When the people of Myanmar vote in a referendum on May 10 on the country’s new constitution, they will be getting a bitter taste of the “discipline-flourishing democracy” the military has in store for them.
The referendum, Myanmar’s third in the past five decades, will theoretically decide the fate of the country’s new charter, a document that promises to cement the dominant role of the military in Myanmar politics following the next general election, planned in 2010.
In fact, the outcome of the referendum is a foregone conclusion, according to veteran Myanmar watchers.
“It’s going to be a ‘yes’ vote,” said Naing Aung Oo, a former Myanmar student activist who was forced to flee the country in the aftermath of the 1988 anti-military protests. “There are two reasons, one is intimidation and the other reason is the high probability of rigging the vote.”
Myanmar’s junta, the self-styled State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), has left little up to free choice in the upcoming referendum.
The generals no doubt learned their lesson from the 1990 election, which, contrary to their expectations and planning, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, won by a landslide.
Despite their electoral victory, the NLD was blocked from power on the military’s argument that a new constitution was needed before civilian rule could be risked in Myanmar, a country suffering from a long history of ethnic-based insurgencies and separatist struggles.
The referendum on the constitution, which took 14 years to draft, was announced in February amid intensifying international pressure on Myanmar’s military regime to demonstrate its sincerity in moving toward some form of democratic system. This was in the aftermath of its latest crackdown on its own people in September last year, when the government brutally suppressed protests led by Buddhist monks.
In the same month, but less publicly, the regime also announced a new law that punishes anyone caught publicly criticizing the referendum with a three-year jail term and a fine.
The law has been readily enforced. In March and last month scores of activists have been detained for holding peaceful protests urging a “no” vote in the referendum, including five members of the NLD, who participated in a peaceful protest in Yangon, according to Human Rights Watch.
The New York-based rights group said that conditions for a free and fair referendum on May 10 do not exist because of widespread repression, media censorship, bans on political gatherings, the lack of an independent referendum commission and courts to supervise the vote, and a pervasive climate of fear.
But given the content of the constitution that is being voted on, the nature of this “discipline-flourishing” referendum should come as a surprise to nobody.
Two of the fundamental principles of the military-drafted constitution are to provide a “discipline-flourishing genuine multiparty democracy” and “for the Tatmadaw [military] to be able to participate in the national political leadership role.”
How the military will dominate Myanmar’s post-election politics is clearly spelled out.
Under the draft charter, 110 members of the 440-seat lower house, or People’s Parliament, and 56 members of the 224-seat upper house, or National Parliament, would be selected by the military.
Control of this 25 percent of both houses would effectively bar amendments to the charter that might threaten the military’s dominance, since for an amendment to pass, it would require more than 75 percent support.
The draft constitution also includes restrictions excluding many opposition politicians from running for office and a clause that effectively prevents Suu Kyi from holding any elected office because she is the widow of a foreigner.
The new charter also enshrines the right of Myanmar’s future president, a non-elected post that is likely to be claimed by the commander-in-chief, to seize executive and legislative powers in case of an emergency.
“A military coup could be implemented in Burma by constitutional means,” noted Lian Sakhong, general secretary of the Ethnic National Council, representing the ethnic minority groups in Myanmar opposed to the military.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under