14 Year Old Girl Raped at Refugee Camp
FEATURE: Another New Day for the NMSP
OPINION: Election Victory Doesn’t Equal People Power
NMSP: No Separation Between the Army and Party
Commentary: George Bush's Legacy in Burma
14 Year Old Girl Raped at Refugee Camp
Kaowao; September 12, 2008
Last Tuesday, September 9th, a 14 year old refugee girl was raped by a man at Umpiem Mai refugee camp, near the Thai-Burma border town of Mae Sot. A source told Kaowao the man was later arrested by a camp security guard.
The Mon refugee girl who lived with her parents in quarter-11, Zone-B of Umpiem Mai Refugee Camp, was raped by a 20 year old man on September 9th at approximately 9pm. He later admitted his act to camp authorities, according to a source at the scene.
In line with the Umpiem Mai camp law, a convicted rapist faces a 6 month jail sentence, to be served inside the camp, as well as a THB 2,000 fine. An anonymous source present at the court hearing told Kaowao that in this case however, and with the knowledge and agreement of the victim’s parents, the convicted rapist will pay THB 20,000 and not serve a jail sentence.
She added, "In here (Umpiem camp), a large number of refugees are Karen. It is not good for a case like this to be heard in public, so that’s why the parents of the victim agreed with the decision of the camp authorities. The rapist will be imprisoned until he pays the fine.”
The same source told Kaowao that on the night of the incident, the young girl left her home to use the outdoor toilet, but was gone for over an hour. At that time her parents, with the help of neighbors, began searching for her before enlisting the help of the camp security guard. The victim was found near the house of the rapist, who was soon after arrested.
The victim and her parents were from southern Ye of Mon State and arrived at the refugee camp in mid-2007.
FEATURE: Another New Day for the NMSP
AZan; September 11, 2008
I remember 1995 as the year the New Mon State Party (NMSP) began its ceasefire agreement with the Burmese junta. It was a happy time for our family as we were reunited with my older brother, absent from the home since joining the NMSP. We firmly believed the ceasefire agreement heralded a new era of peace and happiness.
Two years later my brother was married, and he now lives with the new family he built with his wife and two children. He retired from the party and worked hard to enable his family to live a normal life. The question remains however; would he join the NMSP fight if the ceasefire is broken and help is needed against the Junta?
The possibility of a war weighs heavily on the minds of NMSP leaders. For many the idea of fighting has grown steadily less attractive in the years since 1995, as they have moved away from their life as soldiers, formed families and successfully managed to establish a sense of normality for themselves and their children.
Last week the Junta’s Southeast Command met with NMSP leaders in Moulmein. Prior to the meetings many local Mon were hopeful the agenda would include discussions on weapons surrender prior to the planned 2010 elections. Following the meeting I was able to speak with Sanghklaburi-based NMSP spokesperson, Nai Shwe Thein, who indicated officially that although party leaders met formerly at no stage did they discuss either surrendering weapons or the election. In contrast however, a different source close to the NMSP stated that following the Southeast Command meeting and upon the Junta’s instruction, the party held their own meeting to discuss their involvement in the election.
The NMSP is widely considered as hard-line in their stance against the SPDC, with their refusal to attend the SPDC National Convention and their opposition to the Constitutional Referendum testament to this. Given their opposition to the Referendum they must oppose the planned election and in doing so guarantee themselves a battle.
The SPDC has been very cautious so far when dealing with the NMSP; if they move too quickly in seeking their surrender and support for the election they may be faced with an angry NMSP willing to revoke the ceasefire agreement. According to the new constitution, all armed groups holding ceasefire agreements in Burma have to be linked with the militia and subsequently controlled by the Junta; it is unlikely the NMSP wants to agree to this.
According to a source close to the NMSP, they will not live under control of the Junta, they will not be involved with the 2010 election, they will revoke their ceasefire agreement and they will fight the junta if the Junta try to force them to do this.
Last year I visited the NMSP headquarters and spoke with some leaders there about the poor condition of their barracks. They responded simply, informing me that until they knew the direction they’d be heading with their continued relationship with the SPDC they would focus their efforts elsewhere, for example ensuring each army member had an AK 47.
Colonel Nyan Tun said, “We are waiting to hear what they will say. If they say we have to live under their control, we will not comply.” Angry, he continued to say that when the ceasefire agreement was first enacted they were promised local development initiatives, none of which have materialized.
Despite attempting to hold peace talks for 13 years, the Junta has repeatedly failed to participate and instead focused on attempting to acquire NMSP gun caches with little thought of peaceful discourse. Within that 13 year period, the junta has deployed more than 24 battalions in Mon State, many of which are close to NMSP areas of activity. If the NMSP revoke the ceasefire, the SPDC is well positioned to block their actions militarily and hinder their activities further by banning Mon people from supporting their party.
Although hypothetical, this course of action is likely. However the Junta cannot control all Mon and hinder all NMSP activity. Whatever the future holds for the Mon, their party is about to embark on yet another history shaping endeavor.
