crisis did not strike Burma directly, but from that year the investment in Burma by the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations was dramatically reduced, and at the same time the United States placed a total ban on new investment in Burma as a sanction for the lack of enthusiasm for human rights and democracy, new investment by foreign enterprises in Burma was dramatically reduced. GDP growth dropped to the level of around 4-5%, inflation continued at an annual rate of around 40%, imports were increasingly limited by the lack of foreign exchange reserves. These factors struck hard at those businesses that depended on importing, or relied on imported raw materials for production. As a result of this situation, while the main countries in ASEAN (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand) began to see economic recovery in 1999, nothing in Burma changed, and Burma faced serious problems on both the political and economic fronts.
 
By the way, recently, the lifestyle of the people in the capital Yangon, seems on at least one front to have become more prosperous. For example, expensive restaurants, fashion stores and grocery stores have increased throughout the city. Given that until now when you visited an acquaintance only tea would have been served, the serving of coke and juice now makes an impression. Refrigerators and telephones are also certainly becoming more widespread.
 
However, if you look closely, it seems as if most of those with cars, telephones, and refrigerators, are those with family or relatives who work in industries with foreign investment, and who are paid in foreign exchange certificates, or who have someone who has gone overseas to earn money and remits money in American dollars back to the family. (Foreign exchange certificates are a special currency based on American dollars, used only in Burma. They have the same value as the American dollar). Thus, their prosperity is not a result of increased consumption based on domestic economic growth, it is prosperity that has come a result of foreign ties. Consequently, for those with no ties to foreign countries, it is not an overstatement to say they have no chance of a prosperous lifestyle.
 
For most of those in the layer of society that has been left behind economically, some cannot even obtain food for their children, and in the late nineties many people have resorted to begging. Public servants used to receive an allowance that was only enough to last for three days, although in April 2000 their allowance was raised 5 times. However they have not lost the habit of seeking bribes and money under the table to secure their living expenses. Of course there are many honest public servants, and one shouldn?t generalize, but in my experience with respect to money passed under the table, in the twelve years since the military regime took power, the rate for bribes has increased around 100 times. This is higher that the rate of inflation (around 30-40 times) for this period (1988-2002).
 
Conclusion
Currently, in January 2001, over 10000 Burmese people are living in Japan. A majority of them are ?overstayers? whose visas have expired. They have fled to Japan from the conditions in their home country as described above. It could be said that they had no option other than to get a short term visa and come to Japan. In Japan, to support themselves and their families in their home country, an overwhelming number work more than 12 hours per day. Then, on their precious days off, as many as 300 of them carry out activities to promote democratisation in their home country. They are only 300 out of 10,000, thus they may not stand out. However I am moved to see them sacrificing their holidays and a lifestyle of ease, to continue the struggle for democracy in their home country. There is even one female activist whose fiancée has been imprisoned for 5 years for his democratisation activities.
 
Many of these people have applied for refugee status to the Japanese government, and since 1999, slowly but gradually some of the Burmese activists have come to be granted refugee status by the government. The active support of the Peoples Forum on Burma, and the lawyers of the Izumibashi Law Office, where the PFB is based, has been highly influential in this.
 
Amongst you, I imagine a number of you have been to one of the several Burmese restaurants in the city. There, you often see Burmese people enjoying their meals. The majority of them are not activists, but I urge you to talk to these ?average? Burmese. I sincerely expect you will understand that what I have written here is neither lies nor exaggeration. 
 
If you have any questions for the author of this article, please contact Kei Nemoto (Associate Professor, Research Institute for Language and Culture of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) on knemoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
(This essay was written in January 2001 (originally in Japanese), for the People?s Forum on Burma (PFB), a Tokyo-based Japanese NGO supporting Burma?s democratization since 1996.)

Secretariat of People?s Forum on Burma:
Tel 03-3832-4527 / Fax 03-3832-4523 / E-mail: pfb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx