Representatives of the People elected to
the People's Parliament in the 1990 multiparty democratic elections
(Committee representing the People's
Parliament)
Notification 10 (3/00) (translation)
1.
Duties assigned to members of parliament can only be withdrawn in accordance
with law. In most countries the process for this is written into the
constitution. This is because by virtue of a free and fair election the member
is a representative of its constituents legally. The intention of the law must
be respected at all times. In the Pyithu Hluttaw Law (Law 14 of 89) decreed on
31.5.89 by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (now the State Peace and
Development Council) there is no provision for withdrawing duties assigned to
elected members of parliament.
2. Sections 1 to 82 of the Pyithu Hluttaw Elections Law which is in force and
which enabled the holding of free and fair multiparty general elections does
not contain any provisions for the voters to withdraw the responsibilities and
duties assigned to their elected representatives.
3. Chapter 2, Section 3, of the Pyithu Hluttaw Law reads " Pyithu Hluttaw
shall be convened with the elected representatives from the constituencies as
set out under this law". This law is still in force and its provisions
must be fulfilled.
4. Withdrawing the responsibilities and powers given to Pyithu Hluttaw members;
obtaining signatures from constituents and staging "no-confidence"
demonstrations against the respective members are activities, which are not
empowered by law. They are lawless activities.
5. The Pyithu Hluttaw Law must be meticulously adhered to. This maxim of law
has been reported in Burma Law Reports 1971, Vol. XI (U Ba Nyunt and two versus
Sein Kyi and eight) The judges pronounced that they couldn't maximize or
minimize the provisions prescribed by law which must be adhered to
meticulously. This ruling is a precedent that must be followed.
6. Section 26 of the Pyithu Hluttaw Law provides that " Eligible voters in
the constituency shall elect their Pyithu Hluttaw representative by secret
ballot". Hence a member elected in secret cannot be removed by any
dictator, any group of individuals, or by any commission demanding signatures
and staging demonstrations of no confidence.
7. Section 29 of the Pyithu Hluttaw Law, which provides for secret ballot
enables the individual the right to elect the person of his/her choice without
fear of any repercussions. In a way it safeguards provisions set out in the
Declaration of Human Rights. Presentations of papers with signatures in public
functions and demonstrations of "no-confidence" in the elected
representatives only proves the obvious fact that the people have been
pressured and intimidated through illegal tactics and strategies.
8. Doing whatever one wants to, making the people shout and scream with no
regard whatsoever for the provisions in the Pyithu Hluttaw Law contradicts the
aim and objects of the Law. Therefore, these activities in which people have
been pressured to shout and demonstrate loss of confidence in the members of
the Pyithu Hluttaw are in violation of the law.
9. Rules and Regulations to the Pyithu Hluttaw Law 14/89, passed by the State
Law and Order Restoration Council now the State Peace and Development Council
contain no provisions for such procedures as making motions and resolutions for
withdrawing duties of members elected to the Pyithu Hluttaw.
10. The 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma also contains no provision for
the withdrawal of duties assigned to elected representatives of the Pyithu
Hluttaw.
11. Only in Chapter 13, Article 187, of the Constitution of the
(a) violation of any provision of the constitution;
(b) inefficient discharge of duties or
(c) misbehavior.
12. Though it is ten years since the general elections was held, the State Law
and Order Restoration Council, now the State Peace and Development Council has
not convened a Pyithu Hluttaw to enable the members to take the oath of office
and sign their names in the records.
13. In this sort of situation how can it be said that anyone has violated a
provision of the constitution when the Pyithu Hluttaw has not even been
convened and the members have not been allowed to draw up a constitution. Also,
since parliament has not been convened, the people's representatives have not
been sworn in, nor have they taken their seats in parliament nor have duties
been assigned to them. How can they be accused of inefficient discharge of
duties? How can there be any misbehavior while undertaking duties assigned to
them?
14. In civilised society where the rule of law prevails the people are not
manipulated to commit acts that are in violation of the law. Criminal minded
thugs who dare to blatantly commit offences and abuse the law will surely be
judged and someday punished.
15. We therefore make this notification that all those who are blatantly
violating the law by boisterous demonstrations and forcing people to put their
signatures on papers and resorting to all kinds of bullying tactics making it
appear that the constituents have lost confidence in their legally elected Hluttaw
representatives will be held accountable for the consequences of their actions
in accordance with law.
Committee Representing the People's Parliament
29 March 2000
(Responsibility for this publication is taken by the National League for
Democracy.)