OPINION: Election Victory Doesn’t Equal People Power
AZan; September 8, 2008
Many of Southeast Asia’s leaders are proud to have been elected by their people, often citing that because they were elected by the people they would fulfill that role and never stand down. Usually justifiably, these leaders feel they have a right to the powerful position they find themselves in.
However it can be this same rhetoric that is used to monopolize their power, weaken their opposition and to win repeated elections. Many weak leaders use this ugly policy to stay in power for many years; just look at Cambodia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. The people of Cambodia have been riding the same horse for 24 years, and their Prime Minister still refuses to mention resignation. Corruption and abuse of power is rife when these strategies are used; in Malaysia, opposition leader Anwar was accused of committing illegal homosexual acts and detained in jail for years, while over in Singapore the opposition leader was sued for corruption and remains detained.
If we continue to analyze the governments of Burma’s neighbors, we cannot ignore Thailand. In recent speeches responding to calls for him to step down, Thailand’s Prime Minister Samak has claimed the people elected him to power and therefore he would not resign, even when his top ministers stepped down around him. The current Thai political stalemate is a statewide crisis. Without the prime minister’s resignation, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and the People’s Power Party (PPP) have resorted to violent protests and clashes that have so far left one man dead and countless others injured. The Prime Minister’s response has been to call for another referendum, without truly addressing the issues raised by this most recent period of unrest.
Mr. Samak came from a military background, and held an army position in 1976 when the military used violence during a peaceful demonstration that ended with the deaths of protesting students. When queried about this by a Thai journalist recently he stated he had no memory of the violence or the killing.
The Thai people elected Samak without full knowledge of his skills, but confident he could govern Bangkok. It has been alleged that some Thai people were paid THB500 to vote for Samak; in accepting this money they sold their freedom and democracy. However, some people knew Samak’s skill set and joked that although he could cook for Thailand he could not run the country. It was widely accepted that even if elected his tenure would be brief.
Prime Minister Samak is proud the people elected him into power in a democratic way. However, it is because it is a democracy that the people of Thailand also hold the right to ask him to resign. In an ideal democratic society the people hold the power to topple their government at any time, or to amend their country’s constitution with a 70% vote. This is something the Thai Prime Minister forgets when discussing his democratic election.
Samak condemned Burma’s pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi citing the oft-heard anti Suu Kyi claim that she merely exists as a puppet of the West. He recently went further, advising the UN’s Gambari to avoid Suu Kyi if he truly wished to improve Burma’s political situation.
Samak has forgotten who the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is – a strong woman recognized world over as a non-violent and peaceful person who has continually fought for freedom and democracy in Burma.
It seems Samak’s words come from a local, small-time, uneducated person. His words tarnish the reputation of the country he speaks on behalf of. Democracy comes from the people who elected him, the same people who democratically have the right to oust him if the majority of them feel he does not represent them.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was elected by the Burmese people. The Burmese people didn’t sell their vote and many invested their lives to install democracy in Burma. However, the Burmese people haven’t tasted democracy yet, as the Junta refused to hand power to Suu Kyi in 1990.
Burma will run elections in 2010. The head of the military General Than Shwe is not averse to using bribes, threats and violence to ensure he too can be ‘democratically’ elected and like Samak, Than Shwe could then claim he was chosen by the people and therefore allowed to stay in power regardless of any criticism leveled at him.
NMSP: No Separation between the Army and Party
Kaowao; September 1, 2008
Sangkhlaburi – The Mon National Liberation Army (MNLA) will not separate from the New Mon State Party (NMSP) if pressured to do so by the Burmese military regime, says the senior leader of the Mon Army.
Colonel Nai Kao Rot, a member of MNLA's Military Commission, told Kaowao during an interview that they will continue to serve as the political wing of the NMSP to support and achieve their political rights for the Mon people.
 |
Mon National Liberation Army Drill on Mon Revolution Day |
Like other throughout Burma, the Mon population is dissatisfied with the constitutional referendum which was held in May 2008 and lack faith in the upcoming SPDC multi-party election in 2010. The general public wants the ceasefire groups to maintain their armed forces even though they plan to contest the upcoming election.
"We will not separate from the Party (NMSP) and will maintain our arms until we achieve equal rights and self-determination," said Colonel Kao Rot. He explained to Kaowao that the MNLA, under the leadership of the NMSP, is concerned at the instability that giving up arms will cause and take the public’s concerns seriously, reiterating its position for self-determination.
MNLA recently marked the 38th Anniversary of its founding on August 29th, 2008 attended by the NMSP President Nai Htaw Mon, Brigadier Seik Htaw and Colonel Nai Layeh Gakao at the Headquarters of the NMSP.
The Mons launched an armed struggle against the central government in August, 1948 in which 27 young men led by Nai Pan Tha and Bo Thein stormed a police station and confiscated three machine guns at Zarthabyin village, eastern Moulmein. However, the MNLA was not formally founded until August 29, 1971 with the new generation who joined the movement. This occurred in the midst of a new alliance formed by late President Nai Shwe Kyin, Mahn Ba Zan of the Karen National Union (KNU) and former Prime Minister U Nu in a bid to herald a period of stability followed by two decades of bloody war.
Established by late President Nai Shwe Kyin in 1958, the NMSP is the only major political party with a military wing, the MNLA. It reached a cease-fire deal with the ruling Burmese junta in 1995. The NMSP occasionally speaks out in support of an open dialogue with the military regime.
Commentary: George Bush's Legacy in Burma
by Nehginpao Kipgen;
September 1, 2008
With just less than 3 months away from the 2008 U.S. presidential election, campaigns for the office of a free world leader takes hectic turns: issues ranging from economy to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and lately a reminiscence of cold war confrontation in the former Soviet Republic.
Amidst world political tensions, Burma analysts and observers have begun to question if the Bush's eight years in office have done enough to advance a democratic change in ethnically diverse Burma. Interestingly, there have been positive developments and frustrating moments.
The military leaders, generally paranoid toward the westerners, may be short of words to compliment the Bush's administration. Reactions from the democratic opposition, however, are obviously mixed – some have been upbeat with the traditional sanctions while others are skeptical about its implications.
Digging the history of U.S. foreign policy on Burma, George Bush is undeniably seen to be one of the only U.S. Presidents to have taken a tough stance on the military junta. In fact, some unprecedented initiatives have been either implemented or at least attempted. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 and the 2008 Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act are some examples.
Moreover, the White House invitation of a number of dissidents on 31st October 2005 and on 12th June 2007 was a landmark development. A luncheon meeting with a group of activists at the U.S. ambassador's residence in Bangkok on August 7, 2008 was also a significant indication of solidarity as it happened just a day before the 20th anniversary of the infamous 8.8.88 uprising.
Some observers may be deriding the futility of all those meetings as photo ops or largely symbolic. Nonetheless, whenever leader of a superpower nation takes time to sit down with advocates of democracy and human rights, it always sends a strong message to the military regime and the international community that Burma's democracy movement is not forgotten.
Persistent personal interest taken by the First Lady is also a historic phenomenon. While bringing democracy may be the eventual goal, her deep concerns for noble laureate Aung San Suu Kyi is believed to be instrumental in Laura Bush's passionate involvement.
When it comes to the U.S. Congress, there has been a consistent trend of overwhelming support for the Burmese democratic movement. Though they may be sharply divided along partisan lines on several other issues, the Democrats and Republicans coalesced together when it comes to Burma's democratic movement. The unanimity shown to honor Aung San Suu Kyi with the U.S. highest civilian award - Congressional Gold Medal - on April 24, 2008 was remarkable.
During the eight years of Bush's presidency, Burma issue was tabled as formal agenda at the U.N. Security Council on 15th September 2006. A good number of briefings and statements have also been made at the Council. The two significant presidential statements were released on 11th October 2007 and 2nd May 2008. Though some dubbed John Bolton as blunt and stubborn at times, he's emphatic statements were likened by many Burmese observers.
It is during this administration that a maximum number of Burmese asylum seekers and refugees were admitted into the United States despite the administrative hurdles as a result of US Patriot Act of 2001 and the Real ID Act of 2005. It is also during this administration that the plights of Burma's ethnic minorities have gotten wider international community's attention.
Regardless of what the differing views are, President Bush's legacy in Burma's democratic movement may be described in a single line as: 'a policy too much emphasis on the sticks and too little on the carrots'. His approaches were sincere, but largely inefficacious.
Had the international community taken a concerted strategy, a different Burma could have been seen today. Although the Bush legacy in Burma may not be at a level many wished to see happen, he and his administration will be remembered as one of the staunchest supporters in the history of Burma's democratic movement.
(Nehginpao Kipgen is the General Secretary of US-based Kuki International Forum (www.kukiforum.com) and a researcher on the rise of political conflicts in modern Burma (1947-2004). The views expressed here are solely the opinion of the author. Kaowao Editor)
KAOWAO NEWS GROUP
Email: Editor@kaowao.org , webmaster@kaowao.org
Phone: + 66 81 561-0860, 66 83 322 5804( Thailand )
Mailing address
P.O. Box 2
Sangkhlaburi
Kanchanaburi, 71240
Thailand
http://www.kaowao.org
http://www.burmalibrary.org/show.php?cat=1215&lo=d&sl=0
Online Burma Library -- http://www.burmalibrary.org
ABOUT US
Kaowao Newsgroup is committed to social justice, peace,
and democracy in Burma. We hope to be able to provide
more of an in-depth analysis that will help to promote
lasting peace and change within Burma. Editors,
reporters, writers, and overseas volunteers are
dedicated members of the Mon activist community based in
Thailand.
Our motto is working together for change and lasting
peace.
|